CDZ Another Question for Gun Owners

[M14 Shooter]

Yet you and the NRA oppose legislation to prevent criminals or the dangerously mental ill from buying guns.

It is already illegal for these people to buy guns; no law will prevent them from doing so..

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sorry to disappoint you, but no, guns are not a right.

You clearly are not up on your SCotUS rulings.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just admit you have a tiny dick, and guns make you feel chubbier in your downlow.

Spoken like a 12 year old who ran out of things other people gave him to say.

 

[Divine Wind]

That's quite the fine needle you threaded there...

No need to thread needles. You made a flat, blanket statement and I proved you were wrong. The fact you won't admit you were wrong tells me you lack integrity.

 

[Howey]

You're right -- it may be ignorance.
First is it not "perfectly legal" for any felon, terrorist, or psychopath to buy a gun from a private party.
Second, you cannot show that the NRA wants to change the law making it "perfectly legal" to do so.
And so, either you know this and are lying, or you do not know this and you argue from ignorance.
Please do let us know which.

They've fought VERY hard against any legislation that would require private party background checks (which is what we do with private vehicle sales when we register with DMV). That's effectively fighting for easier access for purchase by criminals and psychopaths.

Do you know why they fought against background checks on private sales.....because the only way to enforce that is the next step that anti gunners would demand.....registraton of all guns.....that is why the NRA and I and others oppose background checks for private sales....and considering criminals are not using private sales to get their guns...the only reason anti gunners want them is to get to registration of guns.

We register cars. Why not guns?

"Only criminals wouldn't register cars". Great, another charge to use to bring them to justice. You're against this. Why?

Nevermind, I've long since stopped reading your idiotic posts.

Guns are a Right....registration has historically been used to round up guns by the government....in Germany, which led to the death camps....and Britain and Australia.......so no...registering guns is not the same as cars.....

Also....any fee attacked to a Right is a violation of the exercise of that Right...democrats used Poll Taxes to keep blacks from voting......so again....you can't force gun registration.....

I take it you missed this post?


Sorry to disappoint you, but no, guns are not a right.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/us/second-amendment-concealed-carry.html?_r=0

A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not guarantee the right of gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public places, upholding a California law that imposes stringent conditions on who may be granted a concealed-carry permit.

The 7-to-4 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, overturned a decision by a three-judge panel of the same court and was a setback for gun advocates. The California law requires applicants to demonstrate “good cause” for carrying a weapon, like working in a job with a security threat — a restriction sharply attacked by gun advocates as violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms.


“Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public,” the court said in a ruling written by Judge William A. Fletcher.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Just admit you have a tiny dick, and guns make you feel chubbier in your downlow.

Spoken like a 12 year old who ran out of things other people gave him to say.

Not really. Spoken more like a genital-obsessed hoplophobe, who engages in the clichéd behavior that seems common among hoplophobes, of projecting his own perceived sexual inadequacies upon his adversaries.

It wasn't really Freud who said what is commonly attributed to him, about the fear of weapons being a sign of retarded sexual development, but it is clear that whomever did first say that had it right.

 

[Divine Wind]

The NRA is circumventing the current laws regarding straw purchases by fighting legislation to prevent them.

Straw purchases already violate federal law; no law can prevent straw purchases.
Your claim has no merit.

Agreed. The LW anti-Second Amendment movement wants put another law on top of existing law rather than enforcing the original law.

 

[Divine Wind]

Help me out here....

If I'm a gun seller at a gun show and I am not required to perform a background check, so I don't, and I don't know the person before me is a felon, what's stopping me from selling them a gun? Assuming I do sell them a gun, doesn't that mean I've just sold a felon a gun?

It's illegal for the felon to buy a gun.

Your "I'm a gun seller at a gun show" statement can be misleading in that it implies you are a dealer or in the business of selling guns. If so, you are required to do a background check. What many anti-gun advocates want to do is make it illegal to transfer ownership of guns without a background check. This means a father who gives his 13 year old son a single-shot .22 rifle for his birthday would be violating the law unless they both went down to a place authorized to conduct background checks. Same for a spouse who gives their other half a gift of a self-defense firearm. This is simply an underhanded means to register guns and track ownership, a required bit of information should confiscation as Hillary** proposed be put into law.



**Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’

Hillary Clinton says a gun buyback program similar to the one Australia implemented in 1996 is “worth considering” in the United States.

“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall on Friday.

The Democratic presidential front-runner said data indicate the Australian program reduced the number of firearms in circulation by paying citizens to turn over their weapons.

“The Australian government, as part of trying to clamp down on the availability of automatic weapons, offered a good price for buying hundreds of thousands of guns, and then they basically clamped down going forward in terms of having, you know, more of a background-check approach, more of a permitting approach,” Clinton said.

The Australian government purchased more than 650,000 guns from citizens in the compulsory 1996 buyback program.

Clinton said individual American communities have tried to implement such gun control measures on the local level and that she would be open to testing it nationwide.

“Now communities have done that in our country, several communities have done gun buyback programs,” she said. “But I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level if that could be arranged.”

NRA: Obama, Clinton want Australian-style gun confiscation

 

[320 Years of History]

It's illegal for the felon to buy a gun.

Your "I'm a gun seller at a gun show" statement can be misleading in that it implies you are a dealer or in the business of selling guns. If so, you are required to do a background check. What many anti-gun advocates want to do is make it illegal to transfer ownership of guns without a background check. This means a father who gives his 13 year old son a single-shot .22 rifle for his birthday would be violating the law unless they both went down to a place authorized to conduct background checks. Same for a spouse who gives their other half a gift of a self-defense firearm. This is simply an underhanded means to register guns and track ownership, a required bit of information should confiscation as Hillary** proposed be put into law.

