Universal background checks

[Bigfoot]

[ We can ban magazines larger than 50 rounds. Happy now?

No. You only want to ban very high-capacity magazines because they have been shown by two recent mass murderers to jam.

Yeah, they never, ever jammed before that. Where do these people come from that have so many ignorant things to say about a subject they know nothing about?

Answer: The Internet.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Yes, state laws. Not federal. And state laws vary widely.

You obviously didn't read the articles I posted. Both listed a half dozen different ways the authorities have been handcuffed.



Wow, so gun manufacturers have no incentive for gun dealers to sell more guns? That's an absurd statement. Obviously if gun dealers sell more guns, the manufacturers make more money.



And here is the problem as I see it. Very little gun regulation (at the federal level) has been passed. What we have now is much less restrictive than the laws the founders had in place in their day.

And yet you continue with this notion that the federal government is running over your rights to own guns. You said, "Give an inch they'll take a mile." and yet failed to offer a single example.

The last batch of gun laws at the federal level (the assault weapons ban) was passed, and ended, without a new batch of gun laws to follow. There was no slippery slope.



The ATF is not allowed to make gun shops take inventory. Tens of thousands of guns are "lost" every year from these shops. And those are just the ones they voluntarily hear about because they cannot force the shops to give them numbers.

They aren't allowed to keep records of background checks or gun sales. So gun tracing takes forever and is almost useless since they most often have no record of private transactions.

The NRA actively lobbies against budget increases for the ATF. While most other agencies have received a 500% budget increase since the 70's, the ATF's remains unchanged.

The ATF has no director. Primarily because those controlled by the NRA in congress have decided that having an ex-ATF agent in charge might mean they enforce current laws, so they have blocked his appointment since Bush appointed him (yes, Bush) to the position 6 years ago.

And there are more if you read the articles I linked.

So before people start spouting about "enforcing current gun laws" you should know that your NRA is making that almost impossible.

And every point I have made is verifiable a thousand places on the web, including the two sources I provided earlier.

Wrong answer.

I suggest you learn about Form 4473, which must be filled out and retained by any licensed Gun dealer on every sale. It must be retained for 20 years and must be surrendered to Law enforcement during any criminal investigation. If the shop goes out of business these forms must be turned over to the Federal Authorities.......

Do play again.......

I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with anything?

Yes they have some legal obligations. And many, but not all, states fill in the gaps where federal regulations do not exist.

But what I am saying comes from reliable sources. And if any of you would bother looking into it, you would find I am correct.

Wrong answer........ Name your sources....Then go learn the truth......There are records at every gun dealer and law enforcement can request them during any criminal investigation, and if the dealer closes they have to turn over those records... Now what part of they aren't allowed did i miss? They are required by law... You know nothing.......

 

[Spoonman]

[ We can ban magazines larger than 50 rounds. Happy now?

No. You only want to ban very high-capacity magazines because they have been shown by two recent mass murderers to jam. (The Batman shooter and the Oregon mall shooter.) I suppose these rampages are viewed as good testing for the gun collector crowd.

About your sig quote: I'm something of an expert on C.S. Lewis, and you are misusing that quote if you suppose he'd be in favor of all this mass murder and collecting of assault rifles and all these atrocities. He was a civilized and elegant person and would, I believe, have assumed these collectors of mass-murder weaponry are just as crazy and dangerous as I suspect they are.

so what you are saying then is that the size of the magazine really doesn't matter

 

[Tech_Esq]

[ We can ban magazines larger than 50 rounds. Happy now?

No. You only want to ban very high-capacity magazines because they have been shown by two recent mass murderers to jam. (The Batman shooter and the Oregon mall shooter.) I suppose these rampages are viewed as good testing for the gun collector crowd.

About your sig quote: I'm something of an expert on C.S. Lewis, and you are misusing that quote if you suppose he'd be in favor of all this mass murder and collecting of assault rifles and all these atrocities. He was a civilized and elegant person and would, I believe, have assumed these collectors of mass-murder weaponry are just as crazy and dangerous as I suspect they are.

First of all, I'm opposed to very high capacity magazines because I know they wouldn't work and only an idiot would own them much less try to use them. This is because I have a fair amount of experience with both military and civilian rifles and I understand what the fundamental issue is with using something like that. The jams were more than predictable.

