Curiosity Question for the Gun Nuts

[BULLDOG]

I know that sounds really profound at a tea person meeting, or a KKK rally, but it really isn't. Do you advocate removing every law that isn't 100% effective?

1. You didn't answer any of my questions.

2. No, but I do not advocating the trampling of more of our Constitutional Rights to impose something that will never, ever be effective or solve the problem. When you create laws the only ones who obey them are the people you never have to worry about to begin with...the people who will never break them (which is why Congress exempts itself from the laws they pass).

As far as laws where only law abiding citizens follow them, that would be every law that has ever been on the books and every law that will ever be on the books.

 

[easyt65]

As far as laws where only law abiding citizens follow them, that would be every law that has ever been on the books and every law that will ever be on the books.

And do they stop criminals and terrorists from breaking the law and perpetrating attacks?

Maybe we have laws to establish 'boundaries' and to have something with which to legally charge and prosecute the bad guys AFTER they have committed the crimes...not to PREVENT them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe we have laws to establish 'boundaries' and to have something with which to legally charge and prosecute the bad guys AFTER they have committed the crimes...not to PREVENT them.

This is why we have criminal laws.
It is impossible to enact a law that will prevent people from breaking another law; to do so only needlessly and unnecessarily limits the rights of the law abiding.

 

[BULLDOG]

As far as laws where only law abiding citizens follow them, that would be every law that has ever been on the books and every law that will ever be on the books.

And do they stop criminals and terrorists from breaking the law and perpetrating attacks?

Maybe we have laws to establish 'boundaries' and to have something with which to legally charge and prosecute the bad guys AFTER they have committed the crimes...not to PREVENT them.

The only people that ANY law stops are law abiding citizens. If 100% success is your requirement, then you don't believe in any laws. If, on the other hand, you have at least a little bit of sanity, you will realize that universal background checks will reduce the amount of guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have guns.

 

[easyt65]

At the same time those laws often make the law-abiding more vulnerable to those who break those laws and / or who want to impose their will upon the law-abiding...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Only people who consider themselves to be "gun nuts" should reply?

Feel free but all I hear from gun nuts is that gun owners are all safe and responsible folks who are totally in charge of their faculties at any given moment in time. I think not myself. This question is set to gauge just how belligerent someone has to be before the gun nutjobs will agree..."yeah, the guy who turned the Comfort Inn into a drive-through probably shouldn't have a .357 on his hip" (next Month in Texas he'll be able to).

300 MILLION firearms in private hands over 150 million firearms owners legally. 9000 murders a year and most of them are by criminals killing other criminals remind us how dangerous private ownership is again?

 

[deltex1]

Dateline Texas:

A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.

A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game.

Obviously both Texicans have anger issues. Set aside the law for a moment since we all know background checks are a joke and you can get around them by buying a weapon from anyone willing to sell it to you.

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

What about Adam Lanza's Father?

This thread should be in the general discussion forum...to be consistent.

 

[HappyJoy]

Dateline Texas:

A jerk from Texas drove his truck into a hotel lobby to express his disappointment over a bill.

A second jerk from Texas ordered 2 of his students/players to cheap shot a referee during a game.

Obviously both Texicans have anger issues. Set aside the law for a moment since we all know background checks are a joke and you can get around them by buying a weapon from anyone willing to sell it to you.

Do the gun nuts who frequent this forum think these 2 men should still be allowed to own weapons/be in the same house where weapons are?

What about Adam Lanza's Father?

Good question. It'd be nice if a gun nut would actually take the time to answer it rather than deflect with "wut the fuk yu ask fer? ey dunt git it!!"

Belueve me, if you were about to get raped by a bear, you'd want to be armed -- or would you?

Not interested in your story.

 

[Dot Com]

who is that other gun nut besides M14 Shooter & westwall ? He still around?

 

[HappyJoy]

who is that other gun nut besides M14 Shooter & westwall ? He still around?

You probably mean captain kirk aka 2guy.

 

[Dot Com]

who is that other gun nut besides M14 Shooter & westwall ? He still around?

You probably mean captain kirk aka 2guy.

no. Theres another single-issue clinger like M14 Shooter

 

[Dot Com]

who is that other gun nut besides M14 Shooter & westwall ? He still around?

You probably mean captain kirk aka 2guy.

its that OTHER single-issue gun nutter Wildman

 

[westwall]

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.
.

Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.

Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.

And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:



Are you saying that the folks who run these shows do not know this is going on?

