Nobody doubts the M4 is an assault weapon. Are there any material differences between an M4 and an AR15?

[BULLDOG]

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

.

Yeah, and?

The ATF is currently approving upwards of 3 million Background Checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
And has been for quite some time ... They know what we have.

There are more firearms than people in the United States at this point.
It seems as though a lot of armed American Citizens also want to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.

This is the thing.....if you really wanted universal background checks for legitimate crime fighting, versus just as a way to get gun registration...here is how you do it.....

You make the Background Check system open to every citizen........that way, if you want to sell your private gun, you take the name, birthday, of the person who wants to buy the gun, use your phone, punch in the info. and if they have a criminal record, mental health blocks on gun buying, or outstanding warrants, it simply pops up on your phone.....and you can keep from selling the gun......

No Fee, a free app for you computer or phone......

That is how you actually do it......

But that isn't how you want to do it because that doesn't give you gun registration.......you wouldn't be able to push gun registration with a free app that anyone can use for free with no registration required....

But you don't want universal background checks to keep guns away from criminals, because you know they don't keep guns away from criminals.....they steal guns, or use straw buyers who can pass any background check.

You want universal background checks because you know they are a tool to get gullible Americans to give you gun registration...which is your real goal...because you need gun registration to know who has what guns when you get the power to ban and confiscate those guns.....

We have background checks now that don't require gun registration. Quit whining about goofy crap.

 

[2aguy]

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

.

Yeah, and?

The ATF is currently approving upwards of 3 million Background Checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
And has been for quite some time ... They know what we have.

There are more firearms than people in the United States at this point.
It seems as though a lot of armed American Citizens also want to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.

Bad guys use straw buyers.....they do not use private sellers because they are afraid they are ATF, or the police.....if you did some basic research you would know this.....they use friends and family with clean records to buy the guns.....prosecutors don't want to prosecute baby momma's and grandmothers, the typical gang straw buyer because juries don't like to convict these women because they often claim the gang threatens them if they don't buy the guns.....

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.


In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

Read more at: America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review


Convicted Murderers Admit: Gun Laws Are a Joke

To gain insight into why and how, one local news station decided to go right to the source of the problem.

To get our data, we sent surveys to every killer who used a gun to murder someone in Harris County since 2014. We wanted to know how they got their gun, what they paid, and how often, if ever, they went through a background check.

The information from the inmates tells a story most of us already know:

• 90 percent of those surveyed received their gun on the black market. They either traded goods for the firearm or a friend gave them the gun.
• 63 percent of the guns were stolen and the majority of them were given to the perpetrator for free.
• 90 percent of the surveyors weren’t eligible to legally buy a gun because of past criminal convictions.
• 100 percent of the surveyors concealed carry despite failing to have a CCW permit.

In Texas, a felon in possession of a firearm can serve 2 to 1- years in prison.
But in Harris County, the average jail sentence for the offense is 3-and-a-half months.

It should be no surprise that criminals are buying guns on the unregulated market.

But when asked, the convicted killers abc13 interviewed were all well aware of the gun laws.

Many were previously convicted and knew they wouldn’t pass federally mandated background checks.

Others suggested they would never put a family member in a position to buy a gun for them since the penalty for that so-called ‘straw purchase’ is severe.

Despite gun control laws that focus on expanded background checks and banning “assault weapons,” the survey results prove neither one of would have prevented these murderers from committing their crime.

When asked what can be done to keep guns off the streets, each criminal had different views.

“I feel guns is not the problem. People just need to respect each other, and stop been [sic] disrespectfully [sic]. Youngster in the hood need to listen when older people tellin them something. Guns WILL always be in the streets of H-town! Sorry to say that

,” said 44-year-old Cedric Jones.

I will be happy to read your entire remark as soon as you post something other than your handful of memorized bumper sticker statements and your massive store of cut and paste crap.

Actual links to actual information on straw buyers and how criminals get guns....but because it shows that universal background checks are dumb, and pointless....and that you really don't care about universal background checks....that what you really want is gun registration...you post what you just posted.....to hide what you really care about....

