I am going to say it - I like the idea of universal NICS checks

Alaska444 said:

Shaivong,

I know a lot of very intelligently stupid people with massive IQ's. Delusions of big government utopia solutions is perhaps the stupidest idea I have ever encountered.

I never found out what my IQ is, they didn't tell us those things in that day for some reason but my principal told me it was "way up there." So go ahead and lump all those that support gun rights in support of FREEDOM as Neanderthals if you wish, but you just don't get it do you?

Perhaps you should go read some of the documents of our founding fathers and gain an understanding of the RKBA is fundamental to a free society.

Click to expand...

I don't know why you would think I care what your 'principals' opinion is on anything. Should I ask your model girlfriend in Canada?

Also, neanderthals had larger brains than homo sapiens. Just sayin.

1911 guy said:

Quote:
In 4 years, if things go well, you'll have to show that you're not a felon or have a history of domestic violence in order to get a firearm

That is already the case. It's called a Form 4473 and a phone call to the FBI. And if selling to someone else gets you all hot and bothered, see my previous post.

Click to expand...

Totally - because all private sales are going to go through FFLs because they can go through FFLs.

I also have purchased several from a FFL. Like you, the few dollars more for the background check is just the cost of doing business. We agree on that. What is being discussed is the regulation and mandatory background check of private sales. Personally, I do feel a reponsibility to ensure that one of my previously owned guns doesn't go directly to a drive by in the hood. So the guns i have sold are either to people I know or I've done the transaction through a FFL. The issue here is making it mandatory for private sales. My personal choice has nothing to do with attempting to regulate the behavior of others.

I think the issue here is you are operating under the assumption that those who would be prevented from owning or posessing a firearm would go to a FFL and be denied because the proposed law would state all transfers must go through a FFL. We go back again to the simple fact that those who would be prohibited will simply continue to do as they are doing now.

Size isn't everything.

1911 guy said:

I also have purchased several from a FFL. Like you, the few dollars more for the background check is just the cost of doing business. We agree on that. What is being discussed is the regulation and mandatory background check of private sales. Personally, I do feel a reponsibility to ensure that one of my previously owned guns doesn't go directly to a drive by in the hood. So the guns i have sold are either to people I know or I've done the transaction through a FFL. The issue here is making it mandatory for private sales. My personal choice has nothing to do with attempting to regulate the behavior of others.

I think the issue here is you are operating under the assumption that those who would be prevented from owning or posessing a firearm would go to a FFL and be denied because the proposed law would state all transfers must go through a FFL. We go back again to the simple fact that those who would be prohibited will simply continue to do as they are doing now.

Click to expand...

Since criminals have to steal guns from non-criminals, or they have to buy them through personal sales (safest transaction), narrowing the pipeline from legal to illegal guns is desirable.

People don't get into crime because they're flush with cash and they don't know what to do with their excess.

Quote:
Since criminals have to steal guns from non-criminals, or they have to buy them through personal sales (safest transaction), narrowing the pipeline from legal to illegal guns is desirable.

Here lies the crux of the matter. Please define the way in which a legal gun becomes an illegal gun.

The whole slippery slope is based on the anti-gunners using the law-abiding nature of the legal gun owner against us. Prior to 1968 there were no prohibited people or FFLs and y'know, it really wasn't a problem. Then we had some evil people perpetrate some high-profile crimes. From memory I don't think any of them had prior felonies but that didn't matter because we "had to do something" and the law-abiding gun owner thinks, "Well of course I want to prevent criminals from simply walking into a hardware store and walking out with a gun!"

But of course that wasn't foolproof enough for the anti-gun lobby. "The dealer has no good way of knowing if someone is a felon! We need to have a central government clearinghouse where we can determine if a person is prohibited!" The law-abiding gun owners agreed, because after all no one wants criminals to have access to guns. But that wasn't enough either so for years the anti-gun lobby has been screaming about the so-called "gun show loophole". With 45 years of conditioning it seems to make perfect sense to many law-abiding gun owners. After all, it HAS to help... Right?

