Universal background checks

[Circe]

Good idea --- the manufacturers SHOULD be held responsible. They are selling an irresponsible product made purely for killing lots of people against the law!! How is that all right? Darn. Sue 'em into bankruptcy: good strategy, I definitely support legislation holding gun manufacturers responsible for madman rampage shootings with assault rifles or anything that is beefed up with high-capacity magazines.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good idea --- the manufacturers SHOULD be held responsible. They are selling an irresponsible product made purely for killing lots of people against the law!! How is that all right? Darn. Sue 'em into bankruptcy: good strategy, I definitely support legislation holding gun manufacturers responsible for madman rampage shootings with assault rifles or anything that is beefed up with high-capacity magazines.

We should be able to sue car makers for anything that happens after a criminal gets behind the wheel of a car.

 

[Spoonman]

Good idea --- the manufacturers SHOULD be held responsible. They are selling an irresponsible product made purely for killing lots of people against the law!! How is that all right? Darn. Sue 'em into bankruptcy: good strategy, I definitely support legislation holding gun manufacturers responsible for madman rampage shootings with assault rifles or anything that is beefed up with high-capacity magazines.

300,000,000 private guns in the USA. do we have 300,000,000 million deaths from them? If their sole purpose is to kill lots of people i'd say they are pretty inefficient at it.

Why last year each gun only killed .0000276 people. lightning was more efficient then that

 

[Samson]

Good idea --- the manufacturers SHOULD be held responsible. They are selling an irresponsible product made purely for killing lots of people against the law!! How is that all right? Darn. Sue 'em into bankruptcy: good strategy, I definitely support legislation holding gun manufacturers responsible for madman rampage shootings with assault rifles or anything that is beefed up with high-capacity magazines.

We should be able to sue car makers for anything that happens after a criminal gets behind the wheel of a car.

The preferred method for mass killings are Boeing Aircraft

UA Flight 175 = Boeing 767, Target: World trade Center Tower 2

AA Flight 77 = Boeing 757, Target: Pentagon

AA Flight 11 = Boeing 767, Target: World Trade Center Tower 1

UA Flight 93 = Boeing 757, Pennsylvania (target suspected to be US Capitol Building)

Clearly Boeing needs to be sued for producing these products.

 

[Samson]

Good idea --- the manufacturers SHOULD be held responsible. They are selling an irresponsible product made purely for killing lots of people against the law!! How is that all right? Darn. Sue 'em into bankruptcy: good strategy, I definitely support legislation holding gun manufacturers responsible for madman rampage shootings with assault rifles or anything that is beefed up with high-capacity magazines.

300,000,000 private guns in the USA. do we have 300,000,000 million deaths from them? If their sole purpose is to kill lots of people i'd say they are pretty inefficient at it.

Why last year each gun only killed .0000276 people. lightning was more efficient then that

Or, the purpose for a gun is actually personal defence, and they work.

Of course, then some idiot will say, "yes but statistics show......"

Fuck your statistics: If I want to protect my family, and I want a gun, then I should have the right to own one and be personnally responsible for its use.

 

[Underhill]

This is false. There are innumrable laws restricting who can purchase firearms from gun stores, the mosy obvious of which is the NICS. To say that the authorities can do nothing about criminals walking into gun stores and buying guns is dishonest at best,.

Yes, state laws. Not federal. And state laws vary widely.

You obviously didn't read the articles I posted. Both listed a half dozen different ways the authorities have been handcuffed.

As noted before, gun manufacturers do not sell to individuals, and so your claim regarding the motivation of the NRA is, at best, false.

Wow, so gun manufacturers have no incentive for gun dealers to sell more guns? That's an absurd statement. Obviously if gun dealers sell more guns, the manufacturers make more money.

Because, as we see, every time gun legislation is put in place, something else happens and the anti-gun side wants more legislation.
Thus, there is no reason for the NRA, or anyone, to give an inch, specially to legislation that does nothing to stop gun crime.