Red:
Believe it or not, my vocabulary is broad enough that the distinction between "seller" and "dealer" is not lost on me and I wrote what I meant. I don't really care whether one, or even a felon, buys or receives a gun from a dealer or any other kind of seller. I care that people who have no business/right legally buying a gun are prohibited from actually buying a gun.

From Politifact:​

1. Federally licensed gun sellers are required to run background checks. But not all sellers are required to be licensed. Some of those unlicensed sellers sell at gun shows.

Federal law requires that persons who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms be licensed by the federal government. Obama’s goal with his new plan is to tighten the screws on who is included in that group.

Announced Jan. 5, Obama’s plan requires those in the business of dealing in firearms -- including sellers at stores, gun shows and on the Internet -- get a license. Once they’re licensed, they are required to conduct background checks on all buyers.

But private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement. Though this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else. (Some states have implemented their own background check requirement beyond federal law.)

Bush’s argument centers on the fact that the loophole doesn’t single out gun shows.

A Bush spokesman pointed to a 2000 article by David Kopel, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. (The spokesman also cited a brief from Politico that made a similar argument to Kopel’s.) Kopel wrote that for decades, dealers have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. But those who sell firearms from time to time -- such as to a relative -- aren’t required to obtain such a license.

"Existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold," he wrote. "If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority."

Kopel, a law professor at Denver University, told PolitiFact that his own research was based on gun shows in Colorado in the 1980s and 1990s.​

Blue:
As for the matter of gifts, well, I realize that no law can actually stop that from happening if the giver trust the recipient will not betray the trust the former shows by making the gift. That said, if the recipient does betray that trust, there should be some legal means of criminal and civil recourse the state and individuals harmed by the recipient's gun use can pursue.

I don't have a problem with the transactions by which one comes by a gun be tracked, including the tracking of the gun purchased. We do precisely that for cars; I see no reason not to do it with guns. We have a right to own a gun. We don't have a right to own one secretly. Frankly, I think having a robust means of tracing the history of a gun's legal ownership will help inspire legit owners to keep better control over their firearms.

Of the 16,667 firearms reported [in 2012] as lost or stolen from federal firearms license holders, a total of 10,915 firearms were reported as lost. The remaining 5,762 were reported as stolen. In my mind, that's at least ~11K folks (assuming a 1:1 ratio between guns and gun losers) who have no business owning a gun. Be that as it may, if those lost guns show up somewhere, knowing to whom it last legally belonged is a good thing.

 

[2aguy]

It's illegal for the felon to buy a gun.

Your "I'm a gun seller at a gun show" statement can be misleading in that it implies you are a dealer or in the business of selling guns. If so, you are required to do a background check. What many anti-gun advocates want to do is make it illegal to transfer ownership of guns without a background check. This means a father who gives his 13 year old son a single-shot .22 rifle for his birthday would be violating the law unless they both went down to a place authorized to conduct background checks. Same for a spouse who gives their other half a gift of a self-defense firearm. This is simply an underhanded means to register guns and track ownership, a required bit of information should confiscation as Hillary** proposed be put into law.

Red:
Believe it or not, my vocabulary is broad enough that the distinction between "seller" and "dealer" is not lost on me and I wrote what I meant. I don't really care whether one, or even a felon, buys or receives a gun from a dealer or any other kind of seller. I care that people who have no business/right legally buying a gun are prohibited from actually buying a gun.

From Politifact:​

1. Federally licensed gun sellers are required to run background checks. But not all sellers are required to be licensed. Some of those unlicensed sellers sell at gun shows.

Federal law requires that persons who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms be licensed by the federal government. Obama’s goal with his new plan is to tighten the screws on who is included in that group.

Announced Jan. 5, Obama’s plan requires those in the business of dealing in firearms -- including sellers at stores, gun shows and on the Internet -- get a license. Once they’re licensed, they are required to conduct background checks on all buyers.

But private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement. Though this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else. (Some states have implemented their own background check requirement beyond federal law.)

Bush’s argument centers on the fact that the loophole doesn’t single out gun shows.

A Bush spokesman pointed to a 2000 article by David Kopel, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. (The spokesman also cited a brief from Politico that made a similar argument to Kopel’s.) Kopel wrote that for decades, dealers have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. But those who sell firearms from time to time -- such as to a relative -- aren’t required to obtain such a license.

"Existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold," he wrote. "If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority."

Kopel, a law professor at Denver University, told PolitiFact that his own research was based on gun shows in Colorado in the 1980s and 1990s.​

Blue:
As for the matter of gifts, well, I realize that no law can actually stop that from happening if the giver trust the recipient will not betray the trust the former shows by making the gift. That said, if the recipient does betray that trust, there should be some legal means of criminal and civil recourse the state and individuals harmed by the recipient's gun use can pursue.

I don't have a problem with the transactions by which one comes by a gun be tracked, including the tracking of the gun purchased. We do precisely that for cars; I see no reason not to do it with guns. We have a right to own a gun. We don't have a right to own one secretly. Frankly, I think having a robust means of tracing the history of a gun's legal ownership will help inspire legit owners to keep better control over their firearms.

Of the 16,667 firearms reported [in 2012] as lost or stolen from federal firearms license holders, a total of 10,915 firearms were reported as lost. The remaining 5,762 were reported as stolen. In my mind, that's at least ~11K folks (assuming a 1:1 ratio between guns and gun losers) who have no business owning a gun. Be that as it may, if those lost guns show up somewhere, knowing to whom it last legally belonged is a good thing.

No one is going to confiscate cars.....confiscation of guns is a step governments use to keep people under control......so that is a non starter.