What's next, when criminals still get their hands on guns illegally? Because after all, the anti-gun groups are never satisfied with the status quo. We all agree that this won't prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns so will the next "common sense" regulation be registration? Fingerprinting all gun owners? What would prevent a government from making anyone who is listed as a "subversive" from being added to the government's prohibited list? ShaiVong, if J. Edgar Hoover had that much power in the 1950s you would have eventually made the FBI's list of prohibited people simply because of your political beliefs. They're already talking about merging the "No Fly List" and the database of prohibited persons, have any of you ever had to prove to TSA that you weren't the person with a similar name who is on DHS's list of Bad Guys? It's almost a given that the rule allowing a transfer to proceed if a NICS delay isn't resolved within three days. Our government doesn't seem to see the problem with making an innocent person prove his or her innocence.

Bottom line is that while the intentions are good the outcome doesn't justify the loss of liberty associated with it.

ShaiVong said:

Right, because crypto-fascists are all for free speech, unless they disagree with it.

Click to expand...

Shai,

I could care less about your views, your insults will be what makes your rampage on THR a short course.

If you had any understanding of what it means to love freedom, you wouldn't mistake people like me who do have a love of true freedom and where it is derived. In any case, keep it up, you are going, going, soon to be gone.

There is no way to make this even somewhat enforceable without gun registration. Even then, criminals would not comply. Registration is a non-starter for me, as well as most law-abiding gun owners.

Do you really think that criminals will get background checks for "black market" sales of stolen and otherwise illicit guns? The only group that would have to jump through these hoops is law-abiding gun owners making legal transfers. Criminals would just ignore this law, as they do every other.

1911 guy said:

Quote:
Since criminals have to steal guns from non-criminals, or they have to buy them through personal sales (safest transaction), narrowing the pipeline from legal to illegal guns is desirable.

Here lies the crux of the matter. Please define the way in which a legal gun becomes an illegal gun.

Click to expand...

When it comes into the possession of somebody who is legally barred for possessing it.

There is no way to make this even somewhat enforceable without gun registration. Even then, criminals would not comply. Registration is a non-starter for me, as well as most law-abiding gun owners.

Do you really think that criminals will get background checks for "black market" sales of stolen and otherwise illicit guns? The only group that would have to jump through these hoops is law-abiding gun owners making legal transfers. Criminals would just ignore this law, as they do every other.

Click to expand...

Criminals deal with the laws, just the same as anyone else. Right now they don't have to - because they can effortlessly bypass it.

You're assuming guns will always be available (and affordable) outside the law. This does not have to be the case.

I've made the argument before in this thread in regards to NFA firearms. They're had to get, and they're seldom used in crimes. I'd like to do everything I can to make guns hard to get for felons. If the best argument you can muster is 'I have to jump through hoops', then I'm unimpressed.

welll I would rather give on that then the AR or Mag cap. I dont like it, but realistically I think they will give the dems something.

ShaiVong said:

Criminals deal with the laws, just the same as anyone else. Right now they don't have to - because they can effortlessly bypass it.
.

Click to expand...

Are you for real? Criminals could care less how many gun laws this socialist government wishes to impose, they act outside of the law already. The more gun control, the safer their "job" is as a criminal. Not sure why you can't put together the data on gun bans in D.C., Chicago etc and increased risk of violent crime.

When someone who is inelligible for posession takes posession, a crime has been committed, regardless of any further requirements. So what is the point of making another law that will be broken in the process of breaking current law?

While i can agree that making guns hard for felons to get would be great, the reality is that the only way to do that would require the complete abolishment of guns from our society. Guns enter the black market primarily through theft. Adding another law that will be broken in addition to the ones already being broken accomplishes nothing of substance. It serves only to give ground to the extremists on the other side.

As I've said before, if there were a workable solution, I'd be all ears. But it remains that due to the nature of illicit trade in any item, restriction serves no purpose. As a crude example, drugs are illegal, yet they are bought and sold daily in every city and most small towns in our country. The fact that there are laws against it serve no purpose but to establish penalties for lawbreakers. Those penalties already exist for felons posessing guns, so there is no need for further legislation.