And this man committed a crime. Why is he not in jail? What he did IS ALREADY A CRIME! No gunshow loophole moron, a man doing an illegal transfer. Plain and simple.

If the seller wasn't a licensed dealer. Which law or laws were broken?

He did not verify the identity of the buyer.

 

[westwall]

How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:

In any of these instances, did he legally avoid the federal requirement for a background check?
No?
No loophole.
You're lying and you know it.

In his fake scenarios, the criminals are loose on the street and have no restrictions upon them. Which is typical of the lefty view of the way things should be.

In our world, people who are criminal and/or DANGEROUS get locked up, and thus forfeit their right to freedom, and therefore, weapons.

Should the goobers in the vid be locked up for selling without a fed background check?

No, but he should be locked up for not verifying ID. THAT is a crime.

Which FEDERAL law requires him to verify ID, and with no record keeping or reporting of the sale, how would anybody know?

Federal law mandates that only residents of the same state (there is some wiggle room in this as regards long guns depending on the individual State laws) may purchase weapons without going through an FFL. Thus failure to check the residence of the purchaser is a violation of that Federal Law. Look it up.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yet we just saw a guy purchase an arsenal without so much as a pen to fill out paperwork for the background check.

Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.

And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:



Are you saying that the folks who run these shows do not know this is going on?

And this man committed a crime. Why is he not in jail? What he did IS ALREADY A CRIME! No gunshow loophole moron, a man doing an illegal transfer. Plain and simple.

If the seller wasn't a licensed dealer. Which law or laws were broken?

He did not verify the identity of the buyer.

Name the law that requires proof that he did. Sorry, but I need a verified law. You saying it just is isn't enough.

 

[westwall]

Are they under arrest?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?

If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.

FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.

Second: You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

As far as the law goes, there is no requirement for the guy to have a back ground check, so you are right. The purchases were strictly legal. Buying from a licensed dealer probably doesn't have a way to avoid background checks. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop unchecked sales.

Shit, you know absolutely nothing about what you are speaking. The seller violated the law by not verifying the ID of the purchaser. Dead stop. A FFL MUST fill out a 4473 and a variety of other paperwork depending on locality. Further, if the FFL is from another state he must deliver the weapon to a FFL in the state where the purchaser resides, so that a transfer can be concluded.

That's only if he has an FFL. Individual sales have no such requirement.

Are they under arrest?
Under indictment?
Are they fugitives from justice?
Have they been convicted of a felony or other disqualifying crime?
Incarcerated? Involuntarily committed?

If they answer is :no: to all of these things, they are then legally able to own a gun; if you have a problem with that, you then need to change the law.

FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.

Second: You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

As far as the law goes, there is no requirement for the guy to have a back ground check, so you are right. The purchases were strictly legal. Buying from a licensed dealer probably doesn't have a way to avoid background checks. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop unchecked sales.

Shit, you know absolutely nothing about what you are speaking. The seller violated the law by not verifying the ID of the purchaser. Dead stop. A FFL MUST fill out a 4473 and a variety of other paperwork depending on locality. Further, if the FFL is from another state he must deliver the weapon to a FFL in the state where the purchaser resides, so that a transfer can be concluded.

That's only if he has an FFL. Individual sales have no such requirement.

Untrue. You as the seller are REQUIRED to verify the ID of the person you are selling the weapon to. You are not required to issue a bill of sale (though you would be a fool not to, nor are you required to keep a copy of the buyers ID) but you ARE required to personally verify the ID and state of residence of the buyer.

 

[BULLDOG]

In any of these instances, did he legally avoid the federal requirement for a background check?
No?
No loophole.
You're lying and you know it.

In his fake scenarios, the criminals are loose on the street and have no restrictions upon them. Which is typical of the lefty view of the way things should be.

In our world, people who are criminal and/or DANGEROUS get locked up, and thus forfeit their right to freedom, and therefore, weapons.

Should the goobers in the vid be locked up for selling without a fed background check?

No, but he should be locked up for not verifying ID. THAT is a crime.

Which FEDERAL law requires him to verify ID, and with no record keeping or reporting of the sale, how would anybody know?

Federal law mandates that only residents of the same state (there is some wiggle room in this as regards long guns depending on the individual State laws) may purchase weapons without going through an FFL. Thus failure to check the residence of the purchaser is a violation of that Federal Law. Look it up.

Is there a defined procedure for verifying an ID for an individual gun sale?

 

[BULLDOG]

FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.

