CDZ This is the problem with universal background checks for gun "transfers," not "sales."

[2aguy]

I have family here that I need to take care of, so moving is a no go. Plus, since RKBA is a federally protected enumerated right, why should I be the one who has to move? Why shouldn't they be forced to follow the Constitution?

Your regional neighbors at this particular here and now ARE abiding by The Constitution. You and they, like the rest of us, are doing the best We collectively can in a democracy where less than half of us vote.

If you are unwilling to change regions over this issue, your only course of action is to do the best you can within the framework of all of the laws that you are subject to in the region you choose to live in, and to thank your preferred Deity that you have a say so in those laws. Accepting our responsibility to live with the laws We collectively give ourselves at any given point in time, even the ones we feel are just not right, is just as deep as our responsibility is to convince our friends, neighbors and countrymen of the things within those codes that we feel are just not right.

Again, not a democracy, a constitutional republic. Certain things cannot be overrode by the simple will of the majority.

I don't own an illegal firearm, so I am following the laws. However the laws are unconstitutional in this case, and the courts are willful stooges in keeping it that way.

but hey, "you got yours", so my situation is "too bad, so sad".

And I notice you haven't answered my post on your taunting, or deleted your post on it. Another case of rules for thee but not for me?

True. The Republican Party was formed in the mid 1800's to prosecute a bloody civil war to establish the right and the responsibility of the federal government to tell the states to shove it up their asses if the collective Republic they are members of deems it appropriate.

This is why the NRA and the Religious Right got in to bed together under the Republican roof. They wanted to be able to dictate their views on things from a national level. Politically smart, actually.

Now we've come full circle and the message from the NRA to squelch the national discussion on fire-arms on a national level is causing enough harm to our communities to entice state leaders to dance as close as they can to the edge of violating The Second Amendment.

Interesting mess, eh?

Solved with a REASONABLE national policy on guns that nobody is completely happy with.

And yet nothing you guys propose is reasonable or even effective...and when we show that they are unConstitutional, and won't stop gun violence...you attack the NRA, say we don't want laws....and other nonsense....

Nevermind that other western nations bearing striking similarities to our own in size, population density and demography have input these gun control laws such that gun violence has been all but stopped.

Keep ignoring the rest of the world. Just focus on your own interpretation of Chicago, right?

Cue bogus "defensive use" stat in 3....2....1....

again...you have been shown over and over that is not true.......you can deny actual facts and statistics....but lying isn't the truth....

Britain banned and confiscated guns in the 1990s...their gun crime rate did not go down, it stayed the same. It went up 4% last year.

France has the same rules as Britain...and criminals get fully automatic weapons easily....I have linked to actual news stories covering actual French law enforcement saying this very thing.....you have seen it...and now lie about seeing it....

The United States went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s to 357,000,000 guns in private hands with 14.5 million people now carrying guns for self defense....and our gun murder rate and gun crime rate went down....

You are completely wrong...nothing you say is based in facts or the truth.....there are actual numbers from the CDC and the FBI and they actually show you are wrong....

 

[GaryDog]

Your regional neighbors at this particular here and now ARE abiding by The Constitution. You and they, like the rest of us, are doing the best We collectively can in a democracy where less than half of us vote.

If you are unwilling to change regions over this issue, your only course of action is to do the best you can within the framework of all of the laws that you are subject to in the region you choose to live in, and to thank your preferred Deity that you have a say so in those laws. Accepting our responsibility to live with the laws We collectively give ourselves at any given point in time, even the ones we feel are just not right, is just as deep as our responsibility is to convince our friends, neighbors and countrymen of the things within those codes that we feel are just not right.

Again, not a democracy, a constitutional republic. Certain things cannot be overrode by the simple will of the majority.

I don't own an illegal firearm, so I am following the laws. However the laws are unconstitutional in this case, and the courts are willful stooges in keeping it that way.

but hey, "you got yours", so my situation is "too bad, so sad".

And I notice you haven't answered my post on your taunting, or deleted your post on it. Another case of rules for thee but not for me?

True. The Republican Party was formed in the mid 1800's to prosecute a bloody civil war to establish the right and the responsibility of the federal government to tell the states to shove it up their asses if the collective Republic they are members of deems it appropriate.

This is why the NRA and the Religious Right got in to bed together under the Republican roof. They wanted to be able to dictate their views on things from a national level. Politically smart, actually.