The problem is this.....the individual buying the gun illegally is the only one actually committing an illegal act......I don't care if you sell a gun from a private collection occasionally without a background check.....this is not the method that criminals get guns and even if it was.......you can arrest the criminal for the actions they take with the gun or the simple act of finding them with the gun....

The obsession with punishing normal gun owners...to the complete ignoring of the actual criminal is simply nuts.

Again....why don't we insist on background checks for computers before we sell computers or electronic devices...if the goal it to prevent criminals from committing crimes we should be doing that.........since sex trafficking, child porn, identity theft, theft of state secrets, and any number of crimes use computers........if it was stopping felons from committing crimes then computers should be tracked the same as you guys want guns tracked....even more so.....

We already have laws on the books...if a felon is in possession of a gun, arrest him and put him away for 30 years. Normal, law abiding gun owners are not subsidiary branches of law enforcement....we are not required to and are told not to engage in law enforcement on our own time....but for this.....you guys want us to become Jr. cops.......on our own dime.......

If you want to police felons at gun shows....do it the right way...devote actual police resources to attempt to buy and sell to individual sellers...identifying themselves as people who cannot legally buy guns...and then attempt to complete the sale......hit the guy with a huge fine if he tries to sell the .22 rifle to someone he knows can't buy it...don't destroy his life......

Also....you have the anti gunner bait and switch.....you guys think it will only apply to private sales.....but the anti gunners have passed that....and are now switching the terms....they want background checks on all transfers of guns....that means you can't borrow your dad's shotgun to go hunting next weekend..if you both don't go down to the gun store to get background checks........you can't have your brother keep your guns at his house while you are on vacation...without going to the gun store and paying for a background check...first, to give them to your brother, and second to take them back when you get home......

The best method......go after the actual criminals who actually, intentionally break the law. If you catch a felon with an illegal gun......don't just give him a year and a half for good behavior......send him away for 30 years....that will actually dry up criminal use of guns....

If that is your goal.....

If someone uses a gun to rob a liquor store......send him away for 30 years.......that will dry up gun crime.....

if that is your goal.....

If you hate guns...and the people who own them...continue to target normal, law abiding gun owners with law after law that doesn't stop a single actual violent criminal or mass shooter......and you will continue to have people murdered with guns....

 

[2aguy]

It is interesting to me that anti gunners are more than happy to hit a normal gun owner with a felony conviction.......for selling a gun without doing a background check in a private sale.......you know, they will lose huge sums of money defending themselves in court, they will lose whatever job they have, they will be unable to get a normal job ever again, they will lose the Right to vote in most places, they will lose their ability to ever own a gun again (which is the real goal with background check laws...tripping up normal gun owners) ......

Vs.


Allowing cops to stop and frisk actual known criminals, who the police know are gang bangers and violent criminals....those guys are protected......those guys you will protect.....

But the normal guy selling his .22 rifle to a guy down the block who skips the new background check....you will freaking crush him and his life.........

That is why I think you guys are ..... what you are....

 

[Howey]

It's illegal for the felon to buy a gun.

Your "I'm a gun seller at a gun show" statement can be misleading in that it implies you are a dealer or in the business of selling guns. If so, you are required to do a background check. What many anti-gun advocates want to do is make it illegal to transfer ownership of guns without a background check. This means a father who gives his 13 year old son a single-shot .22 rifle for his birthday would be violating the law unless they both went down to a place authorized to conduct background checks. Same for a spouse who gives their other half a gift of a self-defense firearm. This is simply an underhanded means to register guns and track ownership, a required bit of information should confiscation as Hillary** proposed be put into law.

Red:
Believe it or not, my vocabulary is broad enough that the distinction between "seller" and "dealer" is not lost on me and I wrote what I meant. I don't really care whether one, or even a felon, buys or receives a gun from a dealer or any other kind of seller. I care that people who have no business/right legally buying a gun are prohibited from actually buying a gun.

From Politifact:​

1. Federally licensed gun sellers are required to run background checks. But not all sellers are required to be licensed. Some of those unlicensed sellers sell at gun shows.

Federal law requires that persons who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms be licensed by the federal government. Obama’s goal with his new plan is to tighten the screws on who is included in that group.

Announced Jan. 5, Obama’s plan requires those in the business of dealing in firearms -- including sellers at stores, gun shows and on the Internet -- get a license. Once they’re licensed, they are required to conduct background checks on all buyers.

But private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement. Though this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else. (Some states have implemented their own background check requirement beyond federal law.)

Bush’s argument centers on the fact that the loophole doesn’t single out gun shows.

A Bush spokesman pointed to a 2000 article by David Kopel, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. (The spokesman also cited a brief from Politico that made a similar argument to Kopel’s.) Kopel wrote that for decades, dealers have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. But those who sell firearms from time to time -- such as to a relative -- aren’t required to obtain such a license.

"Existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold," he wrote. "If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority."

Kopel, a law professor at Denver University, told PolitiFact that his own research was based on gun shows in Colorado in the 1980s and 1990s.​

Blue:
As for the matter of gifts, well, I realize that no law can actually stop that from happening if the giver trust the recipient will not betray the trust the former shows by making the gift. That said, if the recipient does betray that trust, there should be some legal means of criminal and civil recourse the state and individuals harmed by the recipient's gun use can pursue.

I don't have a problem with the transactions by which one comes by a gun be tracked, including the tracking of the gun purchased. We do precisely that for cars; I see no reason not to do it with guns. We have a right to own a gun. We don't have a right to own one secretly. Frankly, I think having a robust means of tracing the history of a gun's legal ownership will help inspire legit owners to keep better control over their firearms.