Second: You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

As far as the law goes, there is no requirement for the guy to have a back ground check, so you are right. The purchases were strictly legal. Buying from a licensed dealer probably doesn't have a way to avoid background checks. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop unchecked sales.

Shit, you know absolutely nothing about what you are speaking. The seller violated the law by not verifying the ID of the purchaser. Dead stop. A FFL MUST fill out a 4473 and a variety of other paperwork depending on locality. Further, if the FFL is from another state he must deliver the weapon to a FFL in the state where the purchaser resides, so that a transfer can be concluded.

That's only if he has an FFL. Individual sales have no such requirement.

FWIW, we do have a law that the NRA/Republicans insists on a loophole large enough to drive a truck through--much like he lobby of that hotel. Selling at gun shows by individuals....

First: the above is a lie. There is no loophole in the current federal laws regarding background checks as there is no legal way to avoid the background check prescribed by said law. None.

Second: You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

As far as the law goes, there is no requirement for the guy to have a back ground check, so you are right. The purchases were strictly legal. Buying from a licensed dealer probably doesn't have a way to avoid background checks. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop unchecked sales.

Shit, you know absolutely nothing about what you are speaking. The seller violated the law by not verifying the ID of the purchaser. Dead stop. A FFL MUST fill out a 4473 and a variety of other paperwork depending on locality. Further, if the FFL is from another state he must deliver the weapon to a FFL in the state where the purchaser resides, so that a transfer can be concluded.

That's only if he has an FFL. Individual sales have no such requirement.

Untrue. You as the seller are REQUIRED to verify the ID of the person you are selling the weapon to. You are not required to issue a bill of sale (though you would be a fool not to, nor are you required to keep a copy of the buyers ID) but you ARE required to personally verify the ID and state of residence of the buyer.

OK. Which law is that. There is a number and probably a letter used to identify laws. A date too. Point that out for me.

 

[westwall]

Nothing here changes the fact you are lying, and you know you are lying, about a "loophole" in the federal laws regarding background checks.
Disagree?
Explain, with specifics, how he legally avoided the background check requirement of those laws.

And again:
You completely skipped over the part about needing to change the law. How do you propose to change the law to achieve the effect you desire? In your response, lease keep in mind the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

How? He simply showed up at a gunshow with a wad of cash. Several times. Heres the video once more:



Are you saying that the folks who run these shows do not know this is going on?

And this man committed a crime. Why is he not in jail? What he did IS ALREADY A CRIME! No gunshow loophole moron, a man doing an illegal transfer. Plain and simple.

If the seller wasn't a licensed dealer. Which law or laws were broken?

He did not verify the identity of the buyer.

Name the law that requires proof that he did. Sorry, but I need a verified law. You saying it just is isn't enough.

Below is the Federal requirement for buyer and seller to be residents of the same state. I don't feel like wading through all of the BS to find the exact Statute but here's the website. Feel free.



What recordkeeping procedures should be followed when two unlicensed individuals want to engage in a firearms transaction?
When a transaction takes place between unlicensed persons who reside in the same State, the GCA does not require any record keeping. An unlicensed person may sell a firearm to another unlicensed person in his or her State of residence and, similarly, an unlicensed person may buy a firearm from another unlicensed person who resides in the same State. It is not necessary under Federal law for a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) to assist in the sale or transfer when the buyer and seller are “same–State” residents.

There may be State or local laws or regulations that govern this type of transaction. Contact the office of your State Attorney General for information regarding any such requirements.




What recordkeeping procedures should be followed when two unlicensed individuals want to engage in a firearms transaction? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I know that sounds really profound at a tea person meeting, or a KKK rally, but it really isn't. Do you advocate removing every law that isn't 100% effective?

1. You didn't answer any of my questions.

2. No, but I do not advocating the trampling of more of our Constitutional Rights to impose something that will never, ever be effective or solve the problem. When you create laws the only ones who obey them are the people you never have to worry about to begin with...the people who will never break them (which is why Congress exempts itself from the laws they pass).

As far as laws where only law abiding citizens follow them, that would be every law that has ever been on the books and every law that will ever be on the books.

Apples and oranges.

We have laws against rape. That means if you legitimately rape a woman, you are held on charges, brought to court and it's determined whether you're guilty or not. If you are guilty, you go to jail. We have rape laws to help prevent rapes.

Gun laws are much different in that people find alternative methods to obtain a firearm that are not legal. The more laws you make, the more alternative ways criminals will get their hands on guns. There are no alternative ways to rape, murder or steal from somebody. You either brake the law or you don't.