Universal Background Checks do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns....

[Canon Shooter]

Yes......that will be the very next push by the anti-gun extremists........

But we already have background checks without gun registration. If you buy a gun in Florida, you'll be subjected to a background check. You will not, however, have to register any gun you buy. You can also apply for your CCW, which includes a background check, and not buy a gun. CCW's here are good for seven years. You could get your CCW and five years from now purchase a gun without a background check and no requirement to register it.

As for extremists, they do what they do, but they're never taken too seriously...

they want gun registration....they know from the experiences of Europe and Australia, that you need to know who has the guns so that when you finally get the power to ban them, they can't be hidden.....

Here's the deal: there's a profound difference between the reason to have background checks and the reasons to have registration. Those who want more and more rules and regulations always claim it's in the interest of safety. Hey, super, I want everyone to be safe. It can be shown where background checks can help in that regard.

However, nothing about registration addresses safety, and that's where the argument in favor of it falls apart...

We have background checks at gun stores, not private sales....they want universal background checks on private sales......and through that, they will be able to demand gun registration......the first thing they will do when gun crime in democrat party controlled cities doesn't go down. They need to know who owns the gun originally in order to know if a background check was done....that is what they will say to push gun registration.

Well, probably best if we just agree to disagree on this one. I just don't see the world as being as bleak as you do...

 

[Crepitus]

Yep....but what they do do is make it easier for anti-gunners to persecute normal gun owners, and it also allows them to demand gun registration...which is the real goal behind the demand for Universal Background checks....

If you really want to stop criminals with guns.....get the democrats to stop releasing violent, repeat gun offenders into our inner city neighborhoods........

The state of California has had a comprehensive background check law on the books for 10 years. Researchers at UC Davis School of Medicine have studied gun violence in CA during that period and found there was no change in the number of gun homicides or gun suicides. The researchers use the term “comprehensive background check” instead of universal background check. And another study by the same authors found that the repeal of comprehensive background check laws in Tennessee and Indiana had no effect on gun homicides or suicide rates in either state.

Johns Hopkins School of Public Health looked at comprehensive background check laws in large, urban counties in the U.S. and found they were actually associated with an increase in firearm homicides in those counties. That study found “no benefit” of a CBC law without an accompanying permit-to-purchase law.

Do Universal Background Checks Prevent Gun Violence?

Are they even effective?

wamu.org

If the rest of you morons wouldn't sleep with them under your pillows where they are easy to steal...

 

[2aguy]

Yes......that will be the very next push by the anti-gun extremists........

But we already have background checks without gun registration. If you buy a gun in Florida, you'll be subjected to a background check. You will not, however, have to register any gun you buy. You can also apply for your CCW, which includes a background check, and not buy a gun. CCW's here are good for seven years. You could get your CCW and five years from now purchase a gun without a background check and no requirement to register it.

As for extremists, they do what they do, but they're never taken too seriously...

they want gun registration....they know from the experiences of Europe and Australia, that you need to know who has the guns so that when you finally get the power to ban them, they can't be hidden.....

Here's the deal: there's a profound difference between the reason to have background checks and the reasons to have registration. Those who want more and more rules and regulations always claim it's in the interest of safety. Hey, super, I want everyone to be safe. It can be shown where background checks can help in that regard.

However, nothing about registration addresses safety, and that's where the argument in favor of it falls apart...

We have background checks at gun stores, not private sales....they want universal background checks on private sales......and through that, they will be able to demand gun registration......the first thing they will do when gun crime in democrat party controlled cities doesn't go down. They need to know who owns the gun originally in order to know if a background check was done....that is what they will say to push gun registration.

Well, probably best if we just agree to disagree on this one. I just don't see the world as being as bleak as you do...

Do you follow the democrat party and their gun agenda? Biden has already stated he is going to go after the gun makers...... he and hilary have plans to repeal the Lawful Commerce in Arms act, which will allow every left wing, anti-gun lawyer to sue every gun maker and gun store with law suits meant to put them out of business....they also plan on using the Department of Justice to go after gun makers...to force them to sign consent decrees that will make them obey the laws they can't pass through congress....