Now we've come full circle and the message from the NRA to squelch the national discussion on fire-arms on a national level is causing enough harm to our communities to entice state leaders to dance as close as they can to the edge of violating The Second Amendment.

Interesting mess, eh?

Solved with a REASONABLE national policy on guns that nobody is completely happy with.

No...the Republican party was created to end slavery and free black slaves from the democrats who owned them. The NRA......has nothing to do with felons, who cannot legally own a gun or carry it...shooting other criminals in democrat controlled voting districts.....

And the Republican Party evolved into an entity that purposefully exploited white racism to garner votes. That concludes 6th grade social studies.

The NRA's purpose? Make money for gun manufacturers. End of story.

Sorry...didn't happen. The republicans don't care about race...the democrat party is obsessed with race.

The NRAs purpose.....gun safety education and protecting the 2nd Amendment....

Sheep.

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And lol @ you believing aggressive lobbying by the NRA is purely Constitutional in nature.

Follow the money, xxxxxx.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Boo-fucking-hoo

Then do what you can to change the people in power.

If you do your best and you're position is so unpopular that you feel like you're beating your head against a brick wall, accept that your position may be extreme and adjust or move on.

Democracy is NOT rocket science, y'all.

The issue is 2nd amendment rights should not be effected by direct democracy, unless 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of each part of congress decide to change or repeal the 2nd amendment. an enumerated right shouldn't be touchable by the whims of the locals.

We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic, and this republic's constitution says my RKBA shall not be infringed. Do you consider a 3-6 month waiting period and $1000 in fines to be infringement or not?

The reason that the states and localities have cobbled together what they have in a desperate attempt to stem the violence is the right-wing political goal of obstructing any and all discussion of the problems that guns can bring to our communities.

If you want the states to back off, tell your senators and congressmen to stop squelching national debate on the subject.

And the only solution gun control people come up with is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns. Gun control people want everywhere to be NYC or worse. You can't have a national debate when one side is completely against private ownership of firearms.

And likewise, you can't have a reasonable debate when one side is completely against any form of reasonable vetting to ensure that we keep as many ill suited people from having guns as possible.

And I'm sorry if you think it's acceptable that people can sell guns on Facebook or Craigslist without even knowing who it is they are selling to and just say "well arrest them if they get caught owning a gun they shouldnt have had" you are as stupid as the person who thinks all semi automatic weapons should be banned

So....you have your background check system...and someone doesn't care and thinks they can get away with it...they sell the gun anyway......you background check failed...but now everyone has to beg the feds to own a gun.....

Then...a criminal wants a gun from facebook...so he gets his baby mama or grandma to get it and go through your background check......your background check failed....but...now everyone else...who isn't going to use the gun for crime or mass shootings...now has to ask the federal government if they can have a permit to own guns.....

That is why your system is flawed.....you give more power to the government to pull off what New York and New Jersey already do...as well as Cali.......and you don't stop actual crime or mass shootings.....

You can do everything you say you want...by simply arresting people when they break the law......

In the most respectful terms.


Bullshit 2A

There ARE people now legally buying guns who shouldn't be. THAT is the concern. There is ZERO we can do about people who obtain guns illegally, and hence no sane person is suggesting we should focus on that.

Note - there are plenty of INSANE people who are. I discount them as much as I discount you.

And what's more , if you were even thinking clearly at all you would admit that a pretty intrusive FBI background check every 5 years is FAR less burdensome than having one performed every single time you want to buy a new weapon, or in some cases now even ammunition.

Here's what this whole argument boils down to


People like Gary who absolutely do want to take guns away from everyone (regardless of what he lies about it) screaming at people like you who absolutely want anyone to be able to buy anything without any government oversight (regardless of how much YOU lie about it) and reasonable Americans stuck in the middle.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And yet nothing you guys propose is reasonable or even effective...and when we show that they are unConstitutional, and won't stop gun violence...you attack the NRA, say we don't want laws....and other nonsense....

That sir... is a matter of opinion.

May the best political opinions prevail!

May NObody be completely happy with the compromise!!

`​

 

[Fair&Balanced]

And yet nothing you guys propose is reasonable or even effective...and when we show that they are unConstitutional, and won't stop gun violence...you attack the NRA, say we don't want laws....and other nonsense....