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.


In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

Read more at: America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

 

[2aguy]

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

.

Yeah, and?

The ATF is currently approving upwards of 3 million Background Checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
And has been for quite some time ... They know what we have.

There are more firearms than people in the United States at this point.
It seems as though a lot of armed American Citizens also want to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.

This is the thing.....if you really wanted universal background checks for legitimate crime fighting, versus just as a way to get gun registration...here is how you do it.....

You make the Background Check system open to every citizen........that way, if you want to sell your private gun, you take the name, birthday, of the person who wants to buy the gun, use your phone, punch in the info. and if they have a criminal record, mental health blocks on gun buying, or outstanding warrants, it simply pops up on your phone.....and you can keep from selling the gun......

No Fee, a free app for you computer or phone......

That is how you actually do it......

But that isn't how you want to do it because that doesn't give you gun registration.......you wouldn't be able to push gun registration with a free app that anyone can use for free with no registration required....

But you don't want universal background checks to keep guns away from criminals, because you know they don't keep guns away from criminals.....they steal guns, or use straw buyers who can pass any background check.

You want universal background checks because you know they are a tool to get gullible Americans to give you gun registration...which is your real goal...because you need gun registration to know who has what guns when you get the power to ban and confiscate those guns.....

We have background checks now that don't require gun registration. Quit whining about goofy crap.

Yes....which is why you want universal background checks....you need them to be able to demand gun registration......

if you get universal gun registration, criminals will still get guns, and mass public shooters will still get guns, since criminals ignore any background checks by stealing their guns or by using straw buyers who can pass any background check....and again, mass public shooters can also pass any background check because they do not have prior criminal records...

So...criminals get guns, mass public shooters get guns....

You then come back and say....well......universal background checks can't be effective the way we said they would if we don't have gun registration.....after all, we need to know who owns the guns to know if a background check was actually done in the private sale......

And then you will start lying again about guns and criminals...

 

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

It doesn't cost 3 or 4 dollars, it can cost up to 250 dollars.......

Universal Background checks don't stop criminals from getting guns....they steal them or use straw buyers. The straw buyers can pass any background check .


Mass public shooters have no criminal record before they attack and so can pass any background check....

So you don't care about this issue........you just want to fool uninformed Americans into giving you Universal Background checks so you can come back.....after criminals and mass shooters still get guns because universal background checks don't stop them........and demand gun registration...which is your true goal.....

The FBI doesn't charge for NCIS background checks. States determine how much can be charged. If you have a problem with the cost, you should whine about it to your state.

 

[2aguy]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

It doesn't cost 3 or 4 dollars, it can cost up to 250 dollars.......

Universal Background checks don't stop criminals from getting guns....they steal them or use straw buyers. The straw buyers can pass any background check .


Mass public shooters have no criminal record before they attack and so can pass any background check....

So you don't care about this issue........you just want to fool uninformed Americans into giving you Universal Background checks so you can come back.....after criminals and mass shooters still get guns because universal background checks don't stop them........and demand gun registration...which is your true goal.....

The FBI doesn't charge for NCIS background checks. States determine how much can be charged. If you have a problem with the cost, you should whine about it to your state.

Yes.....it isn't NCIS, that is the Naval Crime Investigation Service.....

The NICS background check system can't be accessed by citizens.....that is the only way to keep guys like you from getting gun registration....

An app on your phone, no fee, no record, seconds to check for criminal record, mental health block, or outstanding warrants....

But you don't want that......you want gun registration.

 

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

that won't happen because you retards add stuff like it being required to loan a firearm to friend or family member.

Of course there are details to be worked out, but with a blanket refusal, there isn't much chance of that. I assume most would know if a family member can legally posses a gun. That isn't necessarily true of your friends. Is your friend a recent friend you met last week, or a lifelong friend from childhood? All things to be considered and worked out. Most sellers wouldn't sell to a felon if they knew it. Without an obligation for them to find out, nobody will even check. Of course, there will be unethical sellers who will sell guns and claim they were just loaning them to a friend, but I doubt it will be a large percentage of sellers. That is something else to figure out, but in the mean time, you will keep lots of disallowed felons and gang members from an easy source for guns.

