Seems to me, a well regulated Militia needs assault weapons and not muzzle loaders.

Demonstrate how it is not already. The only avenues available for a prohibited individual to procure a firearm, is to do so through illegal channels. Their only options are theft, or through facilitation of a straw purchase, which is a felony in itself. It is already illegal for anyone to sell, give, or otherwise dispose of a firearm to a known prohibited individual, so anyone willingly acting on behalf of the prohibited individual is committing a crime as well.

This does not answer the question that was presented to you for consideration. So it must be asked again.

Pray tell, how exactly would a universal background check system, which cannot be enforced without the registration of every single firearm in existence, actually go about preventing crimes from occurring?

You claim universal background checks will make it easier to identify and hold accountable those facilitating straw purchases. However this means they can be more easily prosecuted after the fact, long after at least one crime has been committed. However this can only be done if the firearm is ever actually recovered, and the serial number has not been obliterated in order to make it impossible to trace. There would be the falsification of federal forms, knowingly disposing of a firearm to a prohibited individual, being an accessory to whatever crime is committed with that firearm, potentially being an accessory to murder.

These crimes would continue unabated. The only difference universal background checks will make, is that a second individual will be charged as an accessory to the actions of the criminal who actually used the firearm. Assuming the person who facilitated the straw purchase does not simply report the firearm as stolen, thus absolving them of repsonsibility.

 

I shudder to think what I could do with a well regulated militia if I knew how to regulate one. In the mean time I have two fully loaded pistols one in the truck and one on my bedside table and that makes me happy.

 

No, in fact it doesn't have to be universal in order to disarm your political foes.

And how would you do that?

What's to prevent me from selling to you if both parties are willing to circumvent the law?

 

It's clear you don't even know what a straw purchase is. It's when someone who can pass a background check purchases a firearm legally, then transfers it illegally, committing a felony with up to a 10 year jail term, to someone who can't pass a background check. Do you see how a UBC would be totally ineffective here?

 

Who is known for home invasions?

 

Ex-husbands, Jehovah's Witnesses and friends of your teenagers.

 

Democrats

 

Now, now we all know the Invasive internet and phone monitoring is a Republican initiative.

 

Hardly. It's not the NRA, the Tea Party, or Republicans committing home invasion. Next.

 

It no worky.

 

The weight of the ammunition is a key factor to the explanation. But it is information that cannot be garnered by myself due to practicality reasons.

The projectile payload weight of twenty rounds of the aforementioned rifle ammunition is five hundred and fifty grains, or approximately one and one quarter ounces. That is approximately the same amount of weight as the buckshot in a single shell of twelve gauge ammunition. This means that to hold the same number of rounds of ammunition as a carbine, and thus be equal to the carbine in that category alone, a shotgun would have to house at least one and a quarter pounds of weight for the projectiles alone, and all of it forward of the point of balance for the shotgun, thus requiring far greater upper body strength, physical fitness, and strength of the support arm just to hold it level and steady.

Are you now beginning to understand why the exact weights of these rounds of ammunition make a difference in this explanation? Or do you intend to stubbornly deny that such facts make a difference, and claim that they are irrelevant to the discussion?

 

Are you suggesting that individuals selling their firearms in private sales would continue with the transaction if the buyer was identified as having a criminal history, or are you suggesting that being able to identify who is purchasing firearms that fall into the hands of criminals wouldn't be of use?

 

Making something illegal, then making it impossible to identify when that illegal activity is occurring, is moronic. You simply can't whine about laws not being enforced when you make it impossible for criminal acts to be identified.

 

Sorry but thst is just plain stupid if you think the weight of the charge is going to effect the ability to hold or aim the weapon or even begin to be the determining factor in suitability as a home defense weapon. Discussion is getting too stupid to continue. Bye.

 

Let's say there are UBCs in place, and firearms that have been sold to you repeatedly find themselves in the hands of criminals during nefarious activities...
How many times do you think this would happen before LEOs are investigating your activities?

 

It would be possible to identify the "lawful owner" who legally purchased the firearms that end up in the hands of criminals. Something that isn't possible currently due to lack of BCs in private sales.

 

No, I'm stating that a straw purchaser passes a background check, whether they purchase from an FFL or from a private seller. They then transfer the firearm to a prohibited person in either case. That's what a straw purchase is.

Now, will criminals who sell to other criminals ignore a UBC law? Yes, without fail. They are criminals. Will good guys sell to good guys without a background check? Likely so, because a UBC can't be enforced without full registration, which we don't have. Those sales aren't a concern, anyway. What we want to do is have a process that will allow good guys to check out potential buyers. We don't need a law for that - we just need direct access to NICS for private transfers. Give me an ap, and I'd use it every time for sales to strangers.

 

How? I own several firearms purchased in private sales that aren't traceable to me at all. I could sell them with no way to trace them back to me.

If someone sells to criminals they will ignore the background check requirement.

- - - Updated - - -

How does the law find out they were sold to me?

 

None of which changes the established fact, that it is already as difficult as can be made possible for criminals to acquire firearms. There are quite literally zero legal avenues for them to utilize. Their only available options are through illegal channels, such as theft, or through facilitation of a straw purchase.

What is being suggested, is that there are those who simply do not care if what they are doing is illegal, if they do not believe they face a significant risk of being discovered and punished. Universal background checks are unenforceable, meaning it is impossible to determine whether or not someone has actually complied with the mandate.

 

Stop by the house. I'll load ten rounds in my three gun shotgun and a 30 round mag in my .300 Blackout pistol. We'll let you swing them back and forth to see which one you can get on target easier.

 

Then you have apparently concluded that yourself, and only yourself, possesses the valid answer in this discussion, and no other individual could possibly know that they are talking about. You have quite literally closed off your mind to all other possibilities, thus meaning you are not here for open, honest, and legitimate debate.

 

Easy. You licence guns like cars. There's a tear off slip in the registration doc that the owner fills in and sends off when he sells it. If he doesn't, and the buyer doesn't regiter it, then the car/gun remains registered to him, and if something bad happens involving that gun, then a sticky time will be had.

 

First and foremost, it would be necessary for the firearms to be acquired long after the mandate came into effect, otherwise there is no record to be had.

Second, all one would need to do to avoid what you suggest, is file a report with local police officers asserting that a large number of firearms were stolen from them. Once the report is made, it does not matter how many firearms are found in the possession of criminals, because they have all been reported at being stolen.

 

And what happens if the seller is now deceased or (gasp) the weapon is imported with the drugs?

 

The vast majority of firearms in the united states are currently unregistered, and cannot be found by the authorities in order for them to be registered in anything resembling a centralized database. Several states have attempted to mandate such, but the compliance rate has been abysmally low, leaving millions of unregistered firearms in circulation that simply cannot be found, and will continue to be traded with impunity because they are unknown.

The nation of Canada possessed a registry of all rifles and shotguns within its borders. They found the database to be overly cumbersome, fraught with countless errors that rendered the data useless, and it failed to be useful in solving even a single firearm-related criminal offense. It is for this reason that the database was shut down, and all of the records deleted. They could not make it work, even when they had to deal with less than ten percent of the number of firearms currently in the united states.