And here is the problem as I see it. Very little gun regulation (at the federal level) has been passed. What we have now is much less restrictive than the laws the founders had in place in their day.

And yet you continue with this notion that the federal government is running over your rights to own guns. You said, "Give an inch they'll take a mile." and yet failed to offer a single example.

The last batch of gun laws at the federal level (the assault weapons ban) was passed, and ended, without a new batch of gun laws to follow. There was no slippery slope.

Failure?
Clearly, because we have had so much success at stopping gun crime with the laws now in place, we should be happy to put more useless laws on the books that do nothing but limit the rights of the law-abiding.
Figthing such legislation is the only rational course of action.

The ATF is not allowed to make gun shops take inventory. Tens of thousands of guns are "lost" every year from these shops. And those are just the ones they voluntarily hear about because they cannot force the shops to give them numbers.

They aren't allowed to keep records of background checks or gun sales. So gun tracing takes forever and is almost useless since they most often have no record of private transactions.

The NRA actively lobbies against budget increases for the ATF. While most other agencies have received a 500% budget increase since the 70's, the ATF's remains unchanged.

The ATF has no director. Primarily because those controlled by the NRA in congress have decided that having an ex-ATF agent in charge might mean they enforce current laws, so they have blocked his appointment since Bush appointed him (yes, Bush) to the position 6 years ago.

And there are more if you read the articles I linked.

So before people start spouting about "enforcing current gun laws" you should know that your NRA is making that almost impossible.

And every point I have made is verifiable a thousand places on the web, including the two sources I provided earlier.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Good idea --- the manufacturers SHOULD be held responsible. They are selling an irresponsible product made purely for killing lots of people against the law!! How is that all right? Darn. Sue 'em into bankruptcy: good strategy, I definitely support legislation holding gun manufacturers responsible for madman rampage shootings with assault rifles or anything that is beefed up with high-capacity magazines.

No it is not a good Idea, it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. You don't even know what an assault weapon is. You are no better than those who think it looks scary like a military weapon so it must be an assault weapon.... Assault weapons have been illegal without a federal license since the 30's.....

 

[chikenwing]

Good idea --- the manufacturers SHOULD be held responsible. They are selling an irresponsible product made purely for killing lots of people against the law!! How is that all right? Darn. Sue 'em into bankruptcy: good strategy, I definitely support legislation holding gun manufacturers responsible for madman rampage shootings with assault rifles or anything that is beefed up with high-capacity magazines.

There is that critical thinking again!!

 

[Spoonman]

This is false. There are innumrable laws restricting who can purchase firearms from gun stores, the mosy obvious of which is the NICS. To say that the authorities can do nothing about criminals walking into gun stores and buying guns is dishonest at best,.

Yes, state laws. Not federal. And state laws vary widely.

You obviously didn't read the articles I posted. Both listed a half dozen different ways the authorities have been handcuffed.

As noted before, gun manufacturers do not sell to individuals, and so your claim regarding the motivation of the NRA is, at best, false.

Wow, so gun manufacturers have no incentive for gun dealers to sell more guns? That's an absurd statement. Obviously if gun dealers sell more guns, the manufacturers make more money.

Because, as we see, every time gun legislation is put in place, something else happens and the anti-gun side wants more legislation.
Thus, there is no reason for the NRA, or anyone, to give an inch, specially to legislation that does nothing to stop gun crime.

And here is the problem as I see it. Very little gun regulation (at the federal level) has been passed. What we have now is much less restrictive than the laws the founders had in place in their day.

And yet you continue with this notion that the federal government is running over your rights to own guns. You said, "Give an inch they'll take a mile." and yet failed to offer a single example.

The last batch of gun laws at the federal level (the assault weapons ban) was passed, and ended, without a new batch of gun laws to follow. There was no slippery slope.

Failure?
Clearly, because we have had so much success at stopping