cropcirclewalker
member
I don't suffer "Useful Idiocy" well.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Should Private Transactions involve Background checks
- Thread starter High Planes Drifter
- Start date
- Status
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
You can always stay the hell out of this thread, that way you wont have to "suffer" anything. You could be starting your own thread right about now.
And for the record, where did I write that I was in favor of the background checks? I didnt.
And for the record, where did I write that I was in favor of the background checks? I didnt.
rbernie
Contributing Member
I didn't realize that the forum existed solely to support your personal use and wants.
Sorry.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
I wouldn't sell a gun to someone I don't personally know. In that regard, I suppose that a background check has already been conducted.
As such, I find the idea that one should be required to get the ok of a bureaucrat in an office somewhere to be a needlessly stupid waste of time and taxpayer money.
As such, I find the idea that one should be required to get the ok of a bureaucrat in an office somewhere to be a needlessly stupid waste of time and taxpayer money.
Manedwolf
member
Brady database when such a thing happens:
-------------------------------------
REQUEST has been made for check on John Smith, soc # 123-45.... (recorded)
REQUEST has been made for check on John Smith, soc # 123-45.... (recorded)
REQUEST has been made for check on John Smith, soc # 123-45.... (recorded)
DISPATCH BATFE to check on John Smith, three gun checks/one week flag
------------------------------------
Someone doesn't like someone? They call them in from payphones and prepaids all over and get them on a serious watch list.
Anonymous. Right.
whitebear
Member
Not just "No"...
but "H-E-Double Hockey Sticks NO!"
(In deference to Art's Grandma.)
but "H-E-Double Hockey Sticks NO!"
(In deference to Art's Grandma.)
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
A couple of years ago we gave a set of six steak knives to a nephew and his wife. Gifts like that are more or less traditional in our family. When Chinese cooking became popular decades ago, we bought a few really good Chinese cleavers as gifts for family and friends who were interested. The steak knives and cleavers could be used as weapons, although we certainly didn't intend them to be used that way and hadn't even considered the possibility. It probably wouldn't have been necessary to do background checks on my own family or our friends. In any case, we think we know them well enough to believe that they're qualified to own big, sharp knives. I have never seen--or heard credible accounts--that any of them ran around slashing people's throats.
From time to time since the 1950s I've sold a car privately instead of using it as a tradein for a new car. Although none of those cars were assault vehicles as such, when I think objectively about them I realize that each and every one of them would continue to move forward as long as the driver's foot is on the gas pedal: they did not require separate applications of the pedal for each inch of travel (although I now wonder if it might not be a good idea), but I suppose they could be considered semi-automatic vehicles because their propellant is stored in a magazine-like tank, readily available for repeated progress. Now, though, I really do think it would be a good idea to restrict high capacity gas tanks: nobody but the military or the police needs to have more than a gallon of gas at any time, and it's no big deal to get another gallon after the first has been exhausted. In any case, I never considered doing a background check when I sold a car to anyone.
The more I think about it, though, the more I think that the federal government should outlaw private sales of all vehicles, or at least regulate and restrict them so that we avoid selling cars to people who might misuse them. At the very least, and as a good first step, the government should require that all vehicle sales be transacted through a federally-licensed car dealer and that the dealer should do a NICS background check. The NICS database should be expanded to include every person's mental and physical history, because we don't want unstable people or those with physical disabilities owning such big, potential weapons. I'd like it if that database were linked to the cash registers of liquor stores, groceries, and pharmacies so that purchases of beer, wine, and other alcohol were instantly registered in the database, and so that any telltale medications were too. There should also be a way for people to report any hostile conversations that they overhear, because malcontents and quarreling spouses are likely to run amok and smash into other people. Diabetics, people with heart problems, and anyone else with a physical disability that might interfere with their control of a car should be barred from ever owning one, and a good registry would prevent it. I don't want to upset Pax again but it's clear that women should not be allowed to own or drive any vehicle: a determined attacker could take it away from her and use it against her or others.
If such people have a life-threatening emergency, help is available from 911. Members of minority groups tend to be unhappy, so they should be barred from owning vehicles that could be used for gang banging, cruising, and other anti-social activities. The restriction is not unfair because it could be lifted as soon as they prove that they are no longer a minority or that they have lifted themselves out of the restricted class by earning sufficient wealth or fame. We don't want vehicles in the hands of gang bangers or malcontents.
