Gun Control question for liberals?

[Flash]

[Q


The claim was made that universal checks would have no effect either way. I just asked for proof of that claim.

You are confused about this, aren't you Moon Bat?

Almost all of the recent mass shooters passed a background check and it didn't stop them from committing a crime.

Background checks are absolutely useless. Passing a stupid background check is absolutely no guarantee that a person won't commit a crime in the future.

Background checks are just like all stupid Liberal policies. They make the idiot Liberals feel good but they are useless.

Somebody looking to use a firearm for criminal purposes will always be able to get one regardless of the oppressive laws against law abiding citizens.

There is no guarantee that any person won't commit a crime in the future, dumb ass, but, if you determine they have committed crimes in the past, it is positive that they are more likely to commit more crimes in the future.

Then why do the democrats keep letting them out of jail and prison over and over again? And why do democrat politicians keep reducing the lengths of sentences for gun crimes, repeat gun crimes for actual criminals who have criminal records and repeat gun arrests?

If everyone were armed, criminals could have their rights restored after they served their time, because natural selection/street justice would take care of them if they didn't or refused to learn their lesson.

.

Yes, we are all aware of your lawless anarchist dreams where mob rule is your answer to everything.

You mean anarchy like our Founding Fathers that enacted a bill of rights that said for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Real reactionaries, weren't they?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car.

Actually yes, you do need a license to buy a car from a dealer, and you need one to transfer ownership in a private sale.

You made this up - no state requires a drivers license for the purchase, sale, or ownership of a car.

A dealership MAY require a license, but not as a matter of law, and if you do not have a license, a state ID will do -- the fact you BUY a car does not in any way necessitate that you will drive it - and, of course, cars can be bought outside a dealership.

As for the rest, the second you take that car out in public you need license and insurance.

But not to own it, keep it at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.
I ask again - and maybe this time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why?
You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Universal background checks won't do this.

And why not?

- It's unenforceable
- People who knowingly sell guns to criminals are already breaking the law ans will not obey THIS law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

With registration you could background check the gun.

And there we have it.... registration
"Well shucks - to make universal background checks work, we need universal registration!!!"
Which was the objective all along.

No one wonders why the anti-gun loons wants universal registration.

 

[Pogo]

You are confused about this, aren't you Moon Bat?

Almost all of the recent mass shooters passed a background check and it didn't stop them from committing a crime.

Background checks are absolutely useless. Passing a stupid background check is absolutely no guarantee that a person won't commit a crime in the future.

Background checks are just like all stupid Liberal policies. They make the idiot Liberals feel good but they are useless.

Somebody looking to use a firearm for criminal purposes will always be able to get one regardless of the oppressive laws against law abiding citizens.

There is no guarantee that any person won't commit a crime in the future, dumb ass, but, if you determine they have committed crimes in the past, it is positive that they are more likely to commit more crimes in the future.

Then why do the democrats keep letting them out of jail and prison over and over again? And why do democrat politicians keep reducing the lengths of sentences for gun crimes, repeat gun crimes for actual criminals who have criminal records and repeat gun arrests?

If everyone were armed, criminals could have their rights restored after they served their time, because natural selection/street justice would take care of them if they didn't or refused to learn their lesson.

.

Yes, we are all aware of your lawless anarchist dreams where mob rule is your answer to everything.

You mean anarchy like our Founding Fathers that enacted a bill of rights that said for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Real reactionaries, weren't they?

Ah yes. The Liberals.
Funny thing, the OP mentioned them in the title and his OP. Then he started lying with strawmen.

 

[Blues Man]

If I know my cousin, uncle, niece, nephew, best friend etc isn't a felon why do I need to pay for a background check?

You are under no obligation to know either way. That is what the background check is for.

Answer the question

If I know my brother isn't a felon why do I have to pay for a background check?

Because under current law, there is no legal reason why any individual seller should know or even care if the gun purchaser can legally own a gun. Hell. there is no legal reason why the seller should even know the purchaser's name, much less whether he can legally own a gun.

If I know my brother isn't a felon why do I have to pay for a background check on him?

I'm not asking about selling to people I don't know.

If I own a bus company, and I know my brother is a pretty good driver, why does he have to take that commercial driving test before I can hire him?

Poor analogy as there is absolutely no commonality between a gun and a bus

A better one would be if you owned a liquor store and your brother was over 21 why would you card him?