Hillary: Impose Gun Control by Judicial Fiat

Hillary’s focus on repealing the PLCAA seems strange: it’s been on the books for eleven years, it was passed by 2-1 bipartisan majorities (65-31 Senate, 283-144 House), and every suit it has blocked is one that should never have been filed. Yet oppose it Hillary does. Her campaign webpage proposes to “Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.” She told the Bridgeport News that “as president, I would lead the charge to repeal this law.” In Iowa, she called the PLCAA “one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress.”

But, even given her anti-gun beliefs, why does Hillary place so high a priority on repealing some eleven-year-old statute?

The papers found in her husband’s presidential archives in Little Rock show why the lawsuits that the PLCAA stopped were so important to his anti-gun plans.

A January 2000 question and answer document, probably meant to prepare Bill Clinton for a press conference, asks about his involvement in the lawsuits against the gun industry. It suggests as an answer that he “intends to engage the gun industry in negotiations” to “achieve meaningful reforms to the way the gun industry does business.” The memo suggests he close with “We want real reforms that will improve the public safety and save lives.”


This is noteworthy: the Clinton White House did not see the lawsuits’ purpose as winning money, but as a means to pressure the gun industry into adopting the Clinton “reforms.” What might those reforms have been?

The Clinton Presidential Archives answered that question, too. In December 1999, the “Office of the Deputy Secretary” (presumably of Treasury) had sent a fax to the fax line for Clinton’s White House Domestic Policy Council.

The fax laid out a proposed settlement of the legal cases. The terms were very well designed. They would have given the antigun movements all the victories that it had been unable to win in Congress over the past twenty years!

Moreover, the terms would be imposed by a court order, not by a statute. That meant that any violation could be prosecuted as a contempt of court, by the parties to the lawsuit rather than by the government. A future Congress could not repeal the judgment, and a future White House could not block its enforcement. The settlement would have a permanent existence outside the democratic process.
The terms were extensive and drastic:

Gun manufacturers must stop producing firearms (rifle, pistol, or shotguns) that could accept detachable magazines holding more than ten rounds. In practice, since there is no way to design a detachable-magazine firearm that cannot take larger magazines, this would mean ceasing production of all firearms with detachable magazines. No more semiauto handguns.
The manufacturers would be required to stop production of magazines holding more than ten rounds.
Manufacturers must also stop production of firearms with polymer frames. All handguns made must meet importation standards (long barrels, target sights, etc.).
After five years, manufacturers must produce nothing but “smart guns” (that is, using “authorized user technology”).
But those conditions were just the beginning. The next requirement was the key to regulating all licensed firearms dealers, as well. The manufacturers must agree to sell only to distributors and dealers who agreed to comply with the standards set for distributors and dealers. Thus dealers would were not parties to the lawsuits would be forced to comply, upon pain of being unable to buy inventory.

The dealers in turn must agree:

They’d make no sales at gun shows, and no sales over internet.
They’d hold their customers to one-gun-a-month, for all types of guns, not just handguns.
They would not sell used or new magazines holding more than ten rounds.
They would not sell any firearm that fell within the definitions of the 1994 “assault weapon ban,” even if the ban expired.
They must prove they have a minimum inventory of each manufacturers’ product, and that they derive a majority of their revenue from firearms or sporting equipment sales. No more small town hardware store dealers, and no more WalMarts with gun sections.
The manufacturers would be required to pay for a “monitor,” a person to make sure the settlement was enforced. The monitor would create a “sales data clearinghouse,” to which the manufacturers, distributors, and dealers must report each gun sale, thus creating a registration system, outside of the government and thus not covered by the Privacy Act.
The monitor would have the authority to hire investigators, inspect dealer records without notice, and to “conduct undercover sting operations.” The monitor would thus serve as a private BATFE, without the legal restrictions that bind that agency, and paid for by the gun industry itself.
The manufacturers must cut off any dealer who failed to comply, and whenever BATFE traced a gun to a dealer, the dealer would be presumed guilty unless he could prove himself innocent. (BATFE encourages police departments to trace every firearm that comes into their hands, including firearms turned in, lost and found, and recovered from thieves. As a result, it performs over 300,000 traces a year. Thus, this term would lead to many dealers being cut off and forced to prove their innocence on a regular basis).