Of the 16,667 firearms reported [in 2012] as lost or stolen from federal firearms license holders, a total of 10,915 firearms were reported as lost. The remaining 5,762 were reported as stolen. In my mind, that's at least ~11K folks (assuming a 1:1 ratio between guns and gun losers) who have no business owning a gun. Be that as it may, if those lost guns show up somewhere, knowing to whom it last legally belonged is a good thing.

No one is going to confiscate cars.....confiscation of guns is a step governments use to keep people under control......so that is a non starter.

The problem is this.....the individual buying the gun illegally is the only one actually committing an illegal act......I don't care if you sell a gun from a private collection occasionally without a background check.....this is not the method that criminals get guns and even if it was.......you can arrest the criminal for the actions they take with the gun or the simple act of finding them with the gun....

The obsession with punishing normal gun owners...to the complete ignoring of the actual criminal is simply nuts.

Again....why don't we insist on background checks for computers before we sell computers or electronic devices...if the goal it to prevent criminals from committing crimes we should be doing that.........since sex trafficking, child porn, identity theft, theft of state secrets, and any number of crimes use computers........if it was stopping felons from committing crimes then computers should be tracked the same as you guys want guns tracked....even more so.....

We already have laws on the books...if a felon is in possession of a gun, arrest him and put him away for 30 years. Normal, law abiding gun owners are not subsidiary branches of law enforcement....we are not required to and are told not to engage in law enforcement on our own time....but for this.....you guys want us to become Jr. cops.......on our own dime.......

If you want to police felons at gun shows....do it the right way...devote actual police resources to attempt to buy and sell to individual sellers...identifying themselves as people who cannot legally buy guns...and then attempt to complete the sale......hit the guy with a huge fine if he tries to sell the .22 rifle to someone he knows can't buy it...don't destroy his life......

Also....you have the anti gunner bait and switch.....you guys think it will only apply to private sales.....but the anti gunners have passed that....and are now switching the terms....they want background checks on all transfers of guns....that means you can't borrow your dad's shotgun to go hunting next weekend..if you both don't go down to the gun store to get background checks........you can't have your brother keep your guns at his house while you are on vacation...without going to the gun store and paying for a background check...first, to give them to your brother, and second to take them back when you get home......

The best method......go after the actual criminals who actually, intentionally break the law. If you catch a felon with an illegal gun......don't just give him a year and a half for good behavior......send him away for 30 years....that will actually dry up criminal use of guns....

If that is your goal.....

If someone uses a gun to rob a liquor store......send him away for 30 years.......that will dry up gun crime.....

if that is your goal.....

If you hate guns...and the people who own them...continue to target normal, law abiding gun owners with law after law that doesn't stop a single actual violent criminal or mass shooter......and you will continue to have people murdered with guns....

Is a buyer of illegal drugs also a criminal?

 

[2aguy]

It's illegal for the felon to buy a gun.

Your "I'm a gun seller at a gun show" statement can be misleading in that it implies you are a dealer or in the business of selling guns. If so, you are required to do a background check. What many anti-gun advocates want to do is make it illegal to transfer ownership of guns without a background check. This means a father who gives his 13 year old son a single-shot .22 rifle for his birthday would be violating the law unless they both went down to a place authorized to conduct background checks. Same for a spouse who gives their other half a gift of a self-defense firearm. This is simply an underhanded means to register guns and track ownership, a required bit of information should confiscation as Hillary** proposed be put into law.

Red:
Believe it or not, my vocabulary is broad enough that the distinction between "seller" and "dealer" is not lost on me and I wrote what I meant. I don't really care whether one, or even a felon, buys or receives a gun from a dealer or any other kind of seller. I care that people who have no business/right legally buying a gun are prohibited from actually buying a gun.

From Politifact:​

1. Federally licensed gun sellers are required to run background checks. But not all sellers are required to be licensed. Some of those unlicensed sellers sell at gun shows.

Federal law requires that persons who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms be licensed by the federal government. Obama’s goal with his new plan is to tighten the screws on who is included in that group.

Announced Jan. 5, Obama’s plan requires those in the business of dealing in firearms -- including sellers at stores, gun shows and on the Internet -- get a license. Once they’re licensed, they are required to conduct background checks on all buyers.

But private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement. Though this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else. (Some states have implemented their own background check requirement beyond federal law.)

Bush’s argument centers on the fact that the loophole doesn’t single out gun shows.

A Bush spokesman pointed to a 2000 article by David Kopel, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. (The spokesman also cited a brief from Politico that made a similar argument to Kopel’s.) Kopel wrote that for decades, dealers have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. But those who sell firearms from time to time -- such as to a relative -- aren’t required to obtain such a license.

"Existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold," he wrote. "If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority."

Kopel, a law professor at Denver University, told PolitiFact that his own research was based on gun shows in Colorado in the 1980s and 1990s.​

Blue:
As for the matter of gifts, well, I realize that no law can actually stop that from happening if the giver trust the recipient will not betray the trust the former shows by making the gift. That said, if the recipient does betray that trust, there should be some legal means of criminal and civil recourse the state and individuals harmed by the recipient's gun use can pursue.

I don't have a problem with the transactions by which one comes by a gun be tracked, including the tracking of the gun purchased. We do precisely that for cars; I see no reason not to do it with guns. We have a right to own a gun. We don't have a right to own one secretly. Frankly, I think having a robust means of tracing the history of a gun's legal ownership will help inspire legit owners to keep better control over their firearms.

Of the 16,667 firearms reported [in 2012] as lost or stolen from federal firearms license holders, a total of 10,915 firearms were reported as lost. The remaining 5,762 were reported as stolen. In my mind, that's at least ~11K folks (assuming a 1:1 ratio between guns and gun losers) who have no business owning a gun. Be that as it may, if those lost guns show up somewhere, knowing to whom it last legally belonged is a good thing.