I would suggest that you do not speak for C. S. Lewis no matter how well you imagine that you know him, nor should you attempt to put words in his mouth that he did not speak. If you want to find an anti-gun quote he made, feel free. Until then, desist and support your own arguments!

 

[Bigfoot]

[ We can ban magazines larger than 50 rounds. Happy now?

No. You only want to ban very high-capacity magazines because they have been shown by two recent mass murderers to jam. (The Batman shooter and the Oregon mall shooter.) I suppose these rampages are viewed as good testing for the gun collector crowd.

About your sig quote: I'm something of an expert on C.S. Lewis, and you are misusing that quote if you suppose he'd be in favor of all this mass murder and collecting of assault rifles and all these atrocities. He was a civilized and elegant person and would, I believe, have assumed these collectors of mass-murder weaponry are just as crazy and dangerous as I suspect they are.

so what you are saying then is that the size of the magazine really doesn't matter

Nope. It's the way a guy uses his magazine that makes all of the difference. You either make them scream or just send 'em home pissed off and wet.

 

[Circe]

I would suggest that you do not speak for C. S. Lewis no matter how well you imagine that you know him, nor should you attempt to put words in his mouth that he did not speak. If you want to find an anti-gun quote he made, feel free. Until then, desist and support your own arguments!

I am suggesting YOU don't misuse quotes from C.S. Lewis: you are trying to speak for him yourself by pretending that quote refers to assault weapon collections! Which is absurd. "The Great Divorce" and "The Screwtape Letters" give examples of the sort of moral bullying he had in mind. Much more intimate personal matters; certainly not gun collecting, which this distinguished Oxford professor took no interest in.

 

[Underhill]

This is false. There are innumrable laws restricting who can purchase firearms from gun stores, the mosy obvious of which is the NICS. To say that the authorities can do nothing about criminals walking into gun stores and buying guns is dishonest at best,.

Yes, state laws. Not federal. And state laws vary widely.
You obviously didn't read the articles I posted. Both listed a half dozen different ways the authorities have been handcuffed.

You said the authorities could do nothing.
To say that the authorities can do nothing about criminals walking into gun stores and buying guns is demonstrably dishonest at best.


Moving the goalposts. Sure sign that you know your statement was false, and that you refuse to admit as much.
As gun manufacturers do not sell to individuals, your claim regarding the motives of the NRA is demonstrably untrue. No way to honestly argue otherwise.


Because there is no reason for the NRA, or anyone, to give an inch, specially to legislation that does nothing to stop gun related crime -- if the antii-gun side were to propose such legislation, there might well be support for it, but it does not, and so there is not.

Why would any rational, thinking person support gun control legislation that does nothing to stop gun related crime?


This is absurdly silly and and absolutely unsupportable.
Please show your statement to be true.


Did you read the OP? This entire topic about just that.

The anti-gun side wants UBC. UBC cannot work without universal registration. As soon as the anti-gun side gets UBC they will claim it cannot work w/o universal registration and push for that.

Of course, background checls themselves are useless w/o UBC, and so universal registration was the eventual goal from the start.


This does not address what I said, and so, even if true, does nothing to negate the soundness of my statement - and so, my statement stands.

Figthing useless and ineffective legislation that serves to do nothing but restruct the rights of the law abiding is the only rational course of action.
Disagree? Please show otherwise.


This is absurdly silly and and absolutely unsupportable.
Please show your statement to be true.

The ATF has no director. Primarily because those controlled by the NRA in congress have decided that having an ex-ATF agent in charge might mean they enforce current laws, so they have blocked his appointment since Bush appointed him (yes, Bush) to the position 6 years ago.

This is absurdly silly and and absolutely unsupportable.
Please show your statement to be true.

So before people start spouting about "enforcing current gun laws" you should know that your NRA is making that almost impossible.

This is absurdly silly and and absolutely unsupportable.
Please show your statement to be true.

Your responses here are decidedly lacking.

So that would be a no.

You will not bother actually looking at my sources. You won't look into it at all. You will just deny everything.

I knew this was a waste of time.