1911 guy said:

When someone who is inelligible for posession takes posession, a crime has been committed, regardless of any further requirements. So what is the point of making another law that will be broken in the process of breaking current law?

While i can agree that making guns hard for felons to get would be great, the reality is that the only way to do that would require the complete abolishment of guns from our society. Guns enter the black market primarily through theft. Adding another law that will be broken in addition to the ones already being broken accomplishes nothing of substance. It serves only to give ground to the extremists on the other side.

As I've said before, if there were a workable solution, I'd be all ears. But it remains that due to the nature of illicit trade in any item, restriction serves no purpose. As a crude example, drugs are illegal, yet they are bought and sold daily in every city and most small towns in our country. The fact that there are laws against it serve no purpose but to establish penalties for lawbreakers. Those penalties already exist for felons posessing guns, so there is no need for further legislation.

Click to expand...

+1, there is not only no need, they already violate the law when not eligible for possession, but the risk of transforming the NICS system into a default registration system is desirable to those that are pushing for confiscation.

jungle said:

Bayesian, calling the people here thick isn't going to win your argument or make friends.

You said: Why not repeal all gun laws?

There is a very good argument for doing just that, after all we have many laws against murder and assault and they would do just fine for prosecuting any gun offense.

There are something like 25,000 gun laws on the books, and they have not been effective. Just one more law is going to solve the problem?

I would guess you are too young to remember the situation prior to 1968, where anyone could order a gun through the mail and have it delivered by the post office.

The problem you are having is that you are working under the illusion that gunlaws equate to safety, and they clearly do not. Just as drug laws have not stopped the drug trade.

Swift and certain prosecution helps, but we already have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

Click to expand...

This post illustrates the frustration people feel when dealing with the gun lobby. This is precisely the reason we ended up with an assault weapons ban 20 years ago. An absolute refusal to compromise on a number of issues led to an unfriendly legislature ramming what it wanted down the throats of half the country. We had a similar situation during the brief Democrat super majority just a few years ago. The situation of gun owners in this nation is precarious and this constant repeat of the same logically flawed argument is going to spell the death of firearms ownership as we know it in this country.

To point the finger at gun laws and say "well they don't help so repeal them" is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Everybody knows that more gun laws aren't really the problem. The Sandy Hook shooter wasn't going to be stopped by the gun laws or the laws against theft or murder as he had no issue killing his own mother and stealing her guns.

This is the type of result you get when you combine the paranoia so readily bred by nutjobs like Adam Lanza's mother.
Of course gun laws do not help when you allow lunatics like Adam Lanza and his mom to collect guns. This is the type of person that doesn't need yet another gun, they need counseling.

but of course, paying for someone elses medical needs is the evil socialism.
This is where hard line gun owning conservatives will lose it for the rest of us. The absolute refusal to compromise means that you separate yourselves from the majority of gun owners in this country who don't care about an extra background check here or there. The conservative refusal to even consider improvements in social services or the relaxation of drug laws and introduction of taxpayer funded treatment means there will be no improvement until the politicians simply figure out a way to maneuver around conservative obstructionism. When that happens, the politicians will know they can do whatever they want because the radical right will have painted itself into a corner and hurled their only bargaining chips in a fit of righteous rage at those who originally wished to compromise.

Cliffs: Stop being pig headed dumbasses before you mess it up for all of us.

I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but this same guy on another thread also seem to support banning online ammo sales because it would help felons from getting ammo. I think I know where this guy is going with these issues.

Clean97GTI said:

This post illustrates the frustration people feel when dealing with the gun lobby. This is precisely the reason we ended up with an assault weapons ban 20 years ago. An absolute refusal to compromise on a number of issues led to an unfriendly legislature ramming what it wanted down the throats of half the country. We had a similar situation during the brief Democrat super majority just a few years ago. The situation of gun owners in this nation is precarious and this constant repeat of the same logically flawed argument is going to spell the death of firearms ownership as we know it in this country.