And again, the actual solution?

Allow anyone to access the background check system for free......put the app on your phone, get the name and birthdate of the buyer, punch it in, and see if he has a criminal record, a mental health block for buying guns or outstanding warrants.

Done.

But the problem for bulldog.....that would mean you don't need to register guns....and registering guns is the whole point for pushing universal background checks.

We have background checks now, and no gun registry. Quit whining about your imagined bullshit.

 

[BULLDOG]

I wont give up my rights for something that is a guaranteed failure,,

.

Universal Background Checks are a wall-to-wall con-job from the assclowns on Capitol Hill ... Republican and Democrat.

Republicans get to pretend they are protecting your Rights.
Democrats get to pretend they are accomplishing something.

It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for law abiding citizens, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.
It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for criminals, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.

It allows people to identify who they are within their communities, and on social media,
so they can fuck with each other some more over a complete con-job, and simply shore up the base in both parties.

.​

No program will stop criminals from getting guns 100%, but it would eliminate one large source for them. More than 90% of Americans, and that includes about 75% of NRA members want background checks. The American people don't see it as much of an inconvenience.

And you have been told that those supporting universal background checks have been lied to about them.....you don't tell them what they really mean or what the real goal is for universal background checks...if you did that, they wouldn't support them.

Yes, you have said a lot of silly crap. You can never seem to prove it though. Any bills proposing universal background checks have been made public, and no registry was mentioned. Quit making shit up.

 

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

It doesn't cost 3 or 4 dollars, it can cost up to 250 dollars.......

Universal Background checks don't stop criminals from getting guns....they steal them or use straw buyers. The straw buyers can pass any background check .


Mass public shooters have no criminal record before they attack and so can pass any background check....

So you don't care about this issue........you just want to fool uninformed Americans into giving you Universal Background checks so you can come back.....after criminals and mass shooters still get guns because universal background checks don't stop them........and demand gun registration...which is your true goal.....

The FBI doesn't charge for NCIS background checks. States determine how much can be charged. If you have a problem with the cost, you should whine about it to your state.

Yes.....it isn't NCIS, that is the Naval Crime Investigation Service.....

The NICS background check system can't be accessed by citizens.....that is the only way to keep guys like you from getting gun registration....

An app on your phone, no fee, no record, seconds to check for criminal record, mental health block, or outstanding warrants....

But you don't want that......you want gun registration.

Oh my. I am guilty of a typo. You get a cookie for your sharp eye. Quit whining. When you see gun registration in a universal background check bill, then you won't sound crazy for complaining about it. Until then -----

 

[progressive hunter]

I wont give up my rights for something that is a guaranteed failure,,

.

Universal Background Checks are a wall-to-wall con-job from the assclowns on Capitol Hill ... Republican and Democrat.

Republicans get to pretend they are protecting your Rights.
Democrats get to pretend they are accomplishing something.

It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for law abiding citizens, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.
It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for criminals, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.

It allows people to identify who they are within their communities, and on social media,
so they can fuck with each other some more over a complete con-job, and simply shore up the base in both parties.

.​

No program will stop criminals from getting guns 100%, but it would eliminate one large source for them. More than 90% of Americans, and that includes about 75% of NRA members want background checks. The American people don't see it as much of an inconvenience.

And you have been told that those supporting universal background checks have been lied to about them.....you don't tell them what they really mean or what the real goal is for universal background checks...if you did that, they wouldn't support them.

Yes, you have said a lot of silly crap. You can never seem to prove it though. Any bills proposing universal background checks have been made public, and no registry was mentioned. Quit making shit up.

a universal background check is a registration,, your lies wont change that,,

 

[2aguy]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

that won't happen because you retards add stuff like it being required to loan a firearm to friend or family member.

