Hmmm....Mexico has extreme gun control, but 30% of guns sold to Mexican government go missing....wanna guess who gets them?

[RetiredGySgt]

I can't accept your evidence in the face of more reliable evidence.

Universal Background Checks

Without universal background checks, millions of guns end up in the hands of individuals at an elevated risk of committing violence.

giffords.org

And the reference to 45% appears to suggest that we up the ante from 22% to something much larger.

Are we now going to have to frame the word 'illegal' in the sense of that which is mentioned in that link?
I have to suggest that legality becomes a moot point in light of the number or guns that are sold with no background checks.

(see my question to 2A on the confiscation of guns from those who have committed no crime with their illegally procured guns)

Getting your "facts" from anti gun sites I see. They lie, distort facts and just make shit up. There is no way that 22 percent of all firearms sales conducted legally in the States is private sales.

 

[2aguy]

Getting your "facts" from anti gun sites I see. They lie, distort facts and just make shit up. There is no way that 22 percent of all firearms sales conducted legally in the States is private sales.

They aren't......but the anti-gun extremists want universal background checks....so they can get gun registration......so they will lie about private sales all day long.

 

[Donald H]

We have rights how do you propose cops and ATF FIND the illegal firearms except by arresting criminals and raids on criminal enterprises?

Please try to structure your sentences correctly, so as to avoid confusion on your meaning.
You have rights.
I haven't proposed yet.
I might suggest an atmosphere of cooperation by those who own illegal guns, or have procured guns illegally. Could it be acceptable to the NRA to advise the good guys with illegal guns to declare those guns to the authorities? And then all those who declined to declare those guns, be dealt with by due punishment of having the guns confiscated? Or heavy fines?

I suggest that there doesn't exist an attitude that could contribute to confiscating illegally procured guns from gun owners who haven't committed a gun crime.

Hence my suspicion that the 22% is much too optimistic.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Please try to structure your sentences correctly, so as to avoid confusion on your meaning.
You have rights.
I haven't proposed yet.
I might suggest an atmosphere of cooperation by those who own illegal guns, or have procured guns illegally. Could it be acceptable to the NRA to advise the good guys with illegal guns to declare those guns to the authorities? And then all those who declined to declare those guns, be dealt with by due punishment of having the guns confiscated? Or heavy fines?

I suggest that there doesn't exist an attitude that could contribute to confiscating illegally procured guns from gun owners who haven't committed a gun crime.

Hence my suspicion that the 22% is much too optimistic.

LOL good god since the VAST majority of legal sales were accompanied by a background check you got nothing. And legal citizens dont buy illegal firearms.

As for you cooperation that is a joke no criminal is going to voluntarily admit to owning an illegal firearm. And since we have rights , the only way cops find illegal firearms is by arresting criminals that committed a crime or raiding criminal enterprises.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I might suggest an atmosphere of cooperation by those who own illegal guns, or have procured guns illegally.

There are no illegal guns, there is only illegal possession of a gun.
Why do you think those willing to commit a federal felony and illegally posses a gun are willing to "cooperate"?

Could it be acceptable to the NRA to advise the good guys with illegal guns...

There are no illegal guns, there are only illegal possession of a gun. Illegal possession of a gun precludes you being a "good guy".

I suggest that there doesn't exist an attitude that could contribute to confiscating illegally procured guns from gun owners who haven't committed a gun crime.
Hence my suspicion that the 22% is much too optimistic.

Non sequitur - the latter for not in any way logically follow the former.

 

[Donald H]

They aren't......but the anti-gun extremists want universal background checks....so they can get gun registration......so they will lie about private sales all day long.

And so after all that, you come out against universal background checks!!

It looks like you've not only fouled your own nest, you've fouled the seageant's nest too!

What's the point of even trying to discuss the gun problems in America with any of you when you refer to people who want background checks as anti-gun extremists?

 

[Abatis]

It's enough for now that you understand that government is responsible for not stopping the slaughter with guns.

How?

Like held legally responsible if someone is hurt or killed with a gun?

Does any citizen have a right to be safe or feel safe?

 

[Donald H]

LOL good god since the VAST majority of legal sales were accompanied by a background check you got nothing. And legal citizens dont buy illegal firearms.

As for you cooperation that is a joke no criminal is going to voluntarily admit to owning an illegal firearm. And since we have rights , the only way cops find illegal firearms is by arresting criminals that committed a crime or raiding criminal enterprises.

Never mind! 2A has just fouled his nest and yours too by making it clear that he opposes background checks! You need to deal with him on his preferences on there being no universal background checks, then maybe we can continue?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And so after all that, you come out against universal background checks!!

