Universal Background Check for purchasing a gun

[Hal9000_]

I know, you are hero in your own mentally deranged mind.

And you still can't stick to the topic at hand. Universal background checks. Which falls in line with a national vaccination database. Talk about unhinged.

EVERYONE MUST BE ON THE LISTS!!!

 

[adrina]

This thread is about universal background checks.

The argument was that criminals don't care about laws so why bother.

So, again, if criminals don't follow laws why bother having any?

Calling me names, pointing out traffic fatality statistics, shifting the argument to gun bans etc will not address this one bit of logic.

One more time, if criminals don't care about laws why bother having any?

 

[icanhelp1]

If you can get a licence and own it, it's not banned.

I agree that if you can get a license to own it it's not a ban. I was referring to NFA 73RD CONGRESS, STAT 1236 which most articles refer 1236 as a ban. Living in MA, and having to live with the strictest gun laws on the planet I was shocked by my research that 39 states don't require a license at all to own a firearm. I was also quite surprised that the assault weapons ban of 1986 sunsetted after 10 years. Today's laws are quite ambiguous at best. I guess that means that M-16s and AK-47s are not federally banned but rather strictly regulated. With the procurement of an FFL/SOT class 3 and the heavy hand of the ATF, all is cool. Getting there is at best a cumbersome ordeal as well as very expensive and the weapon was manufactured before May 19 1986. So I stand corrected. MA residents are at the mercy of our chiefs of police.

 

[KeithD]

And you still can't stick to the topic at hand. Universal background checks. Which falls in line with a national vaccination database. Talk about unhinged.

EVERYONE MUST BE ON THE LISTS!!!

You provided the topic I responded to.

 

[HisArpy]

This thread is about universal background checks.

The argument was that criminals don't care about laws so why bother.

So, again, if criminals don't follow laws why bother having any?

Calling me names, pointing out traffic fatality statistics, shifting the argument to gun bans etc will not address this one bit of logic.

One more time, if criminals don't care about laws why bother having any?

Okay, let's limit it to JUST that.

Laws exist because society has to have some sort of order. Laws are there to separate those who are willing to live under the constraints of "ordered liberty" from those who are not as willing.

 

[icanhelp1]

So why register vehicles or have insurance?

You tried to answer while being a fuckhead. Just answer the question and drop the attitude.

If criminals ignore laws, why have any?

So we know they're criminals when they break the law and punish them.

 

[adrina]

Okay, let's limit it to JUST that.

Laws exist because society has to have some sort of order. Laws are there to separate those who are willing to live under the constraints of "ordered liberty" from those who are not as willing.

So we know they're criminals when they break the law and punish them.

So if we accept these suppositions as true, does it make any sense (ever) to say "why bother, criminals don't care" in regards to any potential laws/regulations? Regardless of subject.

 

[Hal9000_]

The argument was that criminals don't care about laws so why bother.

Actually I simply made an observation. No argument against all laws was implied:

The thread is about background checks. Not "assault" weapons. Whatever those are. How are "universal background checks" different than the checks in place now? "Brady Bill" comes to mind.

As usual, you think criminals care about laws. And crazy people will not be able to have access to weapons because of your rules.

How's that philosophy working out with illegal drugs?

I even specified the Brady Bill as an example of existing laws.

 

[adrina]

Actually I simply made an observation. No argument against all laws was implied:



I even specified the Brady Bill as an example of existing laws.

You're not the only one who has brought this line of logic into play. It's a common go to whenever we have one of these events. From citizens, community leaders, lawmakers. Every single time.

And it makes no damn sense given the purpose of laws.

 

[icanhelp1]

Question for the criminals don't care crowd.... then why have laws for anything? Why have laws against murder, rape, theft? Why have regulations for driving or insurance? Why have any laws or regulations at all if we are using the logic "criminals don't care"?

Criminals are criminals because they don't follow the law, and if you don't follow the law then you get something taken away from you, money, time, property. Then the next time you'll find it much easier to abide by the law.