To point the finger at gun laws and say "well they don't help so repeal them" is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Everybody knows that more gun laws aren't really the problem. The Sandy Hook shooter wasn't going to be stopped by the gun laws or the laws against theft or murder as he had no issue killing his own mother and stealing her guns.

This is the type of result you get when you combine the paranoia so readily bred by nutjobs like Adam Lanza's mother.
Of course gun laws do not help when you allow lunatics like Adam Lanza and his mom to collect guns. This is the type of person that doesn't need yet another gun, they need counseling.

but of course, paying for someone elses medical needs is the evil socialism.
This is where hard line gun owning conservatives will lose it for the rest of us. The absolute refusal to compromise means that you separate yourselves from the majority of gun owners in this country who don't care about an extra background check here or there. The conservative refusal to even consider improvements in social services or the relaxation of drug laws and introduction of taxpayer funded treatment means there will be no improvement until the politicians simply figure out a way to maneuver around conservative obstructionism. When that happens, the politicians will know they can do whatever they want because the radical right will have painted itself into a corner and hurled their only bargaining chips in a fit of righteous rage at those who originally wished to compromise.

Cliffs: Stop being pig headed dumbasses before you mess it up for all of us.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this pig headed dumb ass as you wish to call me understands more than the art of your so called compromise leads down an eventual path of complete confiscation. What is there to compromise about?

Do background checks objectively prevent firearm violence?

Would a universal background check offer the anti's an opportunity to set up registration?

Will universal background checks prevent another Columbine or Sandy Hook?

Since when do the "majority of gun owners" want universal background checks? Source please?

In any case, the march to universal socialism is in high gear. Personally, I would rather go down fighting against this than to accept a slow grind to the death of this nation. There is a reason why they had to wait until almost all of the WWII vets died or are growing infirm, they never would have tolerated these unconstitutional power grabs.

Should they take our guns, so be it, but I will not hand it over to them with my tail tucked between my legs.

ShaiVong said:

Criminals deal with the laws, just the same as anyone else. Right now they don't have to - because they can effortlessly bypass it.

You're assuming guns will always be available (and affordable) outside the law.

Click to expand...

You mean like how pot is illegal but I can walk out onto the street in any city in the U.S. and buy pot in about a half hour?

The way that prohibition works? Or the way the prohibition on alcohol worked so well, that kinda "outside the law"?

You and the Brady Campaign makes three.

Click to expand...

Cute...

DammitBoy said:

You mean like how pot is illegal but I can walk out onto the street in any city in the U.S. and buy pot in about a half hour?

The way that prohibition works? Or the way the prohibition on alcohol worked so well, that kinda "outside the law"?

Click to expand...

Shai's ivory tower of improbable events is destined to collapse upon it's own weight but it cannot be propped up by his utopian philosophies.

He speaks between the lines that he is in support of confiscation speaking of the day when there are no weapons available for criminals to steal or buy on the black market. I guess he hasn't heard of the robust illegal gun market here in the US, especially in cities like LA with stringent gun laws.

Funny, ALL firearm sales in CA MUST go through an FFL already with 100% NICS requirement. Looks like that is keeping the criminals from possessing any firearms isn't it.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR512.html

I saw poor villagers in Africa who had access to AK-47s and these people lived in mud huts without electricity. Are you telling me that criminals in this country, with all their technology, money and with the large amount of well organized criminal operations in this country that it will be hard for a person to obtain a gun?

Not likely! In India, as we speak, there is a large market for illegally made guns, many that are well-made replicas of existing types of semi auto pistols and rifles. Not to mention large amounts of smuggled weapons. Indian people have a lot less money than Americans and they say many Indian gun owners, own illegal guns, because of how hard it is to obtain a gun legally in the country.

I have an article about it which I will post here if I can find it again.

Alaska444 said:

Sorry, but this pig headed dumb ass as you wish to call me understands more than the art of your so called compromise leads down an eventual path of complete confiscation. What is there to compromise about?

Do background checks objectively prevent firearm violence?

Would a universal background check offer the anti's an opportunity to set up registration?

Will universal background checks prevent another Columbine or Sandy Hook?

