WOW, you had to ask? In every post you make about logs and and saying the following: "Same way they do for ffl's, If you don't have it logged and are found to be in possession of a gun not logged, you're in trouble, Of course they can and will. No different than asking you for your ID, nope. It will affect people caught with firearms not logged, or for acquiring/transferring firearms without performing a NICS check." All beliefs that the gubbermint will make it better for you by stopping the bad guy at the expense of punishing law abiding citizens. You just can't learn from history, eh? All you have been doing is espousing government intrusions in the belief it would be constitutional...you're wrong and it isn't going to happen....try going after the bad guys for a change......sheesh!
You seem confused. I asked you to quote me making this claim..... This is a contradicting statement. You aren't punished for obeying the law. Of course it's constitutional. Your right to keep and bear arms is in no way hindered or removed.
So posting proof of your support of the government intrusion isn't enough for you. WOW No it's proof of your desire to allow government intrusion into law abiding citizens lives, which is what I was exactly claiming you were doing. Please keep up! It's not law so hypothetical be thy middle name LOL!
You still seem confused. This was your comment I asked you to quote me saying...... Again you seem confused........... Law abiding citizens aren't punished. confused again........
you are espousing statist nonsense. and you think the government needs to know who owns guns. that is frightening law and order statists are as dangerous as left wing collectivists when it comes to eroding our rights making laws that ONLY apply to honest people hoping to turn them into criminals is a disgusting position to advocate
why do you so oppose background checks? because it will hurt the bottom dollar of corrupt FFLs? making sure gun buyers have the legal right to possess a gun, is just common sense. you should support it
You still seemed confused I provided you proof of your love of the gubbermint being your savior, you just don't seem to be able to walk away from your losing argument. no you lack the ability to see what you propose, faith in the gubbermint to do what's right for you. Sorry old fellow, your posts are the proof in the pudding. sure they are, under your proposed gubbermint intrusion, they get to punish law abiding americans and ignore criminals. Another fail...according to your posts that is. nope right again.
background checks prevent criminals from possessing guns. only criminals oppose them, as they have a vested interest in NOT undergoing a background check.
FFL background checks are already the law. Is someone against that? I've completed a 4473 every time I've bought a gun from a dealer.
I oppose background checks for several reasons 1) the federal government doesn't properly have the power to conduct them 2) they have cost billions and there is no evidence they have prevented any crime 3) making private citizens conduct Background checks is even less constitutionally sound and is designed to do two things a) make lots of people into "criminals" if they ignore that idiocy b) pave the way to complete gun registration because that is the only way they can enforce stuff gun banners like you operate under the theory that we have to prove one of your proposed laws doesn't violate the constitution. in reality, the duty is on gun banners like you to prove the laws you want are both constitutional and will actually achieve an objective benefit without unduly burdening the citizenry. So far you have completely failed all three tests
I oppose them on two fundamental grounds 1) the federal government's power to force FFLs to conduct them is not constitutionally sound even though I concede the 2nd Amendment along with the Tenth have been raped so badly by the Federal government (all three branches) that its easy to ignore this nonsense 2) its a presumption of guilt. and it does nothing to actually stop crime the clinton administration used to bray about stopping 100's of thousands of "criminals" from buying guns yet if that were true, everyone stopped had committed federal perjury by answering NO on some or all of Part 11 of the form and lied. Yet, the DOJ (I was an attorney for the entire clinton administration with the DOJ) prosecuted all of about 12 people during the first few years of that law
How about the fact that the government can send you to prison if you don't comply with the law. Of course sometimes we disagree with the laws and violate them wilfully. I'm a perfect example because I disagree with the drug prohibition laws and I've been smoking pot since the 1960's but I don't dispute the fact that the federal government can send me to prison if it busts me. So, effectively the government can't literally compel you to comply with the law but if you don't you suffer the consequences. If the law states you must keep track of your firearms you might choose to ignore that law but you'd do so accepting the fact that if caught ignoring the law you could have your firearms confiscated and lose the right to own firearms completely.