 

[Blues Man]

brothers and sisters: the person who the NRA donated the most to in history was Trump. and he banned bump stocks. and the nra were silent on that. they are doing a horrible job. Hogg owns the future!

a bump stock is not a firearm and therefore does not fall under second amendment protections

 

[Blues Man]

You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car.

Actually yes, you do need a license to buy a car from a dealer, and you need one to transfer ownership in a private sale.

As for the rest, the second you take that car out in public you need license and insurance.

you do not need a drivers license to purchase or sell a vehicle

 

[Blues Man]

Criminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.

They get them from private owners

That is why we need to register all guns

Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........

Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.

Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.

And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.

I don't think gun registration makes any sense in a nation with more guns than there are people. Countries that were success with gun registration were countries where very few people own guns. I think the emphasis should be on background checks.

With registration you could background check the gun.

guns don't commit crimes

 

[Flash]

There is no guarantee that any person won't commit a crime in the future, dumb ass, but, if you determine they have committed crimes in the past, it is positive that they are more likely to commit more crimes in the future.

Then why do the democrats keep letting them out of jail and prison over and over again? And why do democrat politicians keep reducing the lengths of sentences for gun crimes, repeat gun crimes for actual criminals who have criminal records and repeat gun arrests?

If everyone were armed, criminals could have their rights restored after they served their time, because natural selection/street justice would take care of them if they didn't or refused to learn their lesson.

.

Yes, we are all aware of your lawless anarchist dreams where mob rule is your answer to everything.

You mean anarchy like our Founding Fathers that enacted a bill of rights that said for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Real reactionaries, weren't they?

Ah yes. The Liberals.
Funny thing, the OP mentioned them in the title and his OP. Then he started lying with strawmen.

The Founding Fathers were White, rich, gun toting, Christian, slave owning Libertarians that didn't trust the government. God bless 'em.

 

[Pogo]

Then why do the democrats keep letting them out of jail and prison over and over again? And why do democrat politicians keep reducing the lengths of sentences for gun crimes, repeat gun crimes for actual criminals who have criminal records and repeat gun arrests?

If everyone were armed, criminals could have their rights restored after they served their time, because natural selection/street justice would take care of them if they didn't or refused to learn their lesson.

.

Yes, we are all aware of your lawless anarchist dreams where mob rule is your answer to everything.

You mean anarchy like our Founding Fathers that enacted a bill of rights that said for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Real reactionaries, weren't they?

Ah yes. The Liberals.
Funny thing, the OP mentioned them in the title and his OP. Then he started lying with strawmen.

The Founding Fathers were White, rich, gun toting, Christian, slave owning Libertarians that didn't trust the government. God bless 'em.

Nope, they were Liberals. Said so themselves. "Libertarian" wasn't invented until the 19th century.

 

[Blues Man]

If everyone were armed, criminals could have their rights restored after they served their time, because natural selection/street justice would take care of them if they didn't or refused to learn their lesson.

.

Yes, we are all aware of your lawless anarchist dreams where mob rule is your answer to everything.

You mean anarchy like our Founding Fathers that enacted a bill of rights that said for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Real reactionaries, weren't they?

Ah yes. The Liberals.
Funny thing, the OP mentioned them in the title and his OP. Then he started lying with strawmen.

The Founding Fathers were White, rich, gun toting, Christian, slave owning Libertarians that didn't trust the government. God bless 'em.

Nope, they were Liberals. Said so themselves. "Libertarian" wasn't invented until the 19th century.

They were revolutionaries

 

[Crepitus]

You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car.

Actually yes, you do need a license to buy a car from a dealer, and you need one to transfer ownership in a private sale.

You made this up - no state requires a drivers license for the purchase, sale, or ownership of a car.

A dealership MAY require a license, but not as a matter of law, and if you do not have a license, a state ID will do -- the fact you BUY a car does not in any way necessitate that you will drive it - and, of course, cars can be bought outside a dealership.

As for the rest, the second you take that car out in public you need license and insurance.

But not to own it, keep it at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.
I ask again - and maybe this time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?

I did not make it up. Go try to transfer a title without a DL.

 

[Crepitus]

Why?
You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Universal background checks won't do this.

And why not?

- It's unenforceable
- People who knowingly sell guns to criminals are already breaking the law ans will not obey THIS law.