Of course there are details to be worked out, but with a blanket refusal, there isn't much chance of that. I assume most would know if a family member can legally posses a gun. That isn't necessarily true of your friends. Is your friend a recent friend you met last week, or a lifelong friend from childhood? All things to be considered and worked out. Most sellers wouldn't sell to a felon if they knew it. Without an obligation for them to find out, nobody will even check. Of course, there will be unethical sellers who will sell guns and claim they were just loaning them to a friend, but I doubt it will be a large percentage of sellers. That is something else to figure out, but in the mean time, you will keep lots of disallowed felons and gang members from an easy source for guns.

And again, the actual solution?

Allow anyone to access the background check system for free......put the app on your phone, get the name and birthdate of the buyer, punch it in, and see if he has a criminal record, a mental health block for buying guns or outstanding warrants.

Done.

But the problem for bulldog.....that would mean you don't need to register guns....and registering guns is the whole point for pushing universal background checks.

We have background checks now, and no gun registry. Quit whining about your imagined bullshit.

Again.....that is what drives you nuts....you don't have gun registration....you want gun registration and you plan on using universal background checks to fool uninformed Americans into giving you gun registration.

 

[2aguy]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

It doesn't cost 3 or 4 dollars, it can cost up to 250 dollars.......

Universal Background checks don't stop criminals from getting guns....they steal them or use straw buyers. The straw buyers can pass any background check .


Mass public shooters have no criminal record before they attack and so can pass any background check....

So you don't care about this issue........you just want to fool uninformed Americans into giving you Universal Background checks so you can come back.....after criminals and mass shooters still get guns because universal background checks don't stop them........and demand gun registration...which is your true goal.....

The FBI doesn't charge for NCIS background checks. States determine how much can be charged. If you have a problem with the cost, you should whine about it to your state.

Yes.....it isn't NCIS, that is the Naval Crime Investigation Service.....

The NICS background check system can't be accessed by citizens.....that is the only way to keep guys like you from getting gun registration....

An app on your phone, no fee, no record, seconds to check for criminal record, mental health block, or outstanding warrants....

But you don't want that......you want gun registration.

Oh my. I am guilty of a typo. You get a cookie for your sharp eye. Quit whining. When you see gun registration in a universal background check bill, then you won't sound crazy for complaining about it. Until then -----

No, dipshit........you reminded me of an episode of NCIS the show.......they go to a halloween party with their NCIS and someone says...hey you spelled it wrong...meaning they spelled CSI wrong.....the CSI t.v. show.....

You moron....I had a funny moment because of you...thanks...

 

[BlackSand]

No program will stop criminals from getting guns 100%, but it would eliminate one large source for them. More than 90% of Americans, and that includes about 75% of NRA members want background checks. The American people don't see it as much of an inconvenience.

.

It doesn't matter who wants Universal Background Checks.
That doesn't make it Constitutional nor effective.

But I already told you, you and I don't even have to discuss it ... You aren't interested in anything other than what you want.
You believe the con-job from the asshats on Capitol Hill ... And will do everything they want you to.

You are doing it now ... And are a prime example of exactly what I have stated on the matter.

.​

 

[2aguy]

I wont give up my rights for something that is a guaranteed failure,,

.

Universal Background Checks are a wall-to-wall con-job from the assclowns on Capitol Hill ... Republican and Democrat.

Republicans get to pretend they are protecting your Rights.
Democrats get to pretend they are accomplishing something.

It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for law abiding citizens, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.
It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for criminals, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.

It allows people to identify who they are within their communities, and on social media,
so they can fuck with each other some more over a complete con-job, and simply shore up the base in both parties.

.​

No program will stop criminals from getting guns 100%, but it would eliminate one large source for them. More than 90% of Americans, and that includes about 75% of NRA members want background checks. The American people don't see it as much of an inconvenience.

And you have been told that those supporting universal background checks have been lied to about them.....you don't tell them what they really mean or what the real goal is for universal background checks...if you did that, they wouldn't support them.

Yes, you have said a lot of silly crap. You can never seem to prove it though. Any bills proposing universal background checks have been made public, and no registry was mentioned. Quit making shit up.