There's nothing wrong with requiring background checks before allowing the sale of any potentially dangerous instrument as long as those checks are applied to the sale of all potentially dangerous instruments. Otherwise they're more than a little crazy and seem like a symptom of their proponent's emotional problems and inability to perceive reality.
Next week I intend to advocate extension of this regulatory approach to computers and access to the Internet. I am sick of reading messages by hostile people and there are a great many other things I see that I just don't like. I want hard time in federal prison for the owner or designer of a web site that has yellow text on a black background.
Oh, wait. I have to be elected first or find a group of similarly-minded people so that we can pressure that legislation through. No problem. There probably are others who believe as I do, so we can start a campaign.
From time to time since the 1950s I've sold a car privately instead of using it as a tradein for a new car. Although none of those cars were assault vehicles as such, when I think objectively about them I realize that each and every one of them would continue to move forward as long as the driver's foot is on the gas pedal: they did not require separate applications of the pedal for each inch of travel (although I now wonder if it might not be a good idea), but I suppose they could be considered semi-automatic vehicles because their propellant is stored in a magazine-like tank, readily available for repeated progress. Now, though, I really do think it would be a good idea to restrict high capacity gas tanks: nobody but the military or the police needs to have more than a gallon of gas at any time, and it's no big deal to get another gallon after the first has been exhausted. In any case, I never considered doing a background check when I sold a car to anyone.
The more I think about it, though, the more I think that the federal government should outlaw private sales of all vehicles, or at least regulate and restrict them so that we avoid selling cars to people who might misuse them. At the very least, and as a good first step, the government should require that all vehicle sales be transacted through a federally-licensed car dealer and that the dealer should do a NICS background check. The NICS database should be expanded to include every person's mental and physical history, because we don't want unstable people or those with physical disabilities owning such big, potential weapons. I'd like it if that database were linked to the cash registers of liquor stores, groceries, and pharmacies so that purchases of beer, wine, and other alcohol were instantly registered in the database, and so that any telltale medications were too. There should also be a way for people to report any hostile conversations that they overhear, because malcontents and quarreling spouses are likely to run amok and smash into other people. Diabetics, people with heart problems, and anyone else with a physical disability that might interfere with their control of a car should be barred from ever owning one, and a good registry would prevent it. I don't want to upset Pax again but it's clear that women should not be allowed to own or drive any vehicle: a determined attacker could take it away from her and use it against her or others.
If such people have a life-threatening emergency, help is available from 911. Members of minority groups tend to be unhappy, so they should be barred from owning vehicles that could be used for gang banging, cruising, and other anti-social activities. The restriction is not unfair because it could be lifted as soon as they prove that they are no longer a minority or that they have lifted themselves out of the restricted class by earning sufficient wealth or fame. We don't want vehicles in the hands of gang bangers or malcontents.
There's nothing wrong with requiring background checks before allowing the sale of any potentially dangerous instrument as long as those checks are applied to the sale of all potentially dangerous instruments. Otherwise they're more than a little crazy and seem like a symptom of their proponent's emotional problems and inability to perceive reality.
Next week I intend to advocate extension of this regulatory approach to computers and access to the Internet. I am sick of reading messages by hostile people and there are a great many other things I see that I just don't like. I want hard time in federal prison for the owner or designer of a web site that has yellow text on a black background.
Oh, wait. I have to be elected first or find a group of similarly-minded people so that we can pressure that legislation through. No problem. There probably are others who believe as I do, so we can start a campaign.
cropcirclewalker
member
I am sorta torn between two questions.
1) Should Duck Hunters be required by law to wear clown shoes over their waders?
2) Should Upland Bird Hunters be required by law to wear Jodphers and Bow ties?
I am pretty confident that I could get 5 or 6 of us to vote yes.
O'Course the Mods would lock it first because it would be asking a stupid question and wasting band width.
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
Mr. Hairless, you think like I do.
That should scare you.
That should scare you.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
I am sorta torn between two questions.
1) Should Duck Hunters be required by law to wear clown shoes over their waders?
2) Should Upland Bird Hunters be required by law to wear Jodphers and Bow ties?
