Universal background checks... really?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

can any citizen who passed a back ground check, buy multiple guns legally from gun shops, and then go out and sell them as a private seller? Can they be in a quasi business of selling guns at gun shows or thru advertising?

First off, it is currently illegal for ANYONE to to some one whom the seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe the purchaser a convicted felon . That would mean that one must check the background of the person to whom one sell or risk being prosecuted.

Selling to a person of another state is also currently illegal (that's why the Chicago purchases from other nearby states excuse is complete bullshit).

But, to answer your question: Anyone engaged in the business of selling firearms must be licensed to do so by the ATF. Buying and selling guns for profit, no matter how little personal income it generates, is illegal without a license.

https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download

 

[toomuchtime_]

Fact:
You still have not demonstrated the neessity of background checks.

I didn't need to, Seth Ator already did.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The man was a violent sociopath who must have known he was going to die when he went on his shooting spree, so are you seriously arguing he would have hesitated to buy a gun illegally if he couldn't have bought it legally?

A good reason to have all guns registered, and tracked from manufacturer to end buyer. The end buyer is responsible for the gun an any untoward act, including murder; if the gun is lost, sold or otherwise disposed of, and the weapon(s) is not reported to the ATF&E Agency (or other data base established by law), the end buyer should lose his or her 2nd A. Rights.

There is no way to keep track of guns sold illegally. If the original buyer bought the gun illegally, it will forever be impossible to track. If a gun is stolen, it will do you no good to have the registration. More gun laws will not deter crazies like Ator of determined gang members, drug dealers or other criminals or crazies who believe they need guns from acquiring them illegally. This whole issue is political bullshit. According to Wikipedia, there have been 297 mass shootings in the US so far this year, yet the media only tells us about a few of them and all the arguments about more gun laws are based on only a few incidents and a few personalities of shooters. While the body count rages in Chicago and Baltimore, Democratic cities, the Democrats only want to talk about a single shooter in Texas, a Republican state. The mayor of Chicago says it's not my fault people are being killed in such high numbers on teh streets of my city; blame the Republicans in states without gun laws I approve of and ot the fact that I demonize the Chicago police so that they no longer want to go into high crime areas.

 

[Rustic]

Lol
Not going to happen, It’s not their job.
I sell firearms to the local sheriffs department here they’re gonna want anything to do with that shit. In fact they are against the idea of background checks on private sales.

Don't use yourself as some sort of SME, your posts are barely coherent as it is.

Actually you’re wrong once they read the fine print they do not agree with it things like, any sort of waiting period etc. There is no reason for any typo waiting period. If the progressives are for it that means that it’s morally wrong every time.

Who said anything about waiting periods? Morally wrong? Tell that to those 7 people.

Lol
Says a control freak

Neat, keep making up arguments in your head.

Lol
Background checks on private firearm sales are unnecessary... fact

7 people recently murdered would disagree with you.

Also, you really need to learn what a fact is.

Lol
Shit happens, and there’s no guarantee that would’ve stopped him from purchasing firearms anyway you can’t have it both ways shit for brains

 

[Rustic]

can any citizen who passed a back ground check, buy multiple guns legally from gun shops, and then go out and sell them as a private seller? Can they be in a quasi business of selling guns at gun shows or thru advertising?

Lol
You will lose money every time by doing it that way you dumb ******

 

[Rustic]

Fact:
You still have not demonstrated the neessity of background checks.

I didn't need to, Seth Ator already did.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The man was a violent sociopath who must have known he was going to die when he went on his shooting spree, so are you seriously arguing he would have hesitated to buy a gun illegally if he couldn't have bought it legally?

A good reason to have all guns registered, and tracked from manufacturer to end buyer. The end buyer is responsible for the gun an any untoward act, including murder; if the gun is lost, sold or otherwise disposed of, and the weapon(s) is not reported to the ATF&E Agency (or other data base established by law), the end buyer should lose his or her 2nd A. Rights.

Lol
**** face, Registration is firearm confiscation you ******* piece of shit.
See that’s the problem spineless motherfuckers like yourself have no idea that fire them ownership is an absolute right unless someone ***** it up for themselves. So shut the **** up.

Firearm registration is unconstitutional, In the federal government has no right to know how many and what type of firearms individual citizens have, they can ******* pound sand you ******* retard

 

[Wry Catcher]

I didn't need to, Seth Ator already did.

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The man was a violent sociopath who must have known he was going to die when he went on his shooting spree, so are you seriously arguing he would have hesitated to buy a gun illegally if he couldn't have bought it legally?

