You cannot gift a gun or even hand it off with Universal Background checks

Hanzo581 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I had guns at 12.
Was reloading 12g shells at 14.
So did most of the young men in my hometown.
Age verification isn't the point.
I have no issue with proof of age or US residency.

Its the unreasonable background search before excercising a god given right.

OC-Trainer said:

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.

Click to expand...

When I was in eighth grade in the '60s, I had a classmate who had a .32 INA Tiger revolver. He didn't buy it at Abercrombie & Fitch.

He later became a drug dealer. He didn't buy his product at Osco.

Apparently, one's no harder to obtain than the other.

Everything about the way you talk bespeaks a twelve year old boy, and tells me that you get your talking points from Shannon Watts and old AHSA emails.

Deanimator said:

What "process" should there be to buying a car, a cell phone, a knife or a gallon of gasoline?

Click to expand...

Yes, because those things are all so very similar.

I'll clarify my position. There should either be no background checks for any gun sales or all gun sales should require one. I'd prefer there be none, but that's not going to happen, so right now we're kind of in a half measure mode where only retail sales from FFLs require them (removing state reqs for simplicity).....it is illogical to require a check for one method of acquisition and not another. And since I can't have the "none" option, I'll go for all. But I would do it as a trade off, I'd back UBCs officially if they got rid of the ridiculous NFA. If you're legally allowed to own a gun, it shouldn't matter what configuration it is in.

Bad Ninja said:

I had guns at 12.
Was reloading 12g shells at 14.
So did most of the young men in my hometown.
Age verification isn't the point.
I have no issue with proof of age or US residency.

Its the unreasonable background search before excercising a god given right.

Click to expand...

So you are ok with infringement then? Why should I have to prove I'm 18/21 or that I am a citizen when I buy a gun? Sounds like guilty until proven innocent which was alluded to before. And the 2a doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms if you are 18 for long guns and 21 for pistols. Who made up these arbitrary age limitations on purchasing and why are you ok with them?

Hanzo581 said:

Yes, because those things are all so very similar.

I'll clarify my position. There should either be no background checks for any gun sales or all gun sales should require one. I'd prefer there be none, but that's not going to happen, so right now we're kind of in a half measure mode where only retail sales from FFLs require them (removing state reqs for simplicity).....it is illogical to require a check for one method of acquisition and not another. And since I can't have the "none" option, I'll go for all. But I would do it as a trade off, I'd back UBCs officially if they got rid of the ridiculous NFA. If you're legally allowed to own a gun, it shouldn't matter what configuration it is in.

Click to expand...

Indeed those things are very similar in that they are regularly used to kill, in fact in the last few weeks.

As we both know, the other side wants to BAN HANDGUNS and SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES, not make machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns and suppressors EASIER to get.

So that means unless those opposed to invidiously racist gun controls simply roll over, things are gong to stay right where they are, with background checks required for retail sales, and no backdoor registration and confiscation schemes masquerading as "universal background checks".

"But does it keep some guns out of the hands of some people that shouldn't have them, or at the very least inconvenience/delay them from acquiring them?"

The Maryland and New York Ballistic Fingerprint Databases of cartridge casings were defended because the additional expense and inconvenience kept some people from buying a handgun, even if the databases did not solve any crimes as promised by the proponents. And there is no indication that those people who were detered by additional inconvenience or expense were people who shouldn't own handguns. The proponents were just happy to impede people wanting to buy handguns. Period.

The Maryland State Police told the legislature that the database was not working and they could use the money for things that would work. The legislature would not listen. Eventually MSP started throwing the casings in a basement rather than scan and log them, and used MSP funds for programs that impacted crime. Eventually the legislatures had to admit the programs were useless and that the costs greatly exceeded the benefits. First New York then Maryland repealed them.

Weigh and compare costs and benefits of gun control aimed at the general public versus programs like David M. Kennedy's Don't Shoot aka Ceasefire that were credited with getting gangs to stop shooting in 70 cities that tried it.

My street experience since late about 1959, 1960 has been it has always been easier to buy a gun off the streets and off the books than buy one in a store. How much money does the current gun control systems cost? For what? It doesn't work, and the answer of course is we just didn't go far enough, we need to go further down the road in the wrong direction.

Hanzo581 said:

So you are ok with infringement then? Why should I have to prove I'm 18/21 or that I am a citizen when I buy a gun? Sounds like guilty until proven innocent which was alluded to before. And the 2a doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms if you are 18 for long guns and 21 for pistols. Who made up these arbitrary age limitations on purchasing and why are you ok with them?

Click to expand...

Age verification isn't a criminal background check.

The 4th amendment comes to mind.