No one is going to confiscate cars.....confiscation of guns is a step governments use to keep people under control......so that is a non starter.

The problem is this.....the individual buying the gun illegally is the only one actually committing an illegal act......I don't care if you sell a gun from a private collection occasionally without a background check.....this is not the method that criminals get guns and even if it was.......you can arrest the criminal for the actions they take with the gun or the simple act of finding them with the gun....

The obsession with punishing normal gun owners...to the complete ignoring of the actual criminal is simply nuts.

Again....why don't we insist on background checks for computers before we sell computers or electronic devices...if the goal it to prevent criminals from committing crimes we should be doing that.........since sex trafficking, child porn, identity theft, theft of state secrets, and any number of crimes use computers........if it was stopping felons from committing crimes then computers should be tracked the same as you guys want guns tracked....even more so.....

We already have laws on the books...if a felon is in possession of a gun, arrest him and put him away for 30 years. Normal, law abiding gun owners are not subsidiary branches of law enforcement....we are not required to and are told not to engage in law enforcement on our own time....but for this.....you guys want us to become Jr. cops.......on our own dime.......

If you want to police felons at gun shows....do it the right way...devote actual police resources to attempt to buy and sell to individual sellers...identifying themselves as people who cannot legally buy guns...and then attempt to complete the sale......hit the guy with a huge fine if he tries to sell the .22 rifle to someone he knows can't buy it...don't destroy his life......

Also....you have the anti gunner bait and switch.....you guys think it will only apply to private sales.....but the anti gunners have passed that....and are now switching the terms....they want background checks on all transfers of guns....that means you can't borrow your dad's shotgun to go hunting next weekend..if you both don't go down to the gun store to get background checks........you can't have your brother keep your guns at his house while you are on vacation...without going to the gun store and paying for a background check...first, to give them to your brother, and second to take them back when you get home......

The best method......go after the actual criminals who actually, intentionally break the law. If you catch a felon with an illegal gun......don't just give him a year and a half for good behavior......send him away for 30 years....that will actually dry up criminal use of guns....

If that is your goal.....

If someone uses a gun to rob a liquor store......send him away for 30 years.......that will dry up gun crime.....

if that is your goal.....

If you hate guns...and the people who own them...continue to target normal, law abiding gun owners with law after law that doesn't stop a single actual violent criminal or mass shooter......and you will continue to have people murdered with guns....

Is a buyer of illegal drugs also a criminal?

Yes. Drugs are illegal to sell....guns are not........

 

[Divine Wind]

....If you hate guns...and the people who own them...continue to target normal, law abiding gun owners with law after law that doesn't stop a single actual violent criminal or mass shooter......and you will continue to have people murdered with guns....

True, but relatively few of the people killed each year by firearms (68%+ by handguns, 3.37% by rifles) are homicides, less than 35%. 61.8% are suicides, something LW bans on high capacity magazines and "assault weapons" plus treating all gun owners like criminals would not stop.

 

[Howey]

It's illegal for the felon to buy a gun.

Your "I'm a gun seller at a gun show" statement can be misleading in that it implies you are a dealer or in the business of selling guns. If so, you are required to do a background check. What many anti-gun advocates want to do is make it illegal to transfer ownership of guns without a background check. This means a father who gives his 13 year old son a single-shot .22 rifle for his birthday would be violating the law unless they both went down to a place authorized to conduct background checks. Same for a spouse who gives their other half a gift of a self-defense firearm. This is simply an underhanded means to register guns and track ownership, a required bit of information should confiscation as Hillary** proposed be put into law.

Red:
Believe it or not, my vocabulary is broad enough that the distinction between "seller" and "dealer" is not lost on me and I wrote what I meant. I don't really care whether one, or even a felon, buys or receives a gun from a dealer or any other kind of seller. I care that people who have no business/right legally buying a gun are prohibited from actually buying a gun.

From Politifact:​

1. Federally licensed gun sellers are required to run background checks. But not all sellers are required to be licensed. Some of those unlicensed sellers sell at gun shows.

Federal law requires that persons who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms be licensed by the federal government. Obama’s goal with his new plan is to tighten the screws on who is included in that group.

Announced Jan. 5, Obama’s plan requires those in the business of dealing in firearms -- including sellers at stores, gun shows and on the Internet -- get a license. Once they’re licensed, they are required to conduct background checks on all buyers.

But private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement. Though this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else. (Some states have implemented their own background check requirement beyond federal law.)

Bush’s argument centers on the fact that the loophole doesn’t single out gun shows.

A Bush spokesman pointed to a 2000 article by David Kopel, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. (The spokesman also cited a brief from Politico that made a similar argument to Kopel’s.) Kopel wrote that for decades, dealers have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. But those who sell firearms from time to time -- such as to a relative -- aren’t required to obtain such a license.

"Existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold," he wrote. "If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority."

Kopel, a law professor at Denver University, told PolitiFact that his own research was based on gun shows in Colorado in the 1980s and 1990s.​

Blue:
As for the matter of gifts, well, I realize that no law can actually stop that from happening if the giver trust the recipient will not betray the trust the former shows by making the gift. That said, if the recipient does betray that trust, there should be some legal means of criminal and civil recourse the state and individuals harmed by the recipient's gun use can pursue.

I don't have a problem with the transactions by which one comes by a gun be tracked, including the tracking of the gun purchased. We do precisely that for cars; I see no reason not to do it with guns. We have a right to own a gun. We don't have a right to own one secretly. Frankly, I think having a robust means of tracing the history of a gun's legal ownership will help inspire legit owners to keep better control over their firearms.