Since when do the "majority of gun owners" want universal background checks? Source please?

In any case, the march to universal socialism is in high gear. Personally, I would rather go down fighting against this than to accept a slow grind to the death of this nation. There is a reason why they had to wait until almost all of the WWII vets died or are growing infirm, they never would have tolerated these unconstitutional power grabs.

Should they take our guns, so be it, but I will not hand it over to them with my tale tucked between my legs.

Click to expand...

1. You assume that a background check leads to widespread confiscation. How did you come by this knowledge? Why have background checks in operation for more than 20 years not lead to confiscation? Explain your logic.

2. No, background checks do not objectively prevent gun violence. They do assist in the enforcement of constitutionally sound law. Specifically the laws that disqualify certain people from owning firearms. Simple math tells us that further scrutiny of these transactions will stop more disqualified people from buying guns. This reduces (not eliminates) the number of guns held by disqualified people.

3. Can't be answered with the present data set however, in the past ten years, NICS checks have resulted in 700k denials for firearm purchases. People who should not be able to purchase a gun from an FFL were prevented from doing so.

4. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_1...9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/
This essentially says that 92% of Americans support background checks for firearm purchases. Given the number of gun owners and number of guns in our nations, it is a safe assumption that most gun owners favor the idea of background checks. Of course a perfect correlation is impossible but this type of polling is never perfect.

If WWII vets were so concerned with unconstitutional power grabs, why did they allow gun legislation in 1968 and again in 1986 and again in 1994. What about the PATRIOT ACT? What about segregation and opposition to civil rights legislation in the 1960s?

Again you assume the goal is to take your guns from you. You are writing a self fulfilling prophecy should you absolutely refuse to give a little. If an extra background check is so ineffective and does nothing, where does your concern come from? You already must submit to a background check when buying from an FFL. Can you even supply a legal justification for your position?

If the supply of guns starts to dry up because nics checks stifle the supply, then criminals will meet that demand by stealing more guns or by any other means they can manage. Where there is a demand, someone is going to meet it. Drugs are a great example of this...they can't be obtained legally, so a criminal meets the supply by other means breaking countless laws and committing countless crimes in the process. Trying to dry up the supply of guns to criminals is just going to create a greater demand and GIVE an incentive for more crime to meet that demand. The supply of illegal weapons will go up as the supply of legally obtained firearms goes down.

Clean97GTI said:

1. You assume that a background check leads to widespread confiscation. How did you come by this knowledge? Why have background checks in operation for more than 20 years not lead to confiscation? Explain your logic.

2. No, background checks do not objectively prevent gun violence. They do assist in the enforcement of constitutionally sound law. Specifically the laws that disqualify certain people from owning firearms. Simple math tells us that further scrutiny of these transactions will stop more disqualified people from buying guns. This reduces (not eliminates) the number of guns held by disqualified people.

3. Can't be answered with the present data set however, in the past ten years, NICS checks have resulted in 700k denials for firearm purchases. People who should not be able to purchase a gun from an FFL were prevented from doing so.

4. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_1...9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/
This essentially says that 92% of Americans support background checks for firearm purchases. Given the number of gun owners and number of guns in our nations, it is a safe assumption that most gun owners favor the idea of background checks. Of course a perfect correlation is impossible but this type of polling is never perfect.

If WWII vets were so concerned with unconstitutional power grabs, why did they allow gun legislation in 1968 and again in 1986 and again in 1994. What about the PATRIOT ACT? What about segregation and opposition to civil rights legislation in the 1960s?

Again you assume the goal is to take your guns from you. You are writing a self fulfilling prophecy should you absolutely refuse to give a little. If an extra background check is so ineffective and does nothing, where does your concern come from? You already must submit to a background check when buying from an FFL. Can you even supply a legal justification for your position?

Click to expand...

Let me see the universal background proposals in their legal language.

I won't wait for your apology for calling me a dumb ass.

Having 100% NICS as others have pointed out would require registration of all firearms, otherwise it is an unworkable system. Here is an excellent review looking at legal application of such a system.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/universal-background-checks-likely-unenforceable/