Gun registration, one gun a month, magazines limited to ten rounds, no Glocks, no guns with detachable magazines (in effect, no semiauto handguns), no dealers at gun shows, an “assault weapon ban” in perpetuity, no internet sales. In short, the movement to restrict gun owners would have achieved, in one stroke, every objective it had labored for over the years -- indeed, it would have achieved some that (a ban on semiauto handguns) that were so bold it had never dared to propose them. All this would be achieved without the messy necessity of winning a majority vote in Congress.

 

[White 6]

Yes......that will be the very next push by the anti-gun extremists........

But we already have background checks without gun registration. If you buy a gun in Florida, you'll be subjected to a background check. You will not, however, have to register any gun you buy. You can also apply for your CCW, which includes a background check, and not buy a gun. CCW's here are good for seven years. You could get your CCW and five years from now purchase a gun without a background check and no requirement to register it.

As for extremists, they do what they do, but they're never taken too seriously...

they want gun registration....they know from the experiences of Europe and Australia, that you need to know who has the guns so that when you finally get the power to ban them, they can't be hidden.....

Here's the deal: there's a profound difference between the reason to have background checks and the reasons to have registration. Those who want more and more rules and regulations always claim it's in the interest of safety. Hey, super, I want everyone to be safe. It can be shown where background checks can help in that regard.

However, nothing about registration addresses safety, and that's where the argument in favor of it falls apart...

We have background checks at gun stores, not private sales....they want universal background checks on private sales......and through that, they will be able to demand gun registration......the first thing they will do when gun crime in democrat party controlled cities doesn't go down. They need to know who owns the gun originally in order to know if a background check was done....that is what they will say to push gun registration.

Some idiots swap and sell guns as they might swap stamps and make a fair buck on shady sales. Kind of doubt most guns owned in the hood are all stolen weapons.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Not that this fits into any conversation about gun registration or background checks, but I actually drew my firearm earlier this evening.

I was at my favorite watering hole, and left my gun, a Colt .380 that I inherited from my Dad, in the console of my car; perfectly legal.

A fight broke out between some asshole patron and another patron. The bartender came to kick the asshole out and he threw a punch. One of the regulars grabbed the asshole and felt a gun in a holster on the guy's hip. The regular looked at me and said "He's got a gun."

As they walked the guy out through the parking lot, I walked to my car, unlocked it and went to the console to retrieve my firearm. No one saw what I'd done and I was just standing there, watching.

The guy reached to his hip and drew a Sig 9mm. As soon as I saw that I leveled my gun at him and, after identifying myself as a police officer, told him to drop his weapon. Now, I'm not a cop, but nothing will get a shithead to drop his gun faster than him thinking he's just been made by the police.

He dropped his gun to the pavement and was quickly tackled by a rather large throng of patrons. The police were called and the guy was arrested for carrying a loaded firearm inside a bar, among other less serious offenses. I was questioned by police and they actually got a kick out of how me saying I was a police officer pretty much ended the situation.

It's been nine years since I've drawn my weapon with the intent to use it. I carry every single day, but I always hope and pray that I'll never have to use my gun. Today just wasn't one of those days. I would've shot him if it came to that, and I'm infinitely thankful that it didn't...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Do you follow the democrat party and their gun agenda?

Do you follow that I think we can just disagree?

You're not going to sway me on this, so save your breath...

 

[justinacolmena]

...the only way to know is to register guns to owners, so if your gun is in possession of Joe, they can check to see if you did the background check.

Private gun sales are banned. If it's registered to you and used to commit a crime, you're doing the time, even if the "crime" is nothing more than failure to register or something stupid like that.

Bottom line. If you have a firearm registered in your name, or if you believe in gun rights or oppose gun control, every male cop and every whore in the district is lusting to cut your hair, stab your eyes out, and torture you to death in prison for sport. They're Philistines when it comes to gun control. No court system can defend law-abiding gun owners against such a powerful lust to imprison and torture.

 

[2aguy]

Do you follow the democrat party and their gun agenda?