 

[HisArpy]

I agree that if you can get a license to own it it's not a ban. I was referring to NFA 73RD CONGRESS, STAT 1236 which most articles refer 1236 as a ban. Living in MA, and having to live with the strictest gun laws on the planet I was shocked by my research that 39 states don't require a license at all to own a firearm. I was also quite surprised that the assault weapons ban of 1986 sunsetted after 10 years. Today's laws are quite ambiguous at best. I guess that means that M-16s and AK-47s are not federally banned but rather strictly regulated. With the procurement of an FFL/SOT class 3 and the heavy hand of the ATF, all is cool. Getting there is at best a cumbersome ordeal as well as very expensive and the weapon was manufactured before May 19 1986. So I stand corrected. MA residents are at the mercy of our chiefs of police.

M16's are "full automatic" and you have to have a license to own one. It is also illegal to manufacture one without special permission from the government for exclusive military use and sales.

AK's, AR's, and other rifles classified by the ignorant as "assault weapons" are not "strictly regulated" except in a few Bright Blue States. You can even buy them as raw blanks and make your own if you do the machining yourself. No serial # required.

Except, of course, in California where even having a chunk of aluminum and a milling machine means you have an unserialized / unregistered "assault weapon" and you're a felon who needs locked up for the rest of your life.

To show you how ridiculous the whole notion of "having an unfinished assault weapon" in your garage is; did you know you can make an "assault weapon" from a shovel?

https://www.northeastshooters.com/xen/threads/diy-shovel-ak-photo-tsunami-warning.179192/

In California, that guy would be in prison by the time he finished buying the shovel.

And you only THINK you live in a state with draconian gun laws. In California you have to have a background check just to buy ammo. Oh yeah, plus proof that you're a California resident (real ID anyone?) And then pay extra for the privilege.

 

[icanhelp1]

So if we accept these suppositions as true, does it make any sense (ever) to say "why bother, criminals don't care" in regards to any potential laws/regulations? Regardless of subject.

I guess you could use your very argument as to enforcing immigration laws.

 

[HisArpy]

So if we accept these suppositions as true, does it make any sense (ever) to say "why bother, criminals don't care" in regards to any potential laws/regulations? Regardless of subject.

Ah, so you're being disingenuous now?

 

[Que]

So if we accept these suppositions as true, does it make any sense (ever) to say "why bother, criminals don't care" in regards to any potential laws/regulations? Regardless of subject.

That's a really poor analogy. We're talking about laws that only affect the law-abiding that when the law-abiding are being law-abiding they're not doing anything wrong. A law-abiding person with a firearm is not going to suddenly become a person with a propensity for killing other human beings, because he has a firearm.

Not having immediate possession of a firearm doesn't convert a murderous scum bag into a law-abiding person.

A person with a gun using it defensively is harming no one undeserving of harm, and benefiting Society by his presence. Criminals when interviewed have indicated that the presence or even suspected presence of a firearm was their number one deterrent to any sort of crime. They think twice when they think you're armed.

Nothing about a law-abiding person carrying a firearm for lawful purposes can or ought to be illegal.

This is more like the argument for weed legalization. Somebody smoking weed isn't harming anyone but arguably themselves. In which case why is it society's business. On top of that but not exclusively for that reason criminals are going to get weed regardless so you're just keeping law-abiding people from getting weed. Which arguably is a silly thing for law enforcement to concern themselves with.

Nothing about any law that you can possibly think of even if we had a time machine and could go back and remove all the guns on the planet and start over with some great gun registration and limitations and requirements and so forth is going to change how criminals actually acquire guns and use them.

 

[BotanyBoy]

MA residents are at the mercy of our chiefs of police.

And that sucks....too bad the people of MA have turned their back on individual liberty.

So if we accept these suppositions as true, does it make any sense (ever) to say "why bother, criminals don't care" in regards to any potential laws/regulations? Regardless of subject.

Depends on the law being proposed, is it pro-active or re-active??

If it's pro-active maybe, if it's re-active no.

