Concealed Carry Permits Should be Treated Like Driver's Licenses

[2aguy]

It's OK, he's a gun owner, he's one of us. So he can be against them, no problem

You think everything is all or nothing don't you?

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

What you want is a prior restraint on gun ownership.....you say "incitement" which means if you break the law about "incitement" you go to jail......people are not expected to get a permit, or register to speak.....before they incite....they are only arrested on the breaking of the law...

and no, permits and registration for using public spaces doesn't count.....a public space is availabel to all citizens so people have to reserve it, and make accomodations for other citizens....

 

[2aguy]

Begging the question. What about answering it? It goes directly to the ridiculousness of what you just said.

How does restricting the rights of people who aren't criminals make you feel safer? Criminals don't follow the laws. Hint, they are criminals...

Every law written restricts the rights of some law abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow those laws either.

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

Easy...we have background checks available now.....good guys can right now ask any buyer to go with them to get background checked.....if they refuse, they know not to sell the gun to the guy.......no need for any new laws......

Right. Voluntary checks. Lots of people willing to sell guns to anybody as long as they can say they didn't know the buyer was a crook. How you gonna prove they were lying? With universal checks, we get rid of that loophole.

Because when you catch the guy who bought the gun...and he wasn't allowed to have it....you arrest him......simple, easy, and no extra money or paperwork required...since he wasn't allowed to buy or be in possession of the gun...right?j

That takes care of it..........universal background checks don't get rid of that loophole, the guy gets a straw purchaser or steals the gun......

 

[BULLDOG]

Without background checks, it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed.

False.
It is illegal to sell a gun to anyone you have reason to believe cannot legally own a gun.
So, since you know your know you mom is a felon, selling her a gun breaks the law.

There is no requirement to know or to even find out who you sell a gun to unless it is one of the regulated types. If they are willing to pay your price, you can sell them a gun. Not even a sales receipt required.

You need to read the law. When you do, you will see that what I said is correct.
18 U.S. Code 922 - Unlawful acts US Law LII Legal Information Institute
(See section (d))
As such, your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" is proven false.

Those only apply if the seller actually knows if any of those things apply to the buyer. There is no obligation or legal reason for the seller to find out, and you probably can't count on the buyer telling you if he is a felon.

Your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" has been proven false.

No it hasn't. The only way to prevent it is to prove the seller knew the buyer was a crook. The seller has no obligation to know that or to find out.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Another lie.

I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right.

As you argue from willful ignorance, that's exactly what you do -- lie.

not at all; I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right, or impugn others.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie.

you argue from incompetence; it is why you need a clue and a Cause.

Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

So if government can put any regulation on a Constitutional right, they can put all regulations on Constitutional rights. Therefore, they really aren't Constitutional rights, are they? I guess they should have called it the Bill of Suggestions

Back to the all or nothing again. This all started with the premise that gun rights can not be infringed in any way. Obviously, they can be in reasonable ways. The only question now is "what is reasonable". I think it is reasonable for an individual who is selling a gun to find out if the buyer is allowed by law to have it. A few bucks for a background check that the buyer would probably pay for is the best way to make sure that happens. Don't you want to make it harder for crooks to get guns?

I don't want to make law abiding citizens into criminals because they don't keep up with the complex legal requirements created to trap them by anti gunners......if criminals are caught with a gun...lock them up...it really is that simple....that guy who shot the cop in the face....he had already been arrested twice for gun possesion and attempted murder......if they had just done what I suggest, and kept him locked up on the gun charge...the police officer, and whoever else he had victimized would be safe today.....

Telling a buyer to get a background check before you sell them the gun is not very complex.

 

[M14 Shooter]

False.
It is illegal to sell a gun to anyone you have reason to believe cannot legally own a gun.
So, since you know your know you mom is a felon, selling her a gun breaks the law.

There is no requirement to know or to even find out who you sell a gun to unless it is one of the regulated types. If they are willing to pay your price, you can sell them a gun. Not even a sales receipt required.

You need to read the law. When you do, you will see that what I said is correct.
18 U.S. Code 922 - Unlawful acts US Law LII Legal Information Institute
(See section (d))
As such, your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" is proven false.

Those only apply if the seller actually knows if any of those things apply to the buyer. There is no obligation or legal reason for the seller to find out, and you probably can't count on the buyer telling you if he is a felon.

Your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" has been proven false.

No it hasn't.

It has.
If you know the person you;re selling to cannot legally own a gun, then selling him a gun is illegal.
Therefore, it is NOT "perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed", as people who know the buyer cannot own a gun cannot legally sell him a gun.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right.

As you argue from willful ignorance, that's exactly what you do -- lie.

not at all; I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right, or impugn others.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie.

you argue from incompetence; it is why you need a clue and a Cause.

Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

it can't be a fact when you are merely incompetent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look it up yourself.

In other words, you know you're just making things up.

Surely you are smart enough to know that fully automatic rifles are just as illegal as RPG's

Wait.... you think machineguns are illegal?
Bwwwahahahhhahah!
Way to prove to the world that you have no idea what you;re talking about.