That sir... is a matter of opinion.

May the best political opinions prevail!

May NObody be completely happy with the compromise!!

`​

That is one thing I'll give Trump. He actually made his living, and wrote a book, on compromise meaning no one leaves the table completely happy, or unhappy, but a deal gets made.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Boo-fucking-hoo

Then do what you can to change the people in power.

If you do your best and you're position is so unpopular that you feel like you're beating your head against a brick wall, accept that your position may be extreme and adjust or move on.

Democracy is NOT rocket science, y'all.

The issue is 2nd amendment rights should not be effected by direct democracy, unless 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of each part of congress decide to change or repeal the 2nd amendment. an enumerated right shouldn't be touchable by the whims of the locals.

We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic, and this republic's constitution says my RKBA shall not be infringed. Do you consider a 3-6 month waiting period and $1000 in fines to be infringement or not?

The reason that the states and localities have cobbled together what they have in a desperate attempt to stem the violence is the right-wing political goal of obstructing any and all discussion of the problems that guns can bring to our communities.

If you want the states to back off, tell your senators and congressmen to stop squelching national debate on the subject.

And the only solution gun control people come up with is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns. Gun control people want everywhere to be NYC or worse. You can't have a national debate when one side is completely against private ownership of firearms.

And likewise, you can't have a reasonable debate when one side is completely against any form of reasonable vetting to ensure that we keep as many ill suited people from having guns as possible.

And I'm sorry if you think it's acceptable that people can sell guns on Facebook or Craigslist without even knowing who it is they are selling to and just say "well arrest them if they get caught owning a gun they shouldnt have had" you are as stupid as the person who thinks all semi automatic weapons should be banned

So....you have your background check system...and someone doesn't care and thinks they can get away with it...they sell the gun anyway......

Anyone proven to have knowingly transferred ownership of a weapon to an unlicensed individual can be held criminally liable.

If sweet old uncle Ted talks you in to helping him to acquire a gun on YOUR license, you can be held criminally libel if sweet Teddy hits the Jack one night and kills aunt Carol.

Problem solved.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Boo-fucking-hoo

Then do what you can to change the people in power.

If you do your best and you're position is so unpopular that you feel like you're beating your head against a brick wall, accept that your position may be extreme and adjust or move on.

Democracy is NOT rocket science, y'all.

The issue is 2nd amendment rights should not be effected by direct democracy, unless 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of each part of congress decide to change or repeal the 2nd amendment. an enumerated right shouldn't be touchable by the whims of the locals.

We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic, and this republic's constitution says my RKBA shall not be infringed. Do you consider a 3-6 month waiting period and $1000 in fines to be infringement or not?

The reason that the states and localities have cobbled together what they have in a desperate attempt to stem the violence is the right-wing political goal of obstructing any and all discussion of the problems that guns can bring to our communities.

If you want the states to back off, tell your senators and congressmen to stop squelching national debate on the subject.

And the only solution gun control people come up with is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns. Gun control people want everywhere to be NYC or worse. You can't have a national debate when one side is completely against private ownership of firearms.

And likewise, you can't have a reasonable debate when one side is completely against any form of reasonable vetting to ensure that we keep as many ill suited people from having guns as possible.

And I'm sorry if you think it's acceptable that people can sell guns on Facebook or Craigslist without even knowing who it is they are selling to and just say "well arrest them if they get caught owning a gun they shouldnt have had" you are as stupid as the person who thinks all semi automatic weapons should be banned

So....you have your background check system...and someone doesn't care and thinks they can get away with it...they sell the gun anyway......

Anyone proven to have knowingly transferred ownership of a weapon to an unlicensed individual can be held criminally liable.

If sweet old uncle Ted talks you in to helping him to acquire a gun on YOUR license, you can be held criminally libel if sweet Teddy hits the Jack one night and kills aunt Carol.

Problem solved.

See, I don't like that law because you are getting into how do you prove a person knew someone else wasn't legally able to buy a gun?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Seriously?


"Dude... show me your driver's license and I'll let you test drive the car I have for sale."

The seller being criminally liable if they put a gun that is used in a crime in the hands of the unlicensed individual committing the crime is the best way to ensure sellers at least look at the picture on a weapons permit before transferring the gun, be it a dealer transaction or a private sale.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Seriously?