You're not the only one who has brought this line of logic into play. It's a common go to whenever we have one of these events. From citizens, community leaders, lawmakers. Every single time.

And it makes no damn sense given the purpose of laws.

Again, that depends on the laws.

Background checks.....do you think background checks are going to stop criminals from arming themselves??

 

[adrina]

I guess you could use your very argument as to enforcing immigration laws.

You are very good at assumptions. Could you please point to where I've said otherwise?

This seems rather random.

Ah, so you're being disingenuous now?

No. I'm being sincere.

If you just want to be an asshole and talk smack I'll leave you to it.

That's a really poor analogy. We're talking about laws that only affect the law-abiding that when the law-abiding are being law-abiding they're not doing anything wrong. A law-abiding person with a firearm is not going to suddenly become a person with a propensity for killing other human beings, because he has a firearm.

Not having immediate possession of a firearm doesn't convert a murderous scum bag into a law-abiding person.

A person with a gun using it defensively is harming no one undeserving of harm, and benefiting Society by his presence. Criminals when interviewed have indicated that the presence or even suspected presence of a firearm was their number one deterrent to any sort of crime. They think twice when they think you're armed.

Nothing about a law-abiding person carrying a firearm for lawful purposes can or ought to be illegal.

This is more like the argument for weed legalization. Somebody smoking weed isn't harming anyone but arguably themselves. In which case why is it society's business. On top of that but not exclusively for that reason criminals are going to get weed regardless so you're just keeping law-abiding people from getting weed. Which arguably is a silly thing for law enforcement to concern themselves with.

Nothing about any law that you can possibly think of even if we had a time machine and could go back and remove all the guns on the planet and start over with some great gun registration and limitations and requirements and so forth is going to change how criminals actually acquire guns and use them.

So then laws only apply to people who do not break them?


Everyone is so defensive about this. We can't even explore ideas apparently.

 

[Adre]

That's fine.

But, what about the irrational ones? You know, the ones who take a gun and go shoot up a Walmart.

Or are you saying they're "rational" too?

I was merely responding and taking exception to your statement that laws were only for punishment.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So then laws only apply to people who do not break them?

Pretty much, especially with regard to background checks.

 

[icanhelp1]

You're not the only one who has brought this line of logic into play. It's a common go to whenever we have one of these events. From citizens, community leaders, lawmakers. Every single time.

And it makes no damn sense given the purpose of laws.

We have 50 states each with their own demographics and land area. Laws designed for heavily populated states don't work for states less populated and with vast areas. In Idaho and Montana having a firearm is your only mechanism for self defense. Cops could be hours away. Hunting in such a vast area requires a high powered rifle where in some smaller and more populated states rifles are illegal. States are left to their own to establish what guns laws are appropriate for its citizens. Universal background checks are a feel good remedy that has it's good points but will not eliminate these mass shootings. In many cases these weapons were legally purchased and laws on the books would not have made a difference. What the problem is and is getting worst by the minute and that is the breakdown of the family unit and exposing our children to unchecked media platforms. We can never take back the internet, just look at the hate on LIT. Today's path forward is carry concealed with proper training and an acute awareness of your surroundings in a soft target environment, know your entrances and exits and have a plan. There are no laws that will change what's happening today. We have a hard time keeping track of our legal citizens,so, it should make you feel real comfortable at the millions that are here, you know, the ones we don't know about, no background check or any info. Terrorist look at these mass shootings and I believe a well orchestrated multiple event is inevitable. Be aware of your surroundings. Just my humble opinion.

 

[icanhelp1]

And that sucks....too bad the people of MA have turned their back on individual liberty.



Depends on the law being proposed, is it pro-active or re-active??

If it's pro-active maybe, if it's re-active no.



Again, that depends on the laws.

Background checks.....do you think background checks are going to stop criminals from arming themselves??

MA is so fucking blue, we're outvoted by these lunes all the time.

 

[Que]

M16's are "full automatic" and you have to have a license to own one. It is also illegal to manufacture one without special permission from the government for exclusive military use and sales.