Of the 16,667 firearms reported [in 2012] as lost or stolen from federal firearms license holders, a total of 10,915 firearms were reported as lost. The remaining 5,762 were reported as stolen. In my mind, that's at least ~11K folks (assuming a 1:1 ratio between guns and gun losers) who have no business owning a gun. Be that as it may, if those lost guns show up somewhere, knowing to whom it last legally belonged is a good thing.

No one is going to confiscate cars.....confiscation of guns is a step governments use to keep people under control......so that is a non starter.

The problem is this.....the individual buying the gun illegally is the only one actually committing an illegal act......I don't care if you sell a gun from a private collection occasionally without a background check.....this is not the method that criminals get guns and even if it was.......you can arrest the criminal for the actions they take with the gun or the simple act of finding them with the gun....

The obsession with punishing normal gun owners...to the complete ignoring of the actual criminal is simply nuts.

Again....why don't we insist on background checks for computers before we sell computers or electronic devices...if the goal it to prevent criminals from committing crimes we should be doing that.........since sex trafficking, child porn, identity theft, theft of state secrets, and any number of crimes use computers........if it was stopping felons from committing crimes then computers should be tracked the same as you guys want guns tracked....even more so.....

We already have laws on the books...if a felon is in possession of a gun, arrest him and put him away for 30 years. Normal, law abiding gun owners are not subsidiary branches of law enforcement....we are not required to and are told not to engage in law enforcement on our own time....but for this.....you guys want us to become Jr. cops.......on our own dime.......

If you want to police felons at gun shows....do it the right way...devote actual police resources to attempt to buy and sell to individual sellers...identifying themselves as people who cannot legally buy guns...and then attempt to complete the sale......hit the guy with a huge fine if he tries to sell the .22 rifle to someone he knows can't buy it...don't destroy his life......

Also....you have the anti gunner bait and switch.....you guys think it will only apply to private sales.....but the anti gunners have passed that....and are now switching the terms....they want background checks on all transfers of guns....that means you can't borrow your dad's shotgun to go hunting next weekend..if you both don't go down to the gun store to get background checks........you can't have your brother keep your guns at his house while you are on vacation...without going to the gun store and paying for a background check...first, to give them to your brother, and second to take them back when you get home......

The best method......go after the actual criminals who actually, intentionally break the law. If you catch a felon with an illegal gun......don't just give him a year and a half for good behavior......send him away for 30 years....that will actually dry up criminal use of guns....

If that is your goal.....

If someone uses a gun to rob a liquor store......send him away for 30 years.......that will dry up gun crime.....

if that is your goal.....

If you hate guns...and the people who own them...continue to target normal, law abiding gun owners with law after law that doesn't stop a single actual violent criminal or mass shooter......and you will continue to have people murdered with guns....

Is a buyer of illegal drugs also a criminal?

Yes. Drugs are illegal to sell....guns are not........

Not the question. Someone stated that the guy who buys a gun unlicensed without a background check, like in the back aisles of a gun show, isn't a criminal.

Using that distorted reasoning, people buying illegal drugs aren't criminals, either.

 

[2aguy]

It's illegal for the felon to buy a gun.

Your "I'm a gun seller at a gun show" statement can be misleading in that it implies you are a dealer or in the business of selling guns. If so, you are required to do a background check. What many anti-gun advocates want to do is make it illegal to transfer ownership of guns without a background check. This means a father who gives his 13 year old son a single-shot .22 rifle for his birthday would be violating the law unless they both went down to a place authorized to conduct background checks. Same for a spouse who gives their other half a gift of a self-defense firearm. This is simply an underhanded means to register guns and track ownership, a required bit of information should confiscation as Hillary** proposed be put into law.

Red:
Believe it or not, my vocabulary is broad enough that the distinction between "seller" and "dealer" is not lost on me and I wrote what I meant. I don't really care whether one, or even a felon, buys or receives a gun from a dealer or any other kind of seller. I care that people who have no business/right legally buying a gun are prohibited from actually buying a gun.

From Politifact:​

1. Federally licensed gun sellers are required to run background checks. But not all sellers are required to be licensed. Some of those unlicensed sellers sell at gun shows.

Federal law requires that persons who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms be licensed by the federal government. Obama’s goal with his new plan is to tighten the screws on who is included in that group.

Announced Jan. 5, Obama’s plan requires those in the business of dealing in firearms -- including sellers at stores, gun shows and on the Internet -- get a license. Once they’re licensed, they are required to conduct background checks on all buyers.

But private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement. Though this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else. (Some states have implemented their own background check requirement beyond federal law.)

Bush’s argument centers on the fact that the loophole doesn’t single out gun shows.

A Bush spokesman pointed to a 2000 article by David Kopel, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. (The spokesman also cited a brief from Politico that made a similar argument to Kopel’s.) Kopel wrote that for decades, dealers have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. But those who sell firearms from time to time -- such as to a relative -- aren’t required to obtain such a license.

"Existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold," he wrote. "If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority."

Kopel, a law professor at Denver University, told PolitiFact that his own research was based on gun shows in Colorado in the 1980s and 1990s.​

Blue:
As for the matter of gifts, well, I realize that no law can actually stop that from happening if the giver trust the recipient will not betray the trust the former shows by making the gift. That said, if the recipient does betray that trust, there should be some legal means of criminal and civil recourse the state and individuals harmed by the recipient's gun use can pursue.

I don't have a problem with the transactions by which one comes by a gun be tracked, including the tracking of the gun purchased. We do precisely that for cars; I see no reason not to do it with guns. We have a right to own a gun. We don't have a right to own one secretly. Frankly, I think having a robust means of tracing the history of a gun's legal ownership will help inspire legit owners to keep better control over their firearms.