"Dude... show me your driver's license and I'll let you test drive the car I have for sale."

The seller being criminally liable if they put a gun that is used in a crime in the hands of the unlicensed individual committing the crime is the best way to ensure sellers at least look at the picture on a weapons permit before transferring the gun, be it a dealer transaction or a private sale.

I'm agin it

I think the burden should be ENTIRELY on the buyer, not the seller (private sellers I mean) Now, if you're meeting people right outside the prison and selling them guns, different story.

My solution is thus. If you come into contact with police for ANY reason and have a weapon that you are not authorized via background check to have, that's 5 years in prison per gun, just for the gun. Regardless of WHY you came into contact with the police.

 

[AVG-JOE]

PLUS , I think if I felt so strongly against a law that my local city/state had and refused to change that I would probably you know MOVE rather than whine on a message board.

I have family here that I need to take care of, so moving is a no go. Plus, since RKBA is a federally protected enumerated right, why should I be the one who has to move? Why shouldn't they be forced to follow the Constitution?

Your regional neighbors at this particular here and now ARE abiding by The Constitution. You and they, like the rest of us, are doing the best We collectively can in a democracy where less than half of us vote.

If you are unwilling to change regions over this issue, your only course of action is to do the best you can within the framework of all of the laws that you are subject to in the region you choose to live in, and to thank your preferred Deity that you have a say so in those laws. Accepting our responsibility to live with the laws We collectively give ourselves at any given point in time, even the ones we feel are just not right, is just as deep as our responsibility is to convince our friends, neighbors and countrymen of the things within those codes that we feel are just not right.

Again, not a democracy, a constitutional republic. Certain things cannot be overrode by the simple will of the majority.

I don't own an illegal firearm, so I am following the laws. However the laws are unconstitutional in this case, and the courts are willful stooges in keeping it that way.

but hey, "you got yours", so my situation is "too bad, so sad".

And I notice you haven't answered my post on your taunting, or deleted your post on it. Another case of rules for thee but not for me?

True. The Republican Party was formed in the mid 1800's to prosecute a bloody civil war to establish the right and the responsibility of the federal government to tell the states to shove it up their asses if the collective Republic they are members of deems it appropriate.

This is why the NRA and the Religious Right got in to bed together under the Republican roof. They wanted to be able to dictate their views on things from a national level. Politically smart, actually.

Now we've come full circle and the message from the NRA to squelch the national discussion on fire-arms on a national level is causing enough harm to our communities to entice state leaders to dance as close as they can to the edge of violating The Second Amendment.

Interesting mess, eh?

Solved with a REASONABLE national policy on guns that nobody is completely happy with.

No...the Republican party was created to end slavery and free black slaves from the democrats who owned them. The NRA......has nothing to do with felons, who cannot legally own a gun or carry it...shooting other criminals in democrat controlled voting districts.....

And just how did they do that, eh?

They prosecuted a bloody civil war to establish militarily that the federal government of the republic could unilaterally adjust the laws of any given state if the collective federal authority of any given moment in time felt it appropriate.

Irony: The successful prosecuting of The American Civil War by a young Republican political party against the forces of democratic state autonomy making the debating of the abortion problem, and the gun problem, and the gay marriage problem, and the health care problem, and several other problems on a national level necessary.

History in ACTION.

Pretty cool, eh?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Seriously?


"Dude... show me your driver's license and I'll let you test drive the car I have for sale."

The seller being criminally liable if they put a gun that is used in a crime in the hands of the unlicensed individual committing the crime is the best way to ensure sellers at least look at the picture on a weapons permit before transferring the gun, be it a dealer transaction or a private sale.

I'm agin it

I think the burden should be ENTIRELY on the buyer, not the seller (private sellers I mean) Now, if you're meeting people right outside the prison and selling them guns, different story.

My solution is thus. If you come into contact with police for ANY reason and have a weapon that you are not authorized via background check to have, that's 5 years in prison per gun, just for the gun. Regardless of WHY you came into contact with the police.

That's a good Idea too.

And obviously the law should read MAY be criminally libel if you put the gun in the hands of a criminal... hell, the transfer may have happened several years ago before the bad guy lost his privileges. That should all count on a case by case basis of judgements.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Seriously?


"Dude... show me your driver's license and I'll let you test drive the car I have for sale."