So you agree with reinterpreting the constitution?

Hanzo581 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Personal information is 'supposed to be' secure in a place of business. It's not like handing it over to a stranger.

Do you not see the difference?

OC-Trainer said:

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?

Click to expand...

Thank you for your efforts in helping victims of abuse.

I am less sympathetic (less, not 'not at all'). I dont believe that people should remain in situations where they and their children are abused and remain victims. It especially bothers me when women allow this. I realize there are many psychological influences. And many reasons why it is 'hard' to leave, financially, as well.

I do understand those reasons...I know it's hard. It still has to be done, hard or not. There are many really hard choices we have to make in life, but we still have to make them.

And again, I dont believe the rest of us should be punished for the misdeeds of others. I believe in punishing criminals, not the law-abiding. Yes, it sounds simplistic but it's just a Reader's Digest version.

Bad Ninja said:

Age verification isn't a criminal background check.

The 4th amendment comes to mind.

So you agree with reinterpreting the constitution?

Click to expand...

My opinion that rights are not unlimited and gun laws are not unconstitutional isn't an unheard of opinion, see SCOTUS.

Deanimator said:

Indeed those things are very similar in that they are regularly used to kill, in fact in the last few weeks.

.

Click to expand...

The UK keeps banning more and more things: knives, pepper spray, other defensive tools...and it's not helping them. (I'm not including cars/trucks in that list tho)

9MMare said:

And again, I dont believe the rest of us should be punished for the misdeeds of others. I believe in punishing criminals, not the law-abiding. Yes, it sounds simplistic but it's just a Reader's Digest version.

Click to expand...

If you're into irony, consider this:

In 1996, Illinois was set to pass a bill making those convicted of domestic violence prohibited persons.

The bill was on the verge of literally flying through the Illinois legislature... until it was disclosed that police were NOT exempted.

The Chicago Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police went into shrill hysterics. It was as if Madonna, dressed in a leather bustier, had driven a herd of swine through the Dome of the Rock with a bottle of Jack Daniels in one hand and a burning Quran in the other.

The FOP went on National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" to make their three part "case". To whit:

1. You can't take the gun from a cop because he beats his wife because it's his "tool of the trade". Being NPR, nobody thought to ask if hitmen like Sammy "the Bull" Gravano got to make the same argument.
2. Taking the gun from an angry, violent cop will only make him MORE angry and violent. Again, nobody asked how being disarmed would affect John Gotti's mood.
3. You can trust a wife beating cop with a gun because he'll be "closely supervised"... just apparently not closely enough to keep him from beating his wife.

It was one of the most astonishingly bizarre stories I've ever heard on NPR, fully the equivalent of their interview of the "roving ambassador" of the Taliban in which he cited the "superiority" of Afghanistan under the Taliban to American society because "Afghan women don't have to dance naked in Las Vegas."

And that's the way of ALL gun control. There are ALWAYS "animals" more equal than the others. Hence the Chicago City Council BOTH banning handguns AND granting themselves the right to carry concealed handguns.

Deanimator said:

If you're into irony, consider this:

In 1996, Illinois was set to pass a bill making those convicted of domestic violence prohibited persons.

The bill was on the verge of literally flying through the Illinois legislature... until it was disclosed that police were NOT exempted.

Click to expand...

Wow. It's a totally wrong assumption too. Cops commit crimes, including violent ones.

Here in WA St., a divorced cop met his ex-wife in a parking lot to 'exchange' kids. He shot his wife in the head while his 2 kids were in the back seat, then shot himself. It's sad that I still remember his name, but that's the impact such a terrible act had on me.

Hanzo581 said:

My opinion that rights are not unlimited and gun laws are not unconstitutional isn't an unheard of opinion, see SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

It isn't my opinion, it's plainly unconstitutional, and SCOTUS hates hearing gun related cases for this very reason.

It's a political platform that infringes on good citizens rights.
It's a waste of taxpayer money and is used to cover up other failures of govermnment agencies like the ones that regularly release dangerous felons onto our streets.
You have to uproot the weed to get rid of it.
Oversight and accountability is lacking and good citizens keep paying for it.

Bad Ninja said:

It isn't my opinion, it's plainly unconstitutional, and SCOTUS hates hearing gun related cases for this very reason.

It's a political platform that infringes on good citizens rights.
It's a waste of taxpayer money and is used to cover up other failures of govermnment agencies like the ones that regularly release dangerous felons onto our streets.
You have to uproot the weed to get rid of it.
Oversight and accountability is lacking and good citizens keep paying for it.

Click to expand...