A good reason to have all guns registered, and tracked from manufacturer to end buyer. The end buyer is responsible for the gun an any untoward act, including murder; if the gun is lost, sold or otherwise disposed of, and the weapon(s) is not reported to the ATF&E Agency (or other data base established by law), the end buyer should lose his or her 2nd A. Rights.

There is no way to keep track of guns sold illegally. If the original buyer bought the gun illegally, it will forever be impossible to track. If a gun is stolen, it will do you no good to have the registration. More gun laws will not deter crazies like Ator of determined gang members, drug dealers or other criminals or crazies who believe they need guns from acquiring them illegally. This whole issue is political bullshit. According to Wikipedia, there have been 297 mass shootings in the US so far this year, yet the media only tells us about a few of them and all the arguments about more gun laws are based on only a few incidents and a few personalities of shooters. While the body count rages in Chicago and Baltimore, Democratic cities, the Democrats only want to talk about a single shooter in Texas, a Republican state. The mayor of Chicago says it's not my fault people are being killed in such high numbers on teh streets of my city; blame the Republicans in states without gun laws I approve of and ot the fact that I demonize the Chicago police so that they no longer want to go into high crime areas.

~ARGUMENT: This is not a valid argument (hence: ~argument).

It assumes gun registration is not practical, but not a proof of that conclusion. If we want to mitigate getting guns out of the hands of the few, then the many will follow a law which requires guns in the public domain to be registered in a data base.

Any gun in the possession of any person without a serial number, or with a serial number and not registered (some guns before 1968 might not have a serial number, so that's a problem to be solved) needs to be surrendered. They may buy back their property if they provide evidence of their residence, register the gun, and pass a background check.

 

[Rustic]

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The man was a violent sociopath who must have known he was going to die when he went on his shooting spree, so are you seriously arguing he would have hesitated to buy a gun illegally if he couldn't have bought it legally?

A good reason to have all guns registered, and tracked from manufacturer to end buyer. The end buyer is responsible for the gun an any untoward act, including murder; if the gun is lost, sold or otherwise disposed of, and the weapon(s) is not reported to the ATF&E Agency (or other data base established by law), the end buyer should lose his or her 2nd A. Rights.

There is no way to keep track of guns sold illegally. If the original buyer bought the gun illegally, it will forever be impossible to track. If a gun is stolen, it will do you no good to have the registration. More gun laws will not deter crazies like Ator of determined gang members, drug dealers or other criminals or crazies who believe they need guns from acquiring them illegally. This whole issue is political bullshit. According to Wikipedia, there have been 297 mass shootings in the US so far this year, yet the media only tells us about a few of them and all the arguments about more gun laws are based on only a few incidents and a few personalities of shooters. While the body count rages in Chicago and Baltimore, Democratic cities, the Democrats only want to talk about a single shooter in Texas, a Republican state. The mayor of Chicago says it's not my fault people are being killed in such high numbers on teh streets of my city; blame the Republicans in states without gun laws I approve of and ot the fact that I demonize the Chicago police so that they no longer want to go into high crime areas.

~ARGUMENT: This is not a valid argument (hence: ~argument).

It assumes gun registration is not practical, but not a proof of that conclusion. If we want to mitigate getting guns out of the hands of the few, then the many will follow a law which requires guns in the public domain to be registered in a data base.

Any gun in the possession of any person without a serial number, or with a serial number and not registered (some guns before 1968 might not have a serial number, so that's a problem to be solved) needs to be surrendered. They may buy back their property if they provide evidence of their residence, register the gun, and pass a background check.

Political correctness has made you ******* retarded

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[M14 Shooter]

If we want to mitigate getting guns out of the hands of the few, then the many will follow a law which requires guns in the public domain to be registered in a data base.

~ARGUMENT: This is not a valid argument (hence: ~argument).
It assumes gun registration will get guns out of the hands of "the few", but is not a proof of that conclusion.
it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the government having on record the owner of each of the >360M guns in the US.

 

[Rustic]

A great sign to put in front of a business...

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

 

[Rustic]

If we want to mitigate getting guns out of the hands of the few, then the many will follow a law which requires guns in the public domain to be registered in a data base.

~ARGUMENT: This is not a valid argument (hence: ~argument).
It assumes gun registration will get guns out of the hands of "the few", but is not a proof of that conclusion.
it is impossible to demonstrate the necessity and efficacy of the government having on record the owner of each of the >360M guns in the US.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks as if my post #546 has not been countered by anyone*** with a common sense rebuttal. I've posted dozens or so times that Registration and licensing should be required of all gun owners, and those who seek to keep firearms in their possession, custody and control.