Not uninforcable. Register all guns. One turns up in a criminals possession find out who the owner was. Chain of custody.

Also, that's a ridiculous straw man. If laws didnt prevent crime why have any at all?

 

[Rigby5]

You want them. You prove it.

Criminals do not obey laws and do not use weapons that can lead back to them, a.k.a. illegal weapons, that normal people do not buy. It is pointless to talk about this because you people refuse to understand how it works.

Straw purchases lead back to the last FFL purchase.

You just want to add more steps in the process to stop LEGAL purchases. Quit lying.

.

You want me to prove your point? Yep, you're nuts,

Ummmmm

You are the proponent of more restrictions. Not me. You prove your bullshit will work. Maybe you need to learn how the burden of proof works.

The claim was made that universal checks would have no effect either way. I just asked for proof of that claim.

And you were shown.....you don't care what the actual answer is, you just know you need universal background checks so that when they don't work, you can then demand universal gun registration, which is what you actually want.

I was shown what might be a child's justification for anarchy. "Laws don't stop crime, so laws are a waste" but that's all.

But laws do stop the repetition of crimes later if the criminal can be captured and prosecuted for the previous crime they committed.
However universal background checks do no good at all because all people who commit mass murders so far passed a background check, and anyone who could not, would then just pay a little more and buy illegally.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car.

Actually yes, you do need a license to buy a car from a dealer, and you need one to transfer ownership in a private sale.

You made this up - no state requires a drivers license for the purchase, sale, or ownership of a car.

A dealership MAY require a license, but not as a matter of law, and if you do not have a license, a state ID will do -- the fact you BUY a car does not in any way necessitate that you will drive it - and, of course, cars can be bought outside a dealership.

As for the rest, the second you take that car out in public you need license and insurance.

But not to own it, keep it at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.
I ask again - and maybe this time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?

I did not make it up.

You did - you cannot cite any state law that requires a DL for a transfer. Not one.

-You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car
-You don;t need a license to keep that car at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.
I ask AGAIN - and maybe THIS time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?

 

[Rigby5]

Why?

You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Criminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.

They get them from private owners

That is why we need to register all guns

Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........

Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..

Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up

15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....



The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.

The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.

So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.

There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.

Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.

Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.

And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.

I don't think gun registration makes any sense in a nation with more guns than there are people. Countries that were success with gun registration were countries where very few people own guns. I think the emphasis should be on background checks.

And why do you think some countries were successful with background checks?
If a person fails a background check, what is to prevent them from obtaining a gun illegally, just like people obtain drugs illegally?

All background checks do is cost money and deny some people who likely should not be denied.
For example, the main people denied by background checks are convicted felons, but what right does a democratic republic have to make people into less then full rights, especially since convicted felons likely end up living in poor and dangerous neighborhoods.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why?
You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Universal background checks won't do this.

And why not?

- It's unenforceable
- People who knowingly sell guns to criminals are already breaking the law ans will not obey THIS law.

Not uninforcable. Register all guns. One turns up in a criminals possession find out who the owner was. Chain of custody.

Also, that's a ridiculous straw man. If laws didnt prevent crime why have any at all?

Laws don't prevent crime, but penalties for breaking laws do, at least on some people.

Laws do work great on law abiding people, but the criminals will break the laws; that's why they are criminals.

So having laws prevents good people from turning bad. The bad people will remain bad and break laws.

This is why a movement to disarm society is stupid, because it would only leave us with criminals and cops who have the guns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why?
You wanna keep guns outta the hands of criminals right?

Universal background checks won't do this.

And why not?

- It's unenforceable
- People who knowingly sell guns to criminals are already breaking the law ans will not obey THIS law.

Not uninforcable. Register all guns. One turns up in a criminals possession find out who the owner was. Chain of custody.

And there we have it.... registration
"Well shucks - to make universal background checks work, we need universal registration!!!"
Which was the objective all along.
No one wonders why the anti-gun loons wants universal registration.

Also, that's a ridiculous straw man.

No. Its not.
Unlike laws against murder, rape, assault, etc, you want this law because it will -prevent- crime.
And it won't.

 

[Crepitus]

With registration you could background check the gun.

And there we have it.... registration
"Well shucks - to make universal background checks work, we need universal registration!!!"
Which was the objective all along.

No one wonders why the anti-gun loons wants universal registration.

Registration is necessary for enforcement of many needed reforms.