 

[KissMy]

What about a "National Gun Restriction List" kind of like the "National Sex Offender Registry"? This list would be an on-line database that anyone can check to see if the person they are selling a gun to can own one. You get punished if you are caught selling to someone on that list. People could also turn in some one who they saw with a gun that was on the list. This is the only real way to keep guns out of violent crazy people's hands while the rest of us gun owners remain anonymous.

 

[Underhill]

Wrong answer.

I suggest you learn about Form 4473, which must be filled out and retained by any licensed Gun dealer on every sale. It must be retained for 20 years and must be surrendered to Law enforcement during any criminal investigation. If the shop goes out of business these forms must be turned over to the Federal Authorities.......

Do play again.......

I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with anything?

Yes they have some legal obligations. And many, but not all, states fill in the gaps where federal regulations do not exist.

But what I am saying comes from reliable sources. And if any of you would bother looking into it, you would find I am correct.

Wrong answer........ Name your sources....Then go learn the truth......There are records at every gun dealer and law enforcement can request them during any criminal investigation, and if the dealer closes they have to turn over those records... Now what part of they aren't allowed did i miss? They are required by law... You know nothing.......

I posted 2 sources. There are plenty more. Including the ATF.

As I said, they have some regulations. But they are not allowed, by law, to require gun shops to keep an inventory with the ATF. They can and do require records. But those records are often a mess of receipts and invoices.

But for those of you who continue to call me a liar. Here is the actual language.

(Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (18 USC § 926 - Rules and regulations | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute) being:

"No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation. "

There's more. But you can look it up.

 

[Circe]

What about a "National Gun Restriction List" kind of like the "National Sex Offender Registry"? This list would be an on-line database that anyone can check to see if the person they are selling a gun to can own one. You get punished if you are caught selling to someone on that list. People could also turn in some one who they saw with a gun that was on the list. This is the only real way to keep guns out of violent crazy people's hands while the rest of us gun owners remain anonymous.

Good idea: not a registry of gun owners but a registry of who should NOT own guns. I think the call-in check list that dealers at gun shows already use works that way now, though. They call in the name and social security number of the customer to see if they are eligible to buy a gun.

There are a lot of problems with this process, however, such as the fact that so many crazies fly below the radar: their mass murder is the first time some of them come to the attention of authorities, though family and schools probably know there is a problem.

And proxy sales, like the young girl who bought guns for the underage Columbine killers.

And all the private sales. We've got a very serious problem with increasing rampage violence; we'll soon be like Mexico at this rate.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I would suggest that you do not speak for C. S. Lewis no matter how well you imagine that you know him, nor should you attempt to put words in his mouth that he did not speak. If you want to find an anti-gun quote he made, feel free. Until then, desist and support your own arguments!

I am suggesting YOU don't misuse quotes from C.S. Lewis: you are trying to speak for him yourself by pretending that quote refers to assault weapon collections! Which is absurd. "The Great Divorce" and "The Screwtape Letters" give examples of the sort of moral bullying he had in mind. Much more intimate personal matters; certainly not gun collecting, which this distinguished Oxford professor took no interest in.

Can you not tell the diff. between what someone writes on the forum and what is in someone's signature? The C. S. Lewis quote has nothing in particular to do with this debate, just you people in general. I didn't use it in response to the the gun debate. It's just there to remind people of who we, on our side of the these debates, are dealing with.

As I said, provide a relevant quote or leave the poor man alone.

 

[Tech_Esq]

What about a "National Gun Restriction List" kind of like the "National Sex Offender Registry"? This list would be an on-line database that anyone can check to see if the person they are selling a gun to can own one. You get punished if you are caught selling to someone on that list. People could also turn in some one who they saw with a gun that was on the list. This is the only real way to keep guns out of violent crazy people's hands while the rest of us gun owners remain anonymous.

There is a proposal for something like this in Virginia. It would depend on the details of how it was intended to be implemented whether it might provide an acceptable compromise position. As long as it's voluntary and inexpensive or free, then it might work.

 

[KissMy]

What about a "National Gun Restriction List" kind of like the "National Sex Offender Registry"? This list would be an on-line database that anyone can check to see if the person they are selling a gun to can own one. You get punished if you are caught selling to someone on that list. People could also turn in some one who they saw with a gun that was on the list. This is the only real way to keep guns out of violent crazy people's hands while the rest of us gun owners remain anonymous.