Of the 16,667 firearms reported [in 2012] as lost or stolen from federal firearms license holders, a total of 10,915 firearms were reported as lost. The remaining 5,762 were reported as stolen. In my mind, that's at least ~11K folks (assuming a 1:1 ratio between guns and gun losers) who have no business owning a gun. Be that as it may, if those lost guns show up somewhere, knowing to whom it last legally belonged is a good thing.

No one is going to confiscate cars.....confiscation of guns is a step governments use to keep people under control......so that is a non starter.

The problem is this.....the individual buying the gun illegally is the only one actually committing an illegal act......I don't care if you sell a gun from a private collection occasionally without a background check.....this is not the method that criminals get guns and even if it was.......you can arrest the criminal for the actions they take with the gun or the simple act of finding them with the gun....

The obsession with punishing normal gun owners...to the complete ignoring of the actual criminal is simply nuts.

Again....why don't we insist on background checks for computers before we sell computers or electronic devices...if the goal it to prevent criminals from committing crimes we should be doing that.........since sex trafficking, child porn, identity theft, theft of state secrets, and any number of crimes use computers........if it was stopping felons from committing crimes then computers should be tracked the same as you guys want guns tracked....even more so.....

We already have laws on the books...if a felon is in possession of a gun, arrest him and put him away for 30 years. Normal, law abiding gun owners are not subsidiary branches of law enforcement....we are not required to and are told not to engage in law enforcement on our own time....but for this.....you guys want us to become Jr. cops.......on our own dime.......

If you want to police felons at gun shows....do it the right way...devote actual police resources to attempt to buy and sell to individual sellers...identifying themselves as people who cannot legally buy guns...and then attempt to complete the sale......hit the guy with a huge fine if he tries to sell the .22 rifle to someone he knows can't buy it...don't destroy his life......

Also....you have the anti gunner bait and switch.....you guys think it will only apply to private sales.....but the anti gunners have passed that....and are now switching the terms....they want background checks on all transfers of guns....that means you can't borrow your dad's shotgun to go hunting next weekend..if you both don't go down to the gun store to get background checks........you can't have your brother keep your guns at his house while you are on vacation...without going to the gun store and paying for a background check...first, to give them to your brother, and second to take them back when you get home......

The best method......go after the actual criminals who actually, intentionally break the law. If you catch a felon with an illegal gun......don't just give him a year and a half for good behavior......send him away for 30 years....that will actually dry up criminal use of guns....

If that is your goal.....

If someone uses a gun to rob a liquor store......send him away for 30 years.......that will dry up gun crime.....

if that is your goal.....

If you hate guns...and the people who own them...continue to target normal, law abiding gun owners with law after law that doesn't stop a single actual violent criminal or mass shooter......and you will continue to have people murdered with guns....

Is a buyer of illegal drugs also a criminal?

Yes. Drugs are illegal to sell....guns are not........

Not the question. Someone stated that the guy who buys a gun unlicensed without a background check, like in the back aisles of a gun show, isn't a criminal.

Using that distorted reasoning, people buying illegal drugs aren't criminals, either.

it is not the same......illegal drugs are already illegal....guns are not illegal items...different dynamic. A felon can't buy a gun, even though it is legal. A law abiding gun owner can sell a gun.....

A law abiding person cannot sell illegal drugs...he can sell guns....

 

[320 Years of History]

It's illegal for the felon to buy a gun.

Your "I'm a gun seller at a gun show" statement can be misleading in that it implies you are a dealer or in the business of selling guns. If so, you are required to do a background check. What many anti-gun advocates want to do is make it illegal to transfer ownership of guns without a background check. This means a father who gives his 13 year old son a single-shot .22 rifle for his birthday would be violating the law unless they both went down to a place authorized to conduct background checks. Same for a spouse who gives their other half a gift of a self-defense firearm. This is simply an underhanded means to register guns and track ownership, a required bit of information should confiscation as Hillary** proposed be put into law.

Red:
Believe it or not, my vocabulary is broad enough that the distinction between "seller" and "dealer" is not lost on me and I wrote what I meant. I don't really care whether one, or even a felon, buys or receives a gun from a dealer or any other kind of seller. I care that people who have no business/right legally buying a gun are prohibited from actually buying a gun.

From Politifact:​

1. Federally licensed gun sellers are required to run background checks. But not all sellers are required to be licensed. Some of those unlicensed sellers sell at gun shows.

Federal law requires that persons who are engaged in the business of dealing in firearms be licensed by the federal government. Obama’s goal with his new plan is to tighten the screws on who is included in that group.

Announced Jan. 5, Obama’s plan requires those in the business of dealing in firearms -- including sellers at stores, gun shows and on the Internet -- get a license. Once they’re licensed, they are required to conduct background checks on all buyers.

But private sellers without a federal license don’t have to meet the same requirement. Though this exception is often referred to as the "gun show loophole," it actually applies more broadly to unlicensed individuals, whether they are selling at a gun show or somewhere else. (Some states have implemented their own background check requirement beyond federal law.)

Bush’s argument centers on the fact that the loophole doesn’t single out gun shows.

A Bush spokesman pointed to a 2000 article by David Kopel, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute. (The spokesman also cited a brief from Politico that made a similar argument to Kopel’s.) Kopel wrote that for decades, dealers have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. But those who sell firearms from time to time -- such as to a relative -- aren’t required to obtain such a license.

"Existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold," he wrote. "If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the weekend) are the distinct minority."

