Bad Ninja
Member
Do you consider it infringement to prove your innocence every time you buy a gun?
I do.
You cannot gift a gun or even hand it off with Universal Background checks
- Thread starter Tirod
- Start date
- Status
Do you consider it infringement to prove your innocence every time you buy a gun?
I do.
Carl N. Brown
Member
According to DoJ Bureau of Justice Statistics surveys of firearm using offenders (inmates serving time for crimes where they carried or used a gun), less than 12 percent acquired guns through retail sources. Of the 88% non-retail sources, take the 25% drug dealer/street sale: will UBC apply to those?
There are about 400,000 gun crime per year (many commited by repeat offenders). There are 65,000,000 gun owners most of whom don't commit crimes. Should we cast a wide dragnet over all gun owners, or should we focus resources on gun criminals? There is more in common between people who commit gun violence and people who commit non-gun violence than there is between people who commit gun violence and the vast majority of the people who own guns. The national obsession should not be gun violence but criminal violence. Criminals should feel under siege, not gun owners.
Virginia State Police run NICS checks at Virginia gun shows for $5. Universal Background Checks running $55 are simply designed to function as a sin tax, a restriction and not as a regulation. 90% support for background checks does not equal 90% support for UBC.
2006 Home Office Research Study 298, Gun Crime: The market in and use of illegal firearms interviewed British prisoners who used guns; they told the interviewers that if they wanted a gun, they expected to be able to acquire a gun from a street source within a week of release from prison. That was almost ten years after the British ban on legal handguns and mandatory turn-in of registered handguns.
I grew up in a poor working class neighborhood and between 1953 and 1968 we had local option prohibition. Bootlegging was rampant. And bootleggers often dealt in guns and other contraband on the side. During national prohibition, H.L. Mencken wrote an article about the "uplifters" promoting a similar prohibition on handguns. I am inclined to agree with Edgar Allan Poe: "Your reformist demigods are devils turned inside out."
There are about 400,000 gun crime per year (many commited by repeat offenders). There are 65,000,000 gun owners most of whom don't commit crimes. Should we cast a wide dragnet over all gun owners, or should we focus resources on gun criminals? There is more in common between people who commit gun violence and people who commit non-gun violence than there is between people who commit gun violence and the vast majority of the people who own guns. The national obsession should not be gun violence but criminal violence. Criminals should feel under siege, not gun owners.
Virginia State Police run NICS checks at Virginia gun shows for $5. Universal Background Checks running $55 are simply designed to function as a sin tax, a restriction and not as a regulation. 90% support for background checks does not equal 90% support for UBC.
2006 Home Office Research Study 298, Gun Crime: The market in and use of illegal firearms interviewed British prisoners who used guns; they told the interviewers that if they wanted a gun, they expected to be able to acquire a gun from a street source within a week of release from prison. That was almost ten years after the British ban on legal handguns and mandatory turn-in of registered handguns.
I grew up in a poor working class neighborhood and between 1953 and 1968 we had local option prohibition. Bootlegging was rampant. And bootleggers often dealt in guns and other contraband on the side. During national prohibition, H.L. Mencken wrote an article about the "uplifters" promoting a similar prohibition on handguns. I am inclined to agree with Edgar Allan Poe: "Your reformist demigods are devils turned inside out."
Last edited:
Hanzo581
Member
That's a nice twist of words. You aren't proving "innocence", you're merely proving you aren't a prohibited person, you can still be a terrible person and buy a gun, you just can't be a felon, fugitive from justice, domestic abuser drug addict etc. You'd be surprised how many do in fact answer those questions honestly and get denied. I guess it really comes down to a simple question, do you believe rights are unlimited? I don't believe they are.
Onto how criminals get their guns, stolen guns are huge, but straw purchases are right up there as well. Lying on your 4473 and saying you're the actual buyer when you aren't (or lying about anything really) is an additional infraction that can be added, whether that's pursued is an issue with our justice system.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
You should believe them, you should examine every price of legislation they propose with that in mind. The true anti's ultimate goal is complete disarmament.
But you shouldn't go around saying stuff like "if UBC passes your wife want be able to use your gun!!!!!"
Because when they auctually draft a law and it (possibly) has a provision in it to allow family members to use your guns. You just look foolish therefore people don't pay you any attention. You've ruined your own credibility by spouting off assumptions that turned out to be wrong.
Simple, basic questions that provoke critical thinking can easily destroy almost any argument supporting UBC.
Deanimator
Member
Funny then isn't it how the Obama administration, FOR EIGHT YEARS, virtually REFUSED to prosecute prohibited persons who lied on 4473s, and FORCED FFLS to sell to KNOWN straw purchasers?
Invidiously racist gun controls are like aerial bombing. The one who gets the most tonnage is usually the REAL enemy. The fact that ALL of the Obama administration's (and that of its surrogates) attention was devoted to curtailing lawful gun ownership instead of prosecuting violators of invidiously racist gun control laws is only surprising if you're astonished by the fact that the 8th Air Force dropped more bombs on Berlin than London...