You aren't going to say anything about the need for the gun registration till after you get universal background checks........one step at a time....

 

[BlackSand]

We have background checks now that don't require gun registration. Quit whining about goofy crap.

.

Absolutely 100% Incorret

Pick up a firearm purchased with a background check, and call the ATF.
They can tell you what was bought, who bought it, when and where they bought it, including the actual physical location ...
and whether or not they even bought it for someone else as a gift.

Shit ... In some States, you wouldn't even have to call the ATF, you could call the local Sheriff's Department ... I know that as a fact.
I don't care what anyone tells you ... I have been sitting there when they have done it.

.​

 

[daveman]

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

.

Yeah, and?

The ATF is currently approving upwards of 3 million Background Checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
And has been for quite some time ... They know what we have.

There are more firearms than people in the United States at this point.
It seems as though a lot of armed American Citizens also want to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.

Everything you say is nothing but fear-mongering.

The problem is you're trying to make afraid people who think rationally and know you're full of shit.

You may be cementing the fear-based views of your fellow irrational gun-haters, but you're not going to convince normal people of anything.

 

[daveman]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

No......they don't know what universal background checks are or why people like you actually want them.

If they knew that the only reason people like you want universal background checks is so that you can then demand universal gun registration, so that you can then ban and confiscate guns, they would not support universal background checks....

But you guys lie to them and don't tell them why you want universal background checks....

Then you have this on top of what you guys want...........and if they knew this, they would doubly oppose universal background checks.....but you won't tell them about this...

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store.
If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.

Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The minuscule exemption for self-defense does not cover stalking victims. None of the exemptions cover farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, or storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws.
And this......they love this...

The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by
regulation.
-----
The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun. Sometimes, threats are manifested at night, when gun stores are not open.
-------

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.
-----

Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

"(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

"(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

------
Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.

You should number your gun nut rants. That way, you could just post a number, and save all that cutting and pasting. If you ever come up with something other than your same old rants, you could just add another number.

Good Gaea, will someone kiss Bulldog's ass already? He's been expecting it for 800 posts but nobody's delivered.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

what makes you think thats going to stop a felon from getting a gun??

It won't stop all of them any more than wearing a seat belt stops all car deaths. You can't get 100% success from any program.

The problem is crime; not guns and always has been. You want to stop crime? Everybody wants to stop crime (except criminals and the hopelessly insane) more gun laws are not the answer because:
You can't disinvent technology. Guns, and the knowledge to make them exist, are plentiful and here to stay. As far as crime is concerned that is actually a good thing because it can help even the odds between vulnerable potential victims and attackers. People never had much problem murdering each other before guns were invented and if every one of them disappeared it is doubtful that it would have much effect on murder rates. So you're stabbed to death or blown up instead of shot; is that somehow an improvement?
We had an "assault weapon ban" for ten years that had absolutely no effect except to inflate gun prices and increase sales. That ban was implemented as a trial. It received support from some gun owners because it was to settle the question of whether more restrictive gun laws would improve the situation or not. It didn't and so the question was answered. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped some of the sheep from continuing to bleet about the already settled issue. There are already laws intended stop everything the gun grabbers claim to want to stop and they can present no reasonable rationale to believe that new repressive laws will work any better. I have heard that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. You don't curb crime by creating new criminals which is exactly the risk being run. Maybe it's past time to address the actual issues instead of continuing our wheels in the same rut and creating damage instead of progress.

Yes, crime is the problem. Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that. 90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit. Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?

Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that.
True but it is also true that the crimes they are committing are already illegal (against current law) and nobody has yet propose a law that criminals cannot or will not break just as easily as the ones currently in place. No improvement.

90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit.
No, I say that your statement is bullshit. Care to provide a link or other supporting evidence?

Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?
If they are so easy to get and oh so deadly why are they rarely used for criminal purposes?
From this side of the question it appears that you and your associates are the criminal friendly crowd. Why else work so hard to disarm potential victims if not to make things easier and safer for the criminals?

 

[daveman]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

So, you really believe criminals will obey the universal background check law.

What a moron!