But you didn't do that of course. And I'm not losing anything, lol. My posts are logical and fact based. Yours are emotional and mindless. Again you seem confused. Law abiding citizens aren't punished. Logical fallacies don't defeat my arguments. demonstrated you weren't. - - - Updated - - - The discussion is about background checks for private sales
Lol, there is nothing at all unconstitutional about background checks. If you are legally able to possess a firearm you are not prevented from doing so. This has already been shown to be false. No, you would need to prove it DOES. Conducting background checks isn't an act of banning. The interest has been demonstrated, so I'm not sure what you think has failed n
Let's see if your reasons make sense. The federal government doesn't run background checks. The federal goverment operates the FBI NICS database that collects information predominately from the courts on who is prohibited from owning/possessing firearms. That database is used by private enterprises (FFL's) and local law enforcement (for CCW permit purposes and criminal investigations). The FBI has ever authority to collect this information. There is no evidence it doesn't prevent crime either and based upon the shear number of denials to purchase (well over 1 million gun sales have been blocked) statistical probability does establish that it does prevent some crime but we just don't know how much. Of course the system could be significantly improved if those identified based upon the FBI NICS background were investigated by law enforcement because their attempt to purchase a firearm is a felony. That's one problem I see with the current background checks. If a person is identified as being prohibited when attempting to make a purchase local law enforcement should be instantly notified and respond to investigate the possible commission of a felony. That isn't happening today so apparently felons are attempting to purchase firearms, being denied, and then walking down the street to illegally purchase a firearm where a background check is not conducted (e.g. through a purchase from a private individual). a) Idiocy is the selling of a firearm to a person that is prohibited by law from owning/possessing a firearm. As a gun owner the last thing I want to do is sell a firearm to a criminal or mentally incompetent person that is prohibited by law from owning/possessing a firearm. The ability for a private person to run a background check, which doesn't currently exists, does not inherently require a mandate to run the background check. It can be completely voluntary. It can also be effective if we include legislation that would make the sale of a firearm to a prohibited person a criminal act regardless of whether the seller knows in advance that the person is prohibited. If the seller has the means of running an instant background check then they don't have any excuse for selling a firearm to a prohibited person. In short not running a background check should not be a criminal offense but selling/transferring a firearm to a prohibited person when you have the ability to prevent that sale/transfer should be a criminal offense. b) This is a false "slipper-slope" argument based upon a conspiracy theory. There is no necessity for firearms registration associated with running a background check on the person. The firearm isn't being investigated, the person's being investigated. Of course there is a logical reason for a database of stolen firearms to be kept by the FBI so that a purchaser, not the seller, can verify that the firearm is not reported as stolen. As a law-abiding gun owner I don't want to purchase a stolen firearm. I can think of only one compelling argument related to "registration of firearms" and that is if the firearm is to be carried in public. Any firearm carried in public represents a potential threat to the public safety and our government has a responsibility related to the public safety. A firearm not taken out into the public does not represent a threat to the public safety and there's no logical or compelling argument for registration. Not being a "gun banner" I can't answer for them. Personally I'm one of those that supports the rights of the person to own fully automatic firearms as authorized under federal law. We can note that the law that allows ownership of fully automatic firearms does require a license for the owner and registration of the firearm and that requirements does not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of the person to keep and bear arms. Seriously, if I can legally own a Ma-Deuce (military M-2 .50 caliber machine gun) or a Tommy Gun (Thompson submachine gun) I can't honestly claim that my 2nd Amendment rights are being violated by the federal government. .
This argument has already been thoroughly covered and debunked. It is blatantly false. The only thing a background check does, with regards to criminals possessing firearms, is require them to find a straw purchaser, or family member who will be sympathetic to their plight. It has been seen countless times, and it will be seen countless others. There is no way to stop it. There is no point in even bothering with an unworkable, unenforceable suggestion.
You are aware that the vast majority of those denials are confirmed as being false positives, correct? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...7a8c1d4-65b4-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_blog.html All in all, background checks appear to do very little, if any, measurable good.
background checks have prevented tens of thousands of sales to folks who are not allowed to possess firearms. I know, I almost sold a gun to a co-worker, who it turns out is NOT allowed to possess firearms by the ATF, since he was dishonorably discharged from the military. his NICS check was denied, and I didn't sell him the gun.
Do you think he accepted that he will never own a gun, or do you think he found another way to acquire one?
You do know that alcohol is perfectly legal so in essence banning pot doesn't violate your constitutional right, eh? I mean you have an alternative.
And the majority of denials are false positives. In other words, the denials were issued without merit or justification.
illegal guns cost much more than legal ones. buying illegal guns can also be a deadly endeavor. possessing an illegally-purchased gun should be a Federal crime. NICS checks should keep permanent records, listing the serial number and name of purchaser, only to be unsealed if the gun is used in a crime, so additional charges can be made if the possessor did not get a NICS check for that gun...which of course may mean the gun was stolen.