-------------------------------
I couldnt answer either one of those qustions. I dont hunt birds. Im gathering that you believe I am in favor of mandatory background checks across the board; am I right on this one? Nope. I'm not. But let me see if I've got it straight; scince I asked the original question "who believes that background checks should be private sales" you assume I am in favor of them? Then attack me and imply that Im an idiot. Is that how it works?
----------------------------
O'Course the Mods would lock it first because it would be asking a stupid question and wasting band width.
-------------------------
You're High Road thru and thru.
1) Should Duck Hunters be required by law to wear clown shoes over their waders?
2) Should Upland Bird Hunters be required by law to wear Jodphers and Bow ties?
-------------------------------
I couldnt answer either one of those qustions. I dont hunt birds. Im gathering that you believe I am in favor of mandatory background checks across the board; am I right on this one? Nope. I'm not. But let me see if I've got it straight; scince I asked the original question "who believes that background checks should be private sales" you assume I am in favor of them? Then attack me and imply that Im an idiot. Is that how it works?
----------------------------
O'Course the Mods would lock it first because it would be asking a stupid question and wasting band width.
-------------------------
You're High Road thru and thru.
If your sell a gun to an non family member my advice is to CYA and deal with a FFL who will do a back ground check for you. If your passing a gun down to a relative, you should already know if your son, parent, nephew, is a felon or not.
You guys are not recommending that it should be OK to privately sell a firearm to a known felon? That just crazy.
You guys are not recommending that it should be OK to privately sell a firearm to a known felon? That just crazy.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
FFLs shouldn't even be. Requiring someone to acquire a license to buy and sell arms is unconstitutional as well.
Woody
A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Followup To My Last Post:
Anyone who cannot be trusted with a gun should either be in prison, institutionalized, turned back at the border, or under full time guardianship(such as parents).
Woody
We the People retain our weapons to the end of securing our rights and freedom for when governments fail or ignore or endeavor to usurp or delete those rights and freedoms. B.E.Wood
Anyone who cannot be trusted with a gun should either be in prison, institutionalized, turned back at the border, or under full time guardianship(such as parents).
Woody
We the People retain our weapons to the end of securing our rights and freedom for when governments fail or ignore or endeavor to usurp or delete those rights and freedoms. B.E.Wood
cosine
Member
rbernie said:
No.
cropcirclewalker
member
Ok, there. It's happened. What I suspected. This string belongs on a Brady Bunch web site.
I am leaning toward the clown shoes. The jodphers are a style issue, while the clown shoes are a safety issue.
It's for the children.
rbernie
Contributing Member
I do not personally disagree.
I was simply asking the logical extrapolation of the original posters question, to make sure that the responses are evaluated in the proper light.
I find that response offensive. If we cannot in this forum engage in civil debate amongst ourselves (and by virtue of that likely strengthen our own position) - where can we do it? How will you educate if you insist upon group silence on these issues?
We are *not* all of one mind, because each of us comes from different places with different experiences and learnings. If you're not willing to debate, educate, and learn - to contribute to the strength of the group - why are you even here?
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
I dont think I could have put it any better my self rbernie.
dixierifleman
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2007
- Messages
- 124
i dont think they should be required. but the choices are biased. theres no middle to it.
while they shouldnt be required by law, i think responsible sellers should get info on the buyer and keep info on the gun. that way, if its traced to you in a crime, you have the info for the police.
while they shouldnt be required by law, i think responsible sellers should get info on the buyer and keep info on the gun. that way, if its traced to you in a crime, you have the info for the police.
cropcirclewalker
member
I have been subtleey trying to imply that I find this whole string offensive.
So, now wer'e both offended.
Which do you prefer, the clown shoes or the jodpher poll?
Manedwolf
member
However, your right to express different views infringes on my rights if you go out and support, by your vote, politicians that will enact such measures and take away MY rights.
You can debate as much as you wish, it's when your views are used to create rules that impact our 2A rights that things get ugly.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Agreed. But I've already established that they're not my personal views. I'm just not scared to talk about it, to engage in back-and-forth debate to bring out the pros and cons of each perspective.
There is always something to be gained in exploring the strengths and weaknesses of a position.
No, there has been no subtlety to your contributions.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
You can debate as much as you wish, it's when your views are used to create rules that impact our 2A rights that things get ugly.