Do you follow that I think we can just disagree?

You're not going to sway me on this, so save your breath...

Yes......I get it....but the information is now there for those who aren't ignoring the truth about what the democrats plan on doing if they win the Presidency.

 

[2aguy]

Yes......that will be the very next push by the anti-gun extremists........

But we already have background checks without gun registration. If you buy a gun in Florida, you'll be subjected to a background check. You will not, however, have to register any gun you buy. You can also apply for your CCW, which includes a background check, and not buy a gun. CCW's here are good for seven years. You could get your CCW and five years from now purchase a gun without a background check and no requirement to register it.

As for extremists, they do what they do, but they're never taken too seriously...

they want gun registration....they know from the experiences of Europe and Australia, that you need to know who has the guns so that when you finally get the power to ban them, they can't be hidden.....

Here's the deal: there's a profound difference between the reason to have background checks and the reasons to have registration. Those who want more and more rules and regulations always claim it's in the interest of safety. Hey, super, I want everyone to be safe. It can be shown where background checks can help in that regard.

However, nothing about registration addresses safety, and that's where the argument in favor of it falls apart...

We have background checks at gun stores, not private sales....they want universal background checks on private sales......and through that, they will be able to demand gun registration......the first thing they will do when gun crime in democrat party controlled cities doesn't go down. They need to know who owns the gun originally in order to know if a background check was done....that is what they will say to push gun registration.

Some idiots swap and sell guns as they might swap stamps and make a fair buck on shady sales. Kind of doubt most guns owned in the hood are all stolen weapons.

They are, or they are bought by straw buyers who can pass any background check.....selling to gang members is illegal...but people who don't care about the law won't obey the law.

We already have laws on the book that allow us to arrest, prosecute and jail anyone selling guns to felons.

 

[justinacolmena]

We already have laws on the book that allow us to arrest, prosecute and jail anyone selling guns to felons.

"We?" Is it? No.

Since the Second Amendment was disregarded, and due process was denied, "laws on the books" are no longer necessary to arrest, prosecute, and jail anyone for any reason.

If the Second Amendment was duly proposed by a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress, and duly ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states that existed in the Union at the time, and never yet lawfully repealed, then it is the supreme law in our land, that each and every one of us has the right, not to be infringed under any circumstances, to keep and bear arms, that is, to possess and carry Firearms specifically, without restriction.

If the courts cannot understand and interpret the plain word of the law of the Constitution in this manner, then they are damned along with all slaves who submit and obey unconstitutional, corrupt, and foreign-influenced interpretations of our supreme law.

 

[White 6]

Yes......that will be the very next push by the anti-gun extremists........

But we already have background checks without gun registration. If you buy a gun in Florida, you'll be subjected to a background check. You will not, however, have to register any gun you buy. You can also apply for your CCW, which includes a background check, and not buy a gun. CCW's here are good for seven years. You could get your CCW and five years from now purchase a gun without a background check and no requirement to register it.

As for extremists, they do what they do, but they're never taken too seriously...

they want gun registration....they know from the experiences of Europe and Australia, that you need to know who has the guns so that when you finally get the power to ban them, they can't be hidden.....

Here's the deal: there's a profound difference between the reason to have background checks and the reasons to have registration. Those who want more and more rules and regulations always claim it's in the interest of safety. Hey, super, I want everyone to be safe. It can be shown where background checks can help in that regard.

However, nothing about registration addresses safety, and that's where the argument in favor of it falls apart...

We have background checks at gun stores, not private sales....they want universal background checks on private sales......and through that, they will be able to demand gun registration......the first thing they will do when gun crime in democrat party controlled cities doesn't go down. They need to know who owns the gun originally in order to know if a background check was done....that is what they will say to push gun registration.

Some idiots swap and sell guns as they might swap stamps and make a fair buck on shady sales. Kind of doubt most guns owned in the hood are all stolen weapons.

They are, or they are bought by straw buyers who can pass any background check.....selling to gang members is illegal...but people who don't care about the law won't obey the law.

We already have laws on the book that allow us to arrest, prosecute and jail anyone selling guns to felons.

Universal background checks might flush some of the straw buyers, now under the radar.