There is a proposal for something like this in Virginia. It would depend on the details of how it was intended to be implemented whether it might provide an acceptable compromise position. As long as it's voluntary and inexpensive or free, then it might work.

It should be easy to use so I can walk around a gun show & look up a potential buyer on my smart phone before I sell him my gun.

 

[Tech_Esq]

What about a "National Gun Restriction List" kind of like the "National Sex Offender Registry"? This list would be an on-line database that anyone can check to see if the person they are selling a gun to can own one. You get punished if you are caught selling to someone on that list. People could also turn in some one who they saw with a gun that was on the list. This is the only real way to keep guns out of violent crazy people's hands while the rest of us gun owners remain anonymous.

Good idea: not a registry of gun owners but a registry of who should NOT own guns. I think the call-in check list that dealers at gun shows already use works that way now, though. They call in the name and social security number of the customer to see if they are eligible to buy a gun.

There are a lot of problems with this process, however, such as the fact that so many crazies fly below the radar: their mass murder is the first time some of them come to the attention of authorities, though family and schools probably know there is a problem.

And proxy sales, like the young girl who bought guns for the underage Columbine killers.

And all the private sales. We've got a very serious problem with increasing rampage violence; we'll soon be like Mexico at this rate.

You can't really prevent straw purchases. They are already illegal. It's a felony to buy a gun and give it to someone who should not have it. I recently bought a gun and it was right there on the form. So no, it doesn't stop proxy sales. If someone is going to break the law, they are going to break the law. That's why criminals will not be bothered by any of this.

Well maybe our government won't target the US with a gun walking exercise that put thousands of weapons directly into the hands of known criminals so maybe it won't be as be of a problem here like it is in Mexico. But, you never know. I suppose if they aren't successful this time, they might try to create another "crisis."

 

[M14 Shooter]

So that would be a no.
You will not bother actually looking at my sources. You won't look into it at all. You will just deny everything.
I knew this was a waste of time.

That's what I thought. I accept your concession
Thanks for playing. I shall waste no more time on you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What about a "National Gun Restriction List" kind of like the "National Sex Offender Registry"? This list would be an on-line database that anyone can check to see if the person they are selling a gun to can own one.

You know that the NICS operates with a list such as this, yes?

 

[Spoonman]

What about a "National Gun Restriction List" kind of like the "National Sex Offender Registry"? This list would be an on-line database that anyone can check to see if the person they are selling a gun to can own one. You get punished if you are caught selling to someone on that list. People could also turn in some one who they saw with a gun that was on the list. This is the only real way to keep guns out of violent crazy people's hands while the rest of us gun owners remain anonymous.

you know prospective employers would be all over that list. some one would also post it all over the internet

 

[Circe]

Can you not tell the diff. between what someone writes on the forum and what is in someone's signature? The C. S. Lewis quote has nothing in particular to do with this debate, just you people in general. I didn't use it in response to the the gun debate. It's just there to remind people of who we, on our side of the these debates, are dealing with.

As I said, provide a relevant quote or leave the poor man alone.

I'll just turn off signatures. They are usually pretty stupid or inappropriate anyway. Repetitive visual clutter.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What about a "National Gun Restriction List" kind of like the "National Sex Offender Registry"? This list would be an on-line database that anyone can check to see if the person they are selling a gun to can own one. You get punished if you are caught selling to someone on that list. People could also turn in some one who they saw with a gun that was on the list. This is the only real way to keep guns out of violent crazy people's hands while the rest of us gun owners remain anonymous.

you know prospective employers would be all over that list. some one would also post it all over the internet

Thsi is why only dealers have access to it, and only when someone fills out the paperwork.

 

[Circe]

you know prospective employers would be all over that list. some one would also post it all over the internet

Yow. You do have a point there. That's what happens with lists of sex offenders: in my county, they publish them yearly in the local paper ----------------- WITH PHOTOS.

The amazing thing is that there are so many of them.

On the other hand, is this bad? A list of people who should not own guns: maybe that needs to be out there on the Internet and in the paper!!! We're talking about crazies and felons, after all.