I don't think. I know that unregulated ownership or use of a machine gun is illegal.

Surely you know that your original statement here was that "fully automatic rifles are just as illegal as RPG's"
Surely you know that your statement, above, is you moving the goalposts.
Surely you know that no one here is surprised by this.
Now, cite for us again those restrictions on firearms that are constitutional and the SCotUS decisions that held them to be.

No, that wasn't my original statement, but obviously it was a mistake to make a blanket remark that automatic rifles are illegal. I admit that

Good boy.
Now, cite for us again those restrictions on firearms that are constitutional and the SCotUS decisions that held them to be.

 

[2aguy]

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

So if government can put any regulation on a Constitutional right, they can put all regulations on Constitutional rights. Therefore, they really aren't Constitutional rights, are they? I guess they should have called it the Bill of Suggestions

Back to the all or nothing again. This all started with the premise that gun rights can not be infringed in any way. Obviously, they can be in reasonable ways. The only question now is "what is reasonable". I think it is reasonable for an individual who is selling a gun to find out if the buyer is allowed by law to have it. A few bucks for a background check that the buyer would probably pay for is the best way to make sure that happens. Don't you want to make it harder for crooks to get guns?

I don't want to make law abiding citizens into criminals because they don't keep up with the complex legal requirements created to trap them by anti gunners......if criminals are caught with a gun...lock them up...it really is that simple....that guy who shot the cop in the face....he had already been arrested twice for gun possesion and attempted murder......if they had just done what I suggest, and kept him locked up on the gun charge...the police officer, and whoever else he had victimized would be safe today.....

Telling a buyer to get a background check before you sell them the gun is not very complex.

But the buyer is not a criminal.....getting a permit to write a book is would not be complex either....or getting a license to post on an internet forum from the government would not be complex either......do you want that as well....to make sure people won't commit slander or libel....?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech.

Because it places people in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, just like falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
How does simple ownership/possession of a firearm place anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

[BULLDOG]

You think everything is all or nothing don't you?

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

What you want is a prior restraint on gun ownership.....you say "incitement" which means if you break the law about "incitement" you go to jail......people are not expected to get a permit, or register to speak.....before they incite....they are only arrested on the breaking of the law...

and no, permits and registration for using public spaces doesn't count.....a public space is availabel to all citizens so people have to reserve it, and make accomodations for other citizens....

We're not talking about registration. Only background checks. Nobody even keeps the paperwork on them. Get it, show it to the seller, throw it away. The people actually requesting the checks (licensed dealers) don't even keep a record of it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As you argue from willful ignorance, that's exactly what you do -- lie.

not at all; I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right, or impugn others.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie.

you argue from incompetence; it is why you need a clue and a Cause.

Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

it can't be a fact when you are merely incompetent.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

 

[2aguy]

False.
It is illegal to sell a gun to anyone you have reason to believe cannot legally own a gun.
So, since you know your know you mom is a felon, selling her a gun breaks the law.

There is no requirement to know or to even find out who you sell a gun to unless it is one of the regulated types. If they are willing to pay your price, you can sell them a gun. Not even a sales receipt required.

You need to read the law. When you do, you will see that what I said is correct.
18 U.S. Code 922 - Unlawful acts US Law LII Legal Information Institute
(See section (d))
As such, your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" is proven false.

Those only apply if the seller actually knows if any of those things apply to the buyer. There is no obligation or legal reason for the seller to find out, and you probably can't count on the buyer telling you if he is a felon.

Your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" has been proven false.

No it hasn't. The only way to prevent it is to prove the seller knew the buyer was a crook. The seller has no obligation to know that or to find out.

there is no need to prove the seller knew or didn't know....when you catch the crimianl using the gun in a crime, or if he is a convicted felon in mere poessession of a gun...arrest him.....

If you think a gun seller is routinely, knowingly selling guns to criminals....set up a law enforcement sting, catch him knowingly selling to someone who can't pass a background check...and then arrest him.....simple....no muss, no fuss....and the beauty...we can do that right now without any new laws........

 

[danielpalos]

not at all; I don't need to lie and appeal to ignorance of our own laws; unlike the Right, or impugn others.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie.

you argue from incompetence; it is why you need a clue and a Cause.

Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

it can't be a fact when you are merely incompetent.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

 

[BULLDOG]

Every law written restricts the rights of some law abiding citizens, and criminals don't follow those laws either.

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

Easy...we have background checks available now.....good guys can right now ask any buyer to go with them to get background checked.....if they refuse, they know not to sell the gun to the guy.......no need for any new laws......

Right. Voluntary checks. Lots of people willing to sell guns to anybody as long as they can say they didn't know the buyer was a crook. How you gonna prove they were lying? With universal checks, we get rid of that loophole.

Because when you catch the guy who bought the gun...and he wasn't allowed to have it....you arrest him......simple, easy, and no extra money or paperwork required...since he wasn't allowed to buy or be in possession of the gun...right?j

That takes care of it..........universal background checks don't get rid of that loophole, the guy gets a straw purchaser or steals the gun......