***though it appears that those who are lacking in common sense and stuck on the phrase, "shall not infrnge" can't think out of that box. I can't and won't read anything posted by those gun kooks who I've put on ignore, they have nothing to offer but the same old shit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Looks as if my post #546 has not been countered by anyone

I suggest you look at post 550, son.
Your argument, isn't.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I accept your concession of the point.
When you think you can demonstrate the necessity for background checks, let us know.

I didn't make a concession you just keep insisting you made a point.

Was Ator able to buy a gun and circumvent the background check system even though legally he was not allowed to possess one? Yes or no.

The man was a violent sociopath who must have known he was going to die when he went on his shooting spree, so are you seriously arguing he would have hesitated to buy a gun illegally if he couldn't have bought it legally?

A good reason to have all guns registered, and tracked from manufacturer to end buyer. The end buyer is responsible for the gun an any untoward act, including murder; if the gun is lost, sold or otherwise disposed of, and the weapon(s) is not reported to the ATF&E Agency (or other data base established by law), the end buyer should lose his or her 2nd A. Rights.

There is no way to keep track of guns sold illegally. If the original buyer bought the gun illegally, it will forever be impossible to track. If a gun is stolen, it will do you no good to have the registration. More gun laws will not deter crazies like Ator of determined gang members, drug dealers or other criminals or crazies who believe they need guns from acquiring them illegally. This whole issue is political bullshit. According to Wikipedia, there have been 297 mass shootings in the US so far this year, yet the media only tells us about a few of them and all the arguments about more gun laws are based on only a few incidents and a few personalities of shooters. While the body count rages in Chicago and Baltimore, Democratic cities, the Democrats only want to talk about a single shooter in Texas, a Republican state. The mayor of Chicago says it's not my fault people are being killed in such high numbers on teh streets of my city; blame the Republicans in states without gun laws I approve of and ot the fact that I demonize the Chicago police so that they no longer want to go into high crime areas.

~ARGUMENT: This is not a valid argument (hence: ~argument).

It assumes gun registration is not practical, but not a proof of that conclusion. If we want to mitigate getting guns out of the hands of the few, then the many will follow a law which requires guns in the public domain to be registered in a data base.

Any gun in the possession of any person without a serial number, or with a serial number and not registered (some guns before 1968 might not have a serial number, so that's a problem to be solved) needs to be surrendered. They may buy back their property if they provide evidence of their residence, register the gun, and pass a background check.

How will this prevent a crazy person like Ator from buying a gun illegally and killing all those people? Clearly, it won't. How would it prevent gang members or drug dealers from buying guns illegally? It won't.

There is no basis in fact or logic for believing making the legal purchase of guns more difficult will keep them out of the hands of crazies like Ator or violent criminals. All it will do is create a criminal subculture that will sell guns illegally. When we banned alcohol, the people who wanted it bought it illegally and that created organized crime in America. When we banned drugs, the people who wanted them bought and continue to buy them illegally, creating huge international drug cartels. If we make guns too difficult to purchase legally, we will be creating a new criminal subculture and these restrictive laws will not keep guns out of the hands of crazies who want to commit mass murders or of violent criminals.

 

[Care4all]

can any citizen who passed a back ground check, buy multiple guns legally from gun shops, and then go out and sell them as a private seller? Can they be in a quasi business of selling guns at gun shows or thru advertising?

Lol
You will lose money every time by doing it that way you dumb ******

How do all the guns get to the black market, and so easily available to those criminals who want them, Mr. Potty Mouth?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How do all the guns get to the black market, and so easily available to those criminals who want them, Mr. Potty Mouth?

Because people are willing to break the law.

 

[candycorn]

Every developed nation has people withmental health problems, violent video games and movies, depressed kids.

Only the US has the 2nd Amendment and a PAC dedicated to eliminating any restrictions on buying firearms.

So we have weekly mass shootings

If your point were correct you would not have to lie to make it. No "pac" is dedicated to removing any restrictions on purchases of guns. Flat out lie. The only purpose your lie here served was to spotlight your ignorance on the topic, as well as demonstrate that you are way to emotional to be taken seriously.

The NRA doesn’t make political contributions? Really?

Yes they do. That s part of what they do, but they aren't a political action committee. That's a direction Wane LaPeirre took it that way to where it is now.

That is what PACs do, stupid.