 

[daveman]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

what makes you think thats going to stop a felon from getting a gun??

It won't stop all of them any more than wearing a seat belt stops all car deaths. You can't get 100% success from any program.

The problem is crime; not guns and always has been. You want to stop crime? Everybody wants to stop crime (except criminals and the hopelessly insane) more gun laws are not the answer because:
You can't disinvent technology. Guns, and the knowledge to make them exist, are plentiful and here to stay. As far as crime is concerned that is actually a good thing because it can help even the odds between vulnerable potential victims and attackers. People never had much problem murdering each other before guns were invented and if every one of them disappeared it is doubtful that it would have much effect on murder rates. So you're stabbed to death or blown up instead of shot; is that somehow an improvement?
We had an "assault weapon ban" for ten years that had absolutely no effect except to inflate gun prices and increase sales. That ban was implemented as a trial. It received support from some gun owners because it was to settle the question of whether more restrictive gun laws would improve the situation or not. It didn't and so the question was answered. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped some of the sheep from continuing to bleet about the already settled issue. There are already laws intended stop everything the gun grabbers claim to want to stop and they can present no reasonable rationale to believe that new repressive laws will work any better. I have heard that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. You don't curb crime by creating new criminals which is exactly the risk being run. Maybe it's past time to address the actual issues instead of continuing our wheels in the same rut and creating damage instead of progress.

Yes, crime is the problem. Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that. 90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit. Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?

Yet more fear-mongering.

It's all you've got. You don't have facts, logic, or reason on your side -- but you got a boatload of emotion.

Typical leftist.

 

[daveman]

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

.

Yeah, and?

The ATF is currently approving upwards of 3 million Background Checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
And has been for quite some time ... They know what we have.

There are more firearms than people in the United States at this point.
It seems as though a lot of armed American Citizens also want to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.

Bad guys use straw buyers.....they do not use private sellers because they are afraid they are ATF, or the police.....if you did some basic research you would know this.....they use friends and family with clean records to buy the guns.....prosecutors don't want to prosecute baby momma's and grandmothers, the typical gang straw buyer because juries don't like to convict these women because they often claim the gang threatens them if they don't buy the guns.....

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.


In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

Read more at: America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review


Convicted Murderers Admit: Gun Laws Are a Joke

To gain insight into why and how, one local news station decided to go right to the source of the problem.

To get our data, we sent surveys to every killer who used a gun to murder someone in Harris County since 2014. We wanted to know how they got their gun, what they paid, and how often, if ever, they went through a background check.

The information from the inmates tells a story most of us already know:

• 90 percent of those surveyed received their gun on the black market. They either traded goods for the firearm or a friend gave them the gun.
• 63 percent of the guns were stolen and the majority of them were given to the perpetrator for free.
• 90 percent of the surveyors weren’t eligible to legally buy a gun because of past criminal convictions.
• 100 percent of the surveyors concealed carry despite failing to have a CCW permit.

In Texas, a felon in possession of a firearm can serve 2 to 1- years in prison.
But in Harris County, the average jail sentence for the offense is 3-and-a-half months.

It should be no surprise that criminals are buying guns on the unregulated market.

But when asked, the convicted killers abc13 interviewed were all well aware of the gun laws.

Many were previously convicted and knew they wouldn’t pass federally mandated background checks.

Others suggested they would never put a family member in a position to buy a gun for them since the penalty for that so-called ‘straw purchase’ is severe.

Despite gun control laws that focus on expanded background checks and banning “assault weapons,” the survey results prove neither one of would have prevented these murderers from committing their crime.

When asked what can be done to keep guns off the streets, each criminal had different views.

“I feel guns is not the problem. People just need to respect each other, and stop been [sic] disrespectfully [sic]. Youngster in the hood need to listen when older people tellin them something. Guns WILL always be in the streets of H-town! Sorry to say that

,” said 44-year-old Cedric Jones.

I will be happy to read your entire remark as soon as you post something other than your handful of memorized bumper sticker statements and your massive store of cut and paste crap.

Chickenshit.