AK's, AR's, and other rifles classified by the ignorant as "assault weapons" are not "strictly regulated" except in a few Bright Blue States. You can even buy them as raw blanks and make your own if you do the machining yourself. No serial # required.

Except, of course, in California where even having a chunk of aluminum and a milling machine means you have an unserialized / unregistered "assault weapon" and you're a felon who needs locked up for the rest of your life.

To show you how ridiculous the whole notion of "having an unfinished assault weapon" in your garage is; did you know you can make an "assault weapon" from a shovel?

https://www.northeastshooters.com/xen/threads/diy-shovel-ak-photo-tsunami-warning.179192/

In California, that guy would be in prison by the time he finished buying the shovel.

And you only THINK you live in a state with draconian gun laws. In California you have to have a background check just to buy ammo. Oh yeah, plus proof that you're a California resident (real ID anyone?) And then pay extra for the privilege.

That build together with the write up was, no doubt, the best use of the interwebs I will read this week.

 

[icanhelp1]

You are very good at assumptions. Could you please point to where I've said otherwise?

This seems rather random.



No. I'm being sincere.

If you just want to be an asshole and talk smack I'll leave you to it.



So then laws only apply to people who do not break them?


Everyone is so defensive about this. We can't even explore ideas apparently.

Application of the law is for all. Abiding by the law is for all, what's your point? To disobey a law doesn't make the law irrelevant.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

There already is a background check.

Banning crazy people is the answer.

If all guns went away tomorrow, crazy people would still find ways to mass murder.

You can pass whatever legislation you want, and create hoops for law abiding citizens to jump through to exercise their Constitutional rights. Such will have zero impact on the guns I own, or the guns my neighbors own, or the 300 million other guns already out there.

These mass shootings are horrible, and I wish I knew how to stop them. But the fact is, gun violence is going down, not up. You have a far greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver than an asshole that wants to get on the news by going on a shooting spree.

Universal background checks are not "hoops for law abiding citizens to jump through to exercise their Constitutional rights".

The impact on the guns you own, or the guns your neighbors own, or the 300 million other guns already out there is that they cannot change hands without a record of the buyer and the seller, or else.

The bet is that you, your neighbors, or the owners of the 300 million other guns already out there aren't going to shoot garlic lovers, Walmart goers or country music fans because if you were you would have already.

With crackers pulling the triggers in the heartland, cops pulling triggers all over the country and these city dwellers creating a market for straw man gun sales making it so bad out there, to keep the peace we need to all agree that any transfer of ownership from here on out needs to be recorded.

It needs to be recorded so that the buyer is not a buyer that violates the Gun Control Act of 1968, under any circumstances, and that requires a background check to determine.

My understanding is that almost all the guns used to kill people or stick them up in Massachusetts last year were bought in Maine, for example, so that is why it needs to be Federal.

 

[bellisarius]

Universal background checks are not "hoops for law abiding citizens to jump through to exercise their Constitutional rights".

The impact on the guns you own, or the guns your neighbors own, or the 300 million other guns already out there is that they cannot change hands without a record of the buyer and the seller, or else.

The bet is that you, your neighbors, or the owners of the 300 million other guns already out there aren't going to shoot garlic lovers, Walmart goers or country music fans because if you were you would have already.

With crackers pulling the triggers in the heartland, cops pulling triggers all over the country and these city dwellers creating a market for straw man gun sales making it so bad out there, to keep the peace we need to all agree that any transfer of ownership from here on out needs to be recorded.

It needs to be recorded so that the buyer is not a buyer that violates the Gun Control Act of 1968, under any circumstances, and that requires a background check to determine.

My understanding is that almost all the guns used to kill people or stick them up in Massachusetts last year were bought in Maine, for example, so that is why it needs to be Federal.

Hmm, so the sale is gong to be recorded now? Sorta like a defacto registration system. This just keeps getting better. *chuckle*

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Hmm, so the sale is gong to be recorded now? Sorta like a defacto registration system. This just keeps getting better. *chuckle*

It is explicitly a registration system.

*Takes a piss*