The seller being criminally liable if they put a gun that is used in a crime in the hands of the unlicensed individual committing the crime is the best way to ensure sellers at least look at the picture on a weapons permit before transferring the gun, be it a dealer transaction or a private sale.

I'm agin it

I think the burden should be ENTIRELY on the buyer, not the seller (private sellers I mean) Now, if you're meeting people right outside the prison and selling them guns, different story.

My solution is thus. If you come into contact with police for ANY reason and have a weapon that you are not authorized via background check to have, that's 5 years in prison per gun, just for the gun. Regardless of WHY you came into contact with the police.

That's a good Idea too.

And obviously the law should read MAY be criminally libel if you put the gun in the hands of a criminal... hell, the transfer may have happened several years ago before the bad guy lost his privileges. That should all count on a case by case basis of judgements.

We just saw how "judgements" work in the criminal justice system in this country . No thanks. I prefer hard and fast laws.

You do X , the goverment does Y. Period.

 

[2aguy]

Again, not a democracy, a constitutional republic. Certain things cannot be overrode by the simple will of the majority.

I don't own an illegal firearm, so I am following the laws. However the laws are unconstitutional in this case, and the courts are willful stooges in keeping it that way.

but hey, "you got yours", so my situation is "too bad, so sad".

And I notice you haven't answered my post on your taunting, or deleted your post on it. Another case of rules for thee but not for me?

True. The Republican Party was formed in the mid 1800's to prosecute a bloody civil war to establish the right and the responsibility of the federal government to tell the states to shove it up their asses if the collective Republic they are members of deems it appropriate.

This is why the NRA and the Religious Right got in to bed together under the Republican roof. They wanted to be able to dictate their views on things from a national level. Politically smart, actually.

Now we've come full circle and the message from the NRA to squelch the national discussion on fire-arms on a national level is causing enough harm to our communities to entice state leaders to dance as close as they can to the edge of violating The Second Amendment.

Interesting mess, eh?

Solved with a REASONABLE national policy on guns that nobody is completely happy with.

No...the Republican party was created to end slavery and free black slaves from the democrats who owned them. The NRA......has nothing to do with felons, who cannot legally own a gun or carry it...shooting other criminals in democrat controlled voting districts.....

And the Republican Party evolved into an entity that purposefully exploited white racism to garner votes. That concludes 6th grade social studies.

The NRA's purpose? Make money for gun manufacturers. End of story.

Sorry...didn't happen. The republicans don't care about race...the democrat party is obsessed with race.

The NRAs purpose.....gun safety education and protecting the 2nd Amendment....

Sheep.

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And lol @ you believing aggressive lobbying by the NRA is purely Constitutional in nature.

Follow the money, xxxxxx.

The Southern Strategy lie that the democrats keep telling can't survive the age of the internet.......

Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink

Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.

On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”

The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.

In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.

Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.

 

[2aguy]

The issue is 2nd amendment rights should not be effected by direct democracy, unless 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of each part of congress decide to change or repeal the 2nd amendment. an enumerated right shouldn't be touchable by the whims of the locals.

We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic, and this republic's constitution says my RKBA shall not be infringed. Do you consider a 3-6 month waiting period and $1000 in fines to be infringement or not?

The reason that the states and localities have cobbled together what they have in a desperate attempt to stem the violence is the right-wing political goal of obstructing any and all discussion of the problems that guns can bring to our communities.

If you want the states to back off, tell your senators and congressmen to stop squelching national debate on the subject.

And the only solution gun control people come up with is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns. Gun control people want everywhere to be NYC or worse. You can't have a national debate when one side is completely against private ownership of firearms.

And likewise, you can't have a reasonable debate when one side is completely against any form of reasonable vetting to ensure that we keep as many ill suited people from having guns as possible.

And I'm sorry if you think it's acceptable that people can sell guns on Facebook or Craigslist without even knowing who it is they are selling to and just say "well arrest them if they get caught owning a gun they shouldnt have had" you are as stupid as the person who thinks all semi automatic weapons should be banned

So....you have your background check system...and someone doesn't care and thinks they can get away with it...they sell the gun anyway......you background check failed...but now everyone has to beg the feds to own a gun.....

Then...a criminal wants a gun from facebook...so he gets his baby mama or grandma to get it and go through your background check......your background check failed....but...now everyone else...who isn't going to use the gun for crime or mass shootings...now has to ask the federal government if they can have a permit to own guns.....