Kopel, a law professor at Denver University, told PolitiFact that his own research was based on gun shows in Colorado in the 1980s and 1990s.​

Blue:
As for the matter of gifts, well, I realize that no law can actually stop that from happening if the giver trust the recipient will not betray the trust the former shows by making the gift. That said, if the recipient does betray that trust, there should be some legal means of criminal and civil recourse the state and individuals harmed by the recipient's gun use can pursue.

I don't have a problem with the transactions by which one comes by a gun be tracked, including the tracking of the gun purchased. We do precisely that for cars; I see no reason not to do it with guns. We have a right to own a gun. We don't have a right to own one secretly. Frankly, I think having a robust means of tracing the history of a gun's legal ownership will help inspire legit owners to keep better control over their firearms.

Of the 16,667 firearms reported [in 2012] as lost or stolen from federal firearms license holders, a total of 10,915 firearms were reported as lost. The remaining 5,762 were reported as stolen. In my mind, that's at least ~11K folks (assuming a 1:1 ratio between guns and gun losers) who have no business owning a gun. Be that as it may, if those lost guns show up somewhere, knowing to whom it last legally belonged is a good thing.

No one is going to confiscate cars.....confiscation of guns is a step governments use to keep people under control......so that is a non starter.

The problem is this.....the individual buying the gun illegally is the only one actually committing an illegal act......I don't care if you sell a gun from a private collection occasionally without a background check.....this is not the method that criminals get guns and even if it was.......you can arrest the criminal for the actions they take with the gun or the simple act of finding them with the gun....

The obsession with punishing normal gun owners...to the complete ignoring of the actual criminal is simply nuts.

Again....why don't we insist on background checks for computers before we sell computers or electronic devices...if the goal it to prevent criminals from committing crimes we should be doing that.........since sex trafficking, child porn, identity theft, theft of state secrets, and any number of crimes use computers........if it was stopping felons from committing crimes then computers should be tracked the same as you guys want guns tracked....even more so.....

We already have laws on the books...if a felon is in possession of a gun, arrest him and put him away for 30 years. Normal, law abiding gun owners are not subsidiary branches of law enforcement....we are not required to and are told not to engage in law enforcement on our own time....but for this.....you guys want us to become Jr. cops.......on our own dime.......

If you want to police felons at gun shows....do it the right way...devote actual police resources to attempt to buy and sell to individual sellers...identifying themselves as people who cannot legally buy guns...and then attempt to complete the sale......hit the guy with a huge fine if he tries to sell the .22 rifle to someone he knows can't buy it...don't destroy his life......

Also....you have the anti gunner bait and switch.....you guys think it will only apply to private sales.....but the anti gunners have passed that....and are now switching the terms....they want background checks on all transfers of guns....that means you can't borrow your dad's shotgun to go hunting next weekend..if you both don't go down to the gun store to get background checks........you can't have your brother keep your guns at his house while you are on vacation...without going to the gun store and paying for a background check...first, to give them to your brother, and second to take them back when you get home......

The best method......go after the actual criminals who actually, intentionally break the law. If you catch a felon with an illegal gun......don't just give him a year and a half for good behavior......send him away for 30 years....that will actually dry up criminal use of guns....

If that is your goal.....

If someone uses a gun to rob a liquor store......send him away for 30 years.......that will dry up gun crime.....

if that is your goal.....

If you hate guns...and the people who own them...continue to target normal, law abiding gun owners with law after law that doesn't stop a single actual violent criminal or mass shooter......and you will continue to have people murdered with guns....

Is a buyer of illegal drugs also a criminal?

I get where you're trying to go analogically with your question, but the answer is that it depends. Some jurisdictions make the purchase/sale of illegal drugs a crime. Others make mere possession a crime. Furthermore, I don't know, but I suspect that in some places, drug-related crimes are strict liability crimes and and in others they are mens rea required crimes.

A better item to use as a basis of comparison with guns is one that is legal for some folks to own/possess and not legal for others to own/possess. Unfortunately, there aren't that many such items. Things like alcohol and smoking products come to mind, but even there, the folks who lack legal ability to buy/sell them are minors, who are also prohibited from buying firearms in some states.

​

.
Sidebar:

I think it's nuts that a minor be allowed to own, buy, or carry a personal firearm in peacetime, or during a war in which the U.S. has not been invaded.​

End of sidebar.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Not the question. Someone stated that the guy who buys a gun unlicensed without a background check, like in the back aisles of a gun show, isn't a criminal.

Using that distorted reasoning, people buying illegal drugs aren't criminals, either.

The Constitution explicitly affirms the people's right to keep and bear arms, which necessarily must include the right to buy, sell, trade, or otherwise acquire them; and forbids infringement of this right. One is not a criminal for legitimately exercising such a Constitutionally-affirmed right. It is government that is acting criminally when it interferes with this right, in direct and blatant violation of the Constitution, or seeks to punish anyone for exercising any this right.

Nothing in the Constitution affirms or implies any similar “right” to acquire, possess, or use harmful drugs.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I think it's nuts that a minor be allowed to own, buy, or carry a personal firearm in peacetime, or during a war in which the U.S. has not been invaded.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...”—Richard Henry Lee, 1788​

 

[320 Years of History]

I think it's nuts that a minor be allowed to own, buy, or carry a personal firearm in peacetime, or during a war in which the U.S. has not been invaded.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them...”—Richard Henry Lee, 1788​

I agree with that principle. The problem as I see it is that people, young and not young, are just fine at learning how to use arms -- it's not as though basic gun use is all that hard "get" -- but they aren't very fine at all at learning and applying good sense about when to use them and when not to. Any fool can shoot someone else when they are angry with the other person. It takes a wholly different level of maturity to refrain from doing so and finding other ways to resolve the differences that rile them.