As will any rational person.
- Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, restrains your exercise of a right while it determines if you are breaking a law.
- Universal background checks run afoul of the above, and, unless the person in question is stupid, are completely unenforceable.

What's the point of even trying to discuss the gun problems in America with any of you when you refer to people who want background checks as anti-gun extremists?

Why do you believe the state, absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, should have the power to stop you while walking down the street and detain you while it checks for outstanding warrants?

 

[Donald H]

LOL good god since the VAST majority of legal sales were accompanied by a background check you got nothing. And legal citizens dont buy illegal firearms.

As for you cooperation that is a joke no criminal is going to voluntarily admit to owning an illegal firearm. And since we have rights , the only way cops find illegal firearms is by arresting criminals that committed a crime or raiding criminal enterprises.

And besides taking it up with 2A on his position against background checks, now you have to take up Shooter's notion that there are no illegal guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And besides taking it up with 2A on his position against background checks, now you have to take up Shooter's notion that there are no illegal guns.

Oh, you disagree?
Ok...
How am I wrong?

 

[AMart]

Yes! Government's lack of action is the problem and it's not normal gun owners who are preventing the government from taking action. It's the NRA bosses that are offside on sensible gun control measures. I won't provide the statistics because you already have them.

And here we go thread derail on page 1. This is about Mexico.

 

[Donald H]

Why do you believe the state, absent reasonable suspicuion or probable cause, should have the power to stop you while walking down the street and detain you while it checks for outstanding warrants?

And so now do you understand why I refuse to discuss anything with you when you deliberately misrepresent my position? You've somehow been able to turn 'background checks' into police stopping people walking down the street, etc., etc.

 

[Donald H]

Oh, you disagree?
Ok...
How am I wrong?

the sargeant:

As for you cooperation that is a joke no criminal is going to voluntarily admit to owning an illegal firearm. And since we have rights , the only way cops find illegal firearms is by arresting criminals that committed a crime or raiding criminal enterprises.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And so now do you understand why I refuse to discuss anything with you when you deliberately misrepresent my position?

You support background checks.

There is no conceptual difference between the restraint by the state for the purchase of a firearm and the restraint by state in stopping you while walking down the street and detain you while it checks for outstanding warrants.
If you support the former, you cannot present a sound argument against the latter.

And so, I have -perfectly- represented your position.

Oh, you disagree?
Ok...
How am I wrong?

 

[M14 Shooter]

the sargeant:

This does not in any way prove -me- wrong.
Every law makes -possession- of a particular firearm illegal.
Not the firearm, but the -possession- of same.

Oh, you disagree?
Ok...
How am I wrong?

 

[Donald H]

How?

Like held legally responsible if someone is hurt or killed with a gun?

A case could be made against a congressman/woman who has accepted bribe money from the gun lobbyists or gun manufacturers.

Does any citizen have a right to be safe or feel safe?

From a Canadian POV, I say citizens do have that right.

'Safety' is among the criteria used to judge a country's quality of life.

Canada ranked #1 country in the world for Quality of Life | News

For the fifth year in a row, Canada is ranked the #1 country in the world in 2020 for Quality of Life, according to a global ranking from US News.

dailyhive.com

1. Canada
2. Denmark
3. Sweden
4. Norway
5. Australia
6. Netherlands
7. Switzerland
8. New Zealand
9. Finland
10. Germany
11. Austria
12. United Kingdom
13. Luxembourg
14. Japan
15. United States
16. France
17. Portugal
18. Spain
19. China
20. Singapore

I would suggest this is relating directly to lack of safety from gun violence.
Thank you for raising the issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A case could be made against a congressman/woman who has accepted bribe money from the gun lobbyists or gun manufacturers.

Really? Why do you think so?
How does taking contributions from a lobbyist in support/opposition of a law, conceptually or precedentially, make you legally responsible for the effect of that law or the absence of same?
In what other contexts do you believe this concept applies?
Additionally-
If you choose to refuse to enforce a law, are you legally responsible for what comes later?
Why or why not?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Never mind! 2A has just fouled his nest and yours too by making it clear that he opposes background checks! You need to deal with him on his preferences on there being no universal background checks, then maybe we can continue?

I already told you I am against it too. It is an attempt to get registration so that eventually the Government can confiscate all legal firearms. And you claiming that makes us against background checks is a lie we support the current laws.

 

[AZrailwhale]

We have rights how do you propose cops and ATF FIND the illegal firearms except by arresting criminals and raids on criminal enterprises?

I'm sure he wants the government to go house to house and search and stop and frisk everyone on the street.