You can say your opinion is fact all you want, it doesn't change anything. The whole system is in place for interpretation, and even a Justice like Scalia agreed that there could absolutely be regulations and laws around firearm ownership. So "plainly unconstitutional" just doesn't hold up.

Hanzo581 said:

So "plainly unconstitutional" just doesn't hold up.

Click to expand...

Other things for which "plainly unconstitutional" just didn't hold up:

• Jim Crow
• anti-sodomy laws
• bans on gay marriage
• anti-miscegenation laws
• bans on contraception

When it comes to rights, some of us are headed in one direction, others trying to stop them, and still others headed in the opposite direction.

Those trying to limit the expansion of the rights of gun owners and those trying to remove those rights are on the same side.

Deanimator said:

Other things for which "plainly unconstitutional" just didn't hold up:

• Jim Crow
• anti-sodomy laws
• bans on gay marriage
• anti-miscegenation laws
• bans on contraception

When it comes to rights, some of us are headed in one direction, others trying to stop them, and still others headed in the opposite direction.

Those trying to limit the expansion of the rights of gun owners and those trying to remove those rights are on the same side.

Click to expand...

I love how you just ignore everything else I've said and just zero in on the one thing. I am all for expanding gun owner rights. Removal of NFA and implementation of Constitutional Carry for starters. If you are a legal gun owner the more freedom the better. But wanting a background check for all sales instead of just certain ones makes me the devil. So be it. As usual, we aren't going to see eye to eye here. I can't rationalize with someone that makes so many logic leaps. UBCs does not automatically mean it's the beginning of a nefarious plan to disarm all Americans. Sure there are people out there that want that, but 2/3rds of the nation do not support a firearm ban, so it won't be happening in our lifetime.

Hanzo581 said:

UBCs does not automatically mean it's the beginning of a nefarious plan to disarm all Americans. Sure there are people out there that want that, but 2/3rds of the nation do not support a firearm ban, so it won't be happening in our lifetime.

Click to expand...

Yes it does.

2/3rds of the nation don't draft and vote on legislation.

Do you think that Black people here conceived of and implemented slavery and Jim Crow?

Do you think that gays conceived of and implemented anti-sodomy laws?

And yet they came about.

Those things were ONLY eliminated because people fought them tooth and nail.

Tell me, what's the "compromise" between slavery and no slavery?

You guys have lost me.???

Hanzo581 said:

I love how you just ignore everything else I've said and just zero in on the one thing. I am all for expanding gun owner rights. Removal of NFA and implementation of Constitutional Carry for starters. If you are a legal gun owner the more freedom the better. But wanting a background check for all sales instead of just certain ones makes me the devil. So be it. As usual, we aren't going to see eye to eye here. I can't rationalize with someone that makes so many logic leaps. UBCs does not automatically mean it's the beginning of a nefarious plan to disarm all Americans. Sure there are people out there that want that, but 2/3rds of the nation do not support a firearm ban, so it won't be happening in our lifetime.

Click to expand...

The next step after UBC is background checks every time you buy ammo.
It is incremental infringement in order to condition you to comply.

Think it wont happen?
It's happening now.
Come to CA.

Jack B. said:

You guys have lost me.???

Click to expand...

Let me make this brutally simple:

Some "gun owners" (some actually AREN'T and are just trolls from the other side) want to "compromise" with the people who want to disarm us (nevermind the ones who explicitly say they want us dead, like this guy: http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...publicancongressmen-huntrepublicans-hashtags/ ).

Other gun owners have long ago learned the lesson that you can no more "compromise" with the anti-gun cult than Anne Frank could have "compromised" with Adolf Eichmann. They recognize that other side is maximalist and eliminationist (like the shoplifter referenced above) and will only countenance brief tactical pauses on the road to their ultimate goal of an absolute government (in their hands) monopoly on the means of armed force.

Sadly there are "gun owners" who think you can "compromise" between "resettlement to the east" and a refusal to surrender. Ultimately they're only trying to make sure they're the last oned on the train headed for Poland.

Frankly showing ID to buy a gun is OK. Fine. That's about it.

Bad Ninja said:

The next step after UBC is background checks every time you buy ammo.
It is incremental infringement in order to condition you to comply.

Think it wont happen?
It's happening now.
Come to CA.

Click to expand...

And after the inevitable failure of these infringements will come registration, which of course has NO purpose other than facilitation of future confiscation.

Bad Ninja said:

The next step after UBC is background checks every time you buy ammo.
It is incremental infringement in order to condition you to comply.

Think it wont happen?
It's happening now.
Come to CA.

Click to expand...

The problem with this logic is background checks are already in use. The vast majority of us have filled out countless 4473s. The sky hasn't fallen. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, it already exists.

Oops, my bad.