9MMare
Member
They passed something similar here in WA St and the excuse they used was to prevent domestic abusers from keeping/getting guns.
How does it stop anyone from illegally procuring a gun? It doesnt. If the POS abusing a partner will do that, if they want to kill them they will. It's just another excuse, as the OP states, to try and make access to gun harder...which it ONLY does for the law abiding.
How does it stop anyone from illegally procuring a gun? It doesnt. If the POS abusing a partner will do that, if they want to kill them they will. It's just another excuse, as the OP states, to try and make access to gun harder...which it ONLY does for the law abiding.
9MMare
Member
How do you know? I'll agree it may delay or inconvenience them but stopping them?
And why should *I* be inconvenienced by having to pay for a personal background check (as a seller or buyer)? Why should the law abiding be punished here? Not to mention the access it gives sometimes complete strangers to a person's very personal information? As a landlord, I dont even feel comfortable asking for that info from prospective tenants (alto I do).
OC-Trainer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 567
I would like more information on this statement please. Can you explain this?
Deanimator
Member
If a guy is running around slashing people with a knife and screaming "Allahu akhbar!", he MIGHT be an Episcopalian. But that's not what history and recent experience tells us to expect.
If somebody proposes [invidiously racist] "gun control" or "gun safety", you will NEVER go far wrong by assuming malice. Sometimes the endeavor is itself fundamental proof of its own evil intent. Nobody would look for the "benign intent" of a law mandating "White" and "Colored" water fountains, or a law requiring Jews to wear yellow Stars of David. I similarly don't delude myself regarding the motivations of those pushing "universal background checks".
I wasn't born yesterday, so there's no need to wonder what TIME yesterday.
Deanimator
Member
They SHOULDN'T... if you believe that the law abiding AREN'T the enemy. However if you think they ARE...
9MMare
Member
Which statement?
OC-Trainer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 567
All of it. How domestic violence is either positively of negatively impacted by your claims.
9MMare
Member
Which claim?
Hanzo581
Member
I already posted the statistics, people are being denied by NICS, now does that mean they stop there and don't try alternate means? Some may, some may not. It's all speculation. As far as providing your "very personal information", what is on a 4473 that is so personal? SS number isn't even required.
And when you say paying for the check, what exactly do you mean? How much is a check in WA? It's $2 here. If you're buying a gun from a store they aren't charging you a transfer fee, so assuming you meant when you privately sell a gun yes, you'd have to pay the shop to process the transfer, just like if you were buying online.
9MMare
Member
Things like place of birth, birth date, even address, all expose a person to ID theft. They are security questions used to check ID all the time for credit cards, medical info, etc. And who says I want a stranger knowing where I live? Do I have to give that to store clerks when I make purchases? I'm a single female.
And you didnt answer me...why should I have to pay ANYTHING extra (as a seller or buyer)? That punishes the law abiding...why pay more when you have options not to?
OC-Trainer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 567
You seem to imply that a domestic violence background check doesn't make a difference at all in relation to the topic at hand.
What information can you provide that supports that?
OilyPablo
Member
The claims were made by the antifreedom crowd. The law would "stop domestic violence". It hasn't of course. They WILL try a mag cap limit and AR ban here next. The people ARE that stupid.
9MMare
Member
I use the culmination of information on people who are not legally allowed to own guns and/or people who illegally buy guns who commit crimes with guns anyway to form my opinion. Added to the fact that someone committing assault on another person is already proven willing to break the law....this also influences my opinion.
OC-Trainer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 567
Well, as someone who has worked with domestic violence groups at various times, I can tell you that I'm glad the check is on there. Will it stop all domestic violence? Of course, not. But what's wrong with making it harder for those scumbags?
Also, people really need to learn how hard and dangerous (among other things) it is to buy and illegal gun.
Bad Ninja
Member
Its not a matter of "belief".
Our rights are not "bestowed" by our government and are not held on faith.
They are "endowed by our creator".
"Shall not be infringed."
I do not believe these words are to be arbitrarily interpreted, to make up for a politicized correctional system that apparantly releases dangerous felons.
Someone obviously isnt doing their job, and everyone else gets to pay for it.
I do not believe in sacrificing freedom for security.
Not one inch.
It does not work. It never has.
It's a false narrative used to force an agenda of control, and only forces good people to be subjected to an unreasonable background search for simply excercising a constitutional right.
Hanzo581
Member
I can't relate, there are tons of things I show ID for pretty much daily so I never really put much thought into it. All of the info you listed is easily found online.
So, to you, there should be no process to buying a gun. Just walk into the store, pay your cash and walk out? How about if I look 15, should I be asked for ID then? If that's your position that's fine, I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.
Deanimator
Member
About as "hard and dangerous" as buying opioids...
Deanimator
Member
What "process" should there be to buying a car, a cell phone, a knife or a gallon of gasoline?
OC-Trainer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 567
Right. For tough guys like you, maybe. Something about the way you talk though, tells me you can't handle yourself without a firearm.
But that's a topic for another day.
Last edited:
Deanimator
Member
Many years ago, I learned that some people simply don't believe in freedom, and that they intentionally conflate total control with "security".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