I'd rather stop him from getting it instead of catching him after he used it.

 

[2aguy]

Strawman. If guns are restricted like other Constitutional rights in this country then I'm mostly fine with that. Are you? You ready to require licenses and fees for free speech and to protect you from illegal searches and ceasures?

And gain, that means what exactly? What government restriction of the right only people who follow gun laws, honest citizens, makes you feel safer exactly?

That's just dumb. I'm not sure how free speech can produce the same danger of the public that no background checks for guns can.

Thats because you're stupid. NOte the word "incitement" and what it connotes.

You might note that incitement is a regulated form of speech. Reasonable regulation is needed in all aspects of life in a community. Even free speech.

What you want is a prior restraint on gun ownership.....you say "incitement" which means if you break the law about "incitement" you go to jail......people are not expected to get a permit, or register to speak.....before they incite....they are only arrested on the breaking of the law...

and no, permits and registration for using public spaces doesn't count.....a public space is availabel to all citizens so people have to reserve it, and make accomodations for other citizens....

We're not talking about registration. Only background checks. Nobody even keeps the paperwork on them. Get it, show it to the seller, throw it away. The people actually requesting the checks (licensed dealers) don't even keep a record of it.

Are you complaining about that? Again....background checks are defeated by criminals....they have people with clean records buy the gun, get a law breaking gun seller to sell them guns, or they steal them...

The only thing you really need to do...when someone uses a gun to commit a crime...arrest them...just like drunk driving.....when a felon is found with a gun....you can arrest them and lock them up just for that.....

no background check needed.....innocent, law abiding citizens are left alone and aren't trapped by overly complex gun laws......right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie.

you argue from incompetence; it is why you need a clue and a Cause.

Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

it can't be a fact when you are merely incompetent.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no requirement to know or to even find out who you sell a gun to unless it is one of the regulated types. If they are willing to pay your price, you can sell them a gun. Not even a sales receipt required.

You need to read the law. When you do, you will see that what I said is correct.
18 U.S. Code 922 - Unlawful acts US Law LII Legal Information Institute
(See section (d))
As such, your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" is proven false.

Those only apply if the seller actually knows if any of those things apply to the buyer. There is no obligation or legal reason for the seller to find out, and you probably can't count on the buyer telling you if he is a felon.

Your statement that "it is perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed" has been proven false.

No it hasn't.

It has.
If you know the person you;re selling to cannot legally own a gun, then selling him a gun is illegal.
Therefore, it is NOT "perfectly legal for anyone other than a licensed dealer to sell a gun to any of the people listed", as people who know the buyer cannot own a gun cannot legally sell him a gun.

You're dodging. Only if you personally know they can't have it. Otherwise, sell away. You don't have to find out.

 

[danielpalos]

you argue from incompetence; it is why you need a clue and a Cause.

Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

it can't be a fact when you are merely incompetent.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

You argue from willful ignorance; thus, you lie
Nothing here changes the fact that you;re lying.

i can't be lying simply because you are too incompetent to tell the difference. you claim that but offer only fallacy to support your incompetent contention.

 

[2aguy]

So what about answering the question then?

Universal background checks would be a minor inconvenience for a lawful gun seller, but without them, there is no way for the individual seller to tell if the buyer is one of the felons, etc. that are not allowed to have a gun. I believe most responsible gun owners would refuse to sell to crooks, but how do they know if the buyer is a crook? That would make me feel a hell of a lot safer.

Easy...we have background checks available now.....good guys can right now ask any buyer to go with them to get background checked.....if they refuse, they know not to sell the gun to the guy.......no need for any new laws......

Right. Voluntary checks. Lots of people willing to sell guns to anybody as long as they can say they didn't know the buyer was a crook. How you gonna prove they were lying? With universal checks, we get rid of that loophole.

Because when you catch the guy who bought the gun...and he wasn't allowed to have it....you arrest him......simple, easy, and no extra money or paperwork required...since he wasn't allowed to buy or be in possession of the gun...right?j

That takes care of it..........universal background checks don't get rid of that loophole, the guy gets a straw purchaser or steals the gun......

I'd rather stop him from getting it instead of catching him after he used it.

How do you stop him from getting it....? we have already shown that background checks do not do that....ever....8,454 gun murders last year...background checks didn't stop them......Sandy Hook, Columbine, Fort Hood 2x, The navy yard, the Colorado Theater shooter......and on and on...background checks didn't stop those mass shootings......

what you propose is essentially this in relation to drunk driving.....when you drive drunk and get caught...you are arrested

what you want...if we treated drunk driving like guns....you want every citizen to have to blow into a tube to start their car on the chance they might be drunk....thus stopping the drunk driving before it happens....in every car made...for every driver driving.......

right now, if you are caught drunk driving and you can be arrested for driving drunk...again....

all you have to do is apply the same process to guns....commit a crime with a gun....get arrested....no need to accuse every citizen of being a felon until they prove otherwise...right? Because that is what a background check is....you having to prove your innocence ....right?