That is why your system is flawed.....you give more power to the government to pull off what New York and New Jersey already do...as well as Cali.......and you don't stop actual crime or mass shootings.....

You can do everything you say you want...by simply arresting people when they break the law......

In the most respectful terms.


Bullshit 2A

There ARE people now legally buying guns who shouldn't be. THAT is the concern. There is ZERO we can do about people who obtain guns illegally, and hence no sane person is suggesting we should focus on that.

Note - there are plenty of INSANE people who are. I discount them as much as I discount you.

And what's more , if you were even thinking clearly at all you would admit that a pretty intrusive FBI background check every 5 years is FAR less burdensome than having one performed every single time you want to buy a new weapon, or in some cases now even ammunition.

Here's what this whole argument boils down to


People like Gary who absolutely do want to take guns away from everyone (regardless of what he lies about it) screaming at people like you who absolutely want anyone to be able to buy anything without any government oversight (regardless of how much YOU lie about it) and reasonable Americans stuck in the middle.

See...that isn't my argument at all. I have already stated that current federal background checks for licensed dealers are fine.....they need to be fixed for speed...I don't want felons or the dangerously mentally ill to have guns.....

The important point....the measures used to try to keep felons from using guns illegally, shoul not impact law abiding citizens more than they impact the felons and crazy people........

Felons will get around your more intrusive background check system the same way they get around current federally mandated background checks...they will use someone who passed your background check to buy the gun for them...or they will steal the gun.

Mass Shooters...will go through your more extensive background check, pass....like the Orlando shooter who passed 3 background checks, 10 months of FBI investigation, 3 in person interviews with trained FBI interrogators, and having an under cover agent approach him....then he will go and shoot people.

Your system means we will be dependent on a direct plea to the federal government to get permission to just own a gun. Not even to carry it, just to own it......and as we see with New York, New Jersey and California.....at the state level they have made it impossible to get gun permit....and you expect the federal government, which is already anti gun....to not follow their example and force us to take them to court to ease up the permitting process........?

That is where your plan goes wrong.

So I am not just refusing your plan just to dig my heels in...there are actual reasons, real reasons that your plan is deeply flawed.......

The best solution is to focus on actual criminals....and since 90% of the shooters in this country have long criminal histories and multiple gun convictions.......we need to focus on keeping them in jail....

1) no bail for someone with a criminal record arrested on a gun charge...we see that here in Chicago all the time.....criminals with multiple gun possession charges released over and over, and then they finally shoot someone .

2) For convictions of gun crimes.....30 year sentences...not for missing paperwork...but for actual crimes with guns.....this is how Japan keeps their criminals from using guns....

These two things will do what you want....we can already do them, and we don't have to increase the paperwork, the wait times or the fees on law abiding people to do it...

And my points....actually stop gun murder better than your plan does....

 

[2aguy]

Seriously?


"Dude... show me your driver's license and I'll let you test drive the car I have for sale."

The seller being criminally liable if they put a gun that is used in a crime in the hands of the unlicensed individual committing the crime is the best way to ensure sellers at least look at the picture on a weapons permit before transferring the gun, be it a dealer transaction or a private sale.

I'm agin it

I think the burden should be ENTIRELY on the buyer, not the seller (private sellers I mean) Now, if you're meeting people right outside the prison and selling them guns, different story.

My solution is thus. If you come into contact with police for ANY reason and have a weapon that you are not authorized via background check to have, that's 5 years in prison per gun, just for the gun. Regardless of WHY you came into contact with the police.

and that is where your plan is wrong........owning a gun is not a crime.....if you are a felon and have the gun....great...30 year sentence. If you are law abiding, you have not committed a crime for having a gun..it is wrong to treat it as if it is.......

I have pointed this out before,

If you are stopped by police and you have a gun, they can already run your name and birthday to see if you are a felon......if you are..they arrest you and send you to jail....

We can already do that...right now.....don't you see why your idea is unnecessary? Law abiding people have committed no crime...at all...so if they have a gun there is no rational reason to arrest them. And if they are a felon...they can already be arrested for having a gun........

The police will run your name during a traffic stop anyway..that is why they take your license.....

Also my idea.....put FELON on the license of felons....that way at a private sale the seller can ask to see the license of the buyer......and bingo.....you have an instant check....that is as useful as a universal background check......

 

[2aguy]

PLUS , I think if I felt so strongly against a law that my local city/state had and refused to change that I would probably you know MOVE rather than whine on a message board.

I have family here that I need to take care of, so moving is a no go. Plus, since RKBA is a federally protected enumerated right, why should I be the one who has to move? Why shouldn't they be forced to follow the Constitution?

Your regional neighbors at this particular here and now ARE abiding by The Constitution. You and they, like the rest of us, are doing the best We collectively can in a democracy where less than half of us vote.

If you are unwilling to change regions over this issue, your only course of action is to do the best you can within the framework of all of the laws that you are subject to in the region you choose to live in, and to thank your preferred Deity that you have a say so in those laws. Accepting our responsibility to live with the laws We collectively give ourselves at any given point in time, even the ones we feel are just not right, is just as deep as our responsibility is to convince our friends, neighbors and countrymen of the things within those codes that we feel are just not right.

Again, not a democracy, a constitutional republic. Certain things cannot be overrode by the simple will of the majority.

I don't own an illegal firearm, so I am following the laws. However the laws are unconstitutional in this case, and the courts are willful stooges in keeping it that way.

but hey, "you got yours", so my situation is "too bad, so sad".

And I notice you haven't answered my post on your taunting, or deleted your post on it. Another case of rules for thee but not for me?

True. The Republican Party was formed in the mid 1800's to prosecute a bloody civil war to establish the right and the responsibility of the federal government to tell the states to shove it up their asses if the collective Republic they are members of deems it appropriate.

This is why the NRA and the Religious Right got in to bed together under the Republican roof. They wanted to be able to dictate their views on things from a national level. Politically smart, actually.

Now we've come full circle and the message from the NRA to squelch the national discussion on fire-arms on a national level is causing enough harm to our communities to entice state leaders to dance as close as they can to the edge of violating The Second Amendment.

Interesting mess, eh?

Solved with a REASONABLE national policy on guns that nobody is completely happy with.

No...the Republican party was created to end slavery and free black slaves from the democrats who owned them. The NRA......has nothing to do with felons, who cannot legally own a gun or carry it...shooting other criminals in democrat controlled voting districts.....

And just how did they do that, eh?

They prosecuted a bloody civil war to establish militarily that the federal government of the republic could unilaterally adjust the laws of any given state if the collective federal authority of any given moment in time felt it appropriate.

Irony: The successful prosecuting of The American Civil War by a young Republican political party against the forces of democratic state autonomy making the debating of the abortion problem, and the gun problem, and the gay marriage problem, and the health care problem, and several other problems on a national level necessary.

History in ACTION.

Pretty cool, eh?

No...the democrats started the civil war by Firing on Fort Sumpter.......the Republicans responded and after the war freed the black slaves that the democrats kept.

 

[2aguy]

Seriously?


"Dude... show me your driver's license and I'll let you test drive the car I have for sale."

The seller being criminally liable if they put a gun that is used in a crime in the hands of the unlicensed individual committing the crime is the best way to ensure sellers at least look at the picture on a weapons permit before transferring the gun, be it a dealer transaction or a private sale.

And right now....criminals use straw buyers to get past this very thing...they send in a buyer with a clean record to buy the gun....thus making your point meaningless...or they steal the gun......

And I have linked to articles where actual straw buyers get very little time when they are caught by police using current police methods...snitches and undercover stings......and in since a majority of straw buyers for gangs are baby mommas and grandmothers.......prosecutors don't prosecute because they don't get anything from taking a babymomma to court..since she can just say she was threatened to do it.........

You guys really want to punish normal gun owners...........nothing you point to actually goes after criminals or mass shooters......

 

[2aguy]

Boo-fucking-hoo

Then do what you can to change the people in power.

If you do your best and you're position is so unpopular that you feel like you're beating your head against a brick wall, accept that your position may be extreme and adjust or move on.

Democracy is NOT rocket science, y'all.

The issue is 2nd amendment rights should not be effected by direct democracy, unless 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of each part of congress decide to change or repeal the 2nd amendment. an enumerated right shouldn't be touchable by the whims of the locals.

We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic, and this republic's constitution says my RKBA shall not be infringed. Do you consider a 3-6 month waiting period and $1000 in fines to be infringement or not?