-------------------------
And the cost of keeping silent? I dont think keeping silent has done much good for 2A either. I think its good to debate these types of things, and if the members here would stay High Road, and not put up immature posts (involving clown shoes), readers/lurkers may get something out of it. Who knows, a few minds may be changed.
-------------------------
And the cost of keeping silent? I dont think keeping silent has done much good for 2A either. I think its good to debate these types of things, and if the members here would stay High Road, and not put up immature posts (involving clown shoes), readers/lurkers may get something out of it. Who knows, a few minds may be changed.
Turkey Creek
Member
I'm one of the few yes votes that many of you have been labeling as anything from a flaming liberal to assorted other nasties- Liberal would be the last thing anyone would call to me if they knew me, but I really could not care less what any of you think of me, so that's not the issue
Ok, why did I vote yes- Purely self defense- You sell a weapon to even someone you "know"- Are you sure you really know anyone?- Say on the off chance this known individual has a record that precludes him or her from owning a firearm, unbeknown to you- Then this person is either caught with it, or worse yet, commits a crime with it- Any doubt that your butt is in a sling and how costly this could be to you?- At the very least, it's possible you could kiss the rest of your firearms goodby- Yes theoretically you have acted according to present laws- But for the millionth time I wll repeat my mantra, the law is whatever some idiot in a black robe says it is!- If the authorities decide to make an example or test case out of you and you get the wrong judge, you're in deep doodoo!
In our litigious society, I have no doubt that a victim of an offense by "the known friend" with the weapon I sold him is coming after me- Say sayonara to some bucks defending yourself at best, and be prepared for bankruptcy at worse-
Is this very likely to happen?- Probably not, but the key word is "probably"- I choose not to take the chance-
Others have likened selling a weapon to selling a car or other item- The above possibilities are not the same with the these versus the firearm just because of the view of courts and society- Firearms are more susceptible to adverse results in the courts, everything else being equal, just because they are perceived completely differently-
I sell very few guns but those that I have sold have all been after the buyer has been cleared by the Feds- If the buyer didn't like it he was shown the door- It's called CYA!- This is the way I do it and obviously others choose differently- The way I see it, $20 is cheap insurance against what it's possible to loose- I wish it wasn't this way but it is- I guess I should have voted no because I wish the above potential liabilities weren't the case, but the risks at least for me are too large not to be safe
Ok, why did I vote yes- Purely self defense- You sell a weapon to even someone you "know"- Are you sure you really know anyone?- Say on the off chance this known individual has a record that precludes him or her from owning a firearm, unbeknown to you- Then this person is either caught with it, or worse yet, commits a crime with it- Any doubt that your butt is in a sling and how costly this could be to you?- At the very least, it's possible you could kiss the rest of your firearms goodby- Yes theoretically you have acted according to present laws- But for the millionth time I wll repeat my mantra, the law is whatever some idiot in a black robe says it is!- If the authorities decide to make an example or test case out of you and you get the wrong judge, you're in deep doodoo!
In our litigious society, I have no doubt that a victim of an offense by "the known friend" with the weapon I sold him is coming after me- Say sayonara to some bucks defending yourself at best, and be prepared for bankruptcy at worse-
Is this very likely to happen?- Probably not, but the key word is "probably"- I choose not to take the chance-
Others have likened selling a weapon to selling a car or other item- The above possibilities are not the same with the these versus the firearm just because of the view of courts and society- Firearms are more susceptible to adverse results in the courts, everything else being equal, just because they are perceived completely differently-
I sell very few guns but those that I have sold have all been after the buyer has been cleared by the Feds- If the buyer didn't like it he was shown the door- It's called CYA!- This is the way I do it and obviously others choose differently- The way I see it, $20 is cheap insurance against what it's possible to loose- I wish it wasn't this way but it is- I guess I should have voted no because I wish the above potential liabilities weren't the case, but the risks at least for me are too large not to be safe
Manedwolf
member
I don't depend on Big Government to cover my own posterior, sorry.
Well, you're not an old-fashioned conservative or even libertarian, for sure, or your opinion would be something like mine of "If I think it's a problem, I just won't sell guns to anyone I don't know, I don't need the Government to handle this for me so the Government doesn't come after me for not using the Government to check it for me."
You are literally saying that you should depend on the government to protect you from government penalties. Two words, there, in the battle for your mind. THEY WON.
- Status