The reason that the states and localities have cobbled together what they have in a desperate attempt to stem the violence is the right-wing political goal of obstructing any and all discussion of the problems that guns can bring to our communities.

If you want the states to back off, tell your senators and congressmen to stop squelching national debate on the subject.

And the only solution gun control people come up with is make it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns. Gun control people want everywhere to be NYC or worse. You can't have a national debate when one side is completely against private ownership of firearms.

And likewise, you can't have a reasonable debate when one side is completely against any form of reasonable vetting to ensure that we keep as many ill suited people from having guns as possible.

And I'm sorry if you think it's acceptable that people can sell guns on Facebook or Craigslist without even knowing who it is they are selling to and just say "well arrest them if they get caught owning a gun they shouldnt have had" you are as stupid as the person who thinks all semi automatic weapons should be banned

So....you have your background check system...and someone doesn't care and thinks they can get away with it...they sell the gun anyway......

Anyone proven to have knowingly transferred ownership of a weapon to an unlicensed individual can be held criminally liable.

If sweet old uncle Ted talks you in to helping him to acquire a gun on YOUR license, you can be held criminally libel if sweet Teddy hits the Jack one night and kills aunt Carol.

Problem solved.

Yes...we can already do this......and this is the way current police methods work.....you catch a criminal with a gun....you sweat them..they say they got the gun illegally from this person....you go and arrest that person too....no need for universal background checks, no need for licensing gun owners, no need to register guns...we can already do this....

 

[AVG-JOE]

I have family here that I need to take care of, so moving is a no go. Plus, since RKBA is a federally protected enumerated right, why should I be the one who has to move? Why shouldn't they be forced to follow the Constitution?

Your regional neighbors at this particular here and now ARE abiding by The Constitution. You and they, like the rest of us, are doing the best We collectively can in a democracy where less than half of us vote.

If you are unwilling to change regions over this issue, your only course of action is to do the best you can within the framework of all of the laws that you are subject to in the region you choose to live in, and to thank your preferred Deity that you have a say so in those laws. Accepting our responsibility to live with the laws We collectively give ourselves at any given point in time, even the ones we feel are just not right, is just as deep as our responsibility is to convince our friends, neighbors and countrymen of the things within those codes that we feel are just not right.

Again, not a democracy, a constitutional republic. Certain things cannot be overrode by the simple will of the majority.

I don't own an illegal firearm, so I am following the laws. However the laws are unconstitutional in this case, and the courts are willful stooges in keeping it that way.

but hey, "you got yours", so my situation is "too bad, so sad".

And I notice you haven't answered my post on your taunting, or deleted your post on it. Another case of rules for thee but not for me?

True. The Republican Party was formed in the mid 1800's to prosecute a bloody civil war to establish the right and the responsibility of the federal government to tell the states to shove it up their asses if the collective Republic they are members of deems it appropriate.

This is why the NRA and the Religious Right got in to bed together under the Republican roof. They wanted to be able to dictate their views on things from a national level. Politically smart, actually.

Now we've come full circle and the message from the NRA to squelch the national discussion on fire-arms on a national level is causing enough harm to our communities to entice state leaders to dance as close as they can to the edge of violating The Second Amendment.

Interesting mess, eh?

Solved with a REASONABLE national policy on guns that nobody is completely happy with.

No...the Republican party was created to end slavery and free black slaves from the democrats who owned them. The NRA......has nothing to do with felons, who cannot legally own a gun or carry it...shooting other criminals in democrat controlled voting districts.....

And just how did they do that, eh?

They prosecuted a bloody civil war to establish militarily that the federal government of the republic could unilaterally adjust the laws of any given state if the collective federal authority of any given moment in time felt it appropriate.

Irony: The successful prosecuting of The American Civil War by a young Republican political party against the forces of democratic state autonomy making the debating of the abortion problem, and the gun problem, and the gay marriage problem, and the health care problem, and several other problems on a national level necessary.

History in ACTION.

Pretty cool, eh?

No...the democrats started the civil war by Firing on Fort Sumpter.......the Republicans responded and after the war freed the black slaves that the democrats kept.

I didn't say anything about who started it... I said that the Republican Party successfully prosecuted it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

See, I don't like that law because you are getting into how do you prove a person knew someone else wasn't legally able to buy a gun?

If your brother went to prison, and you visited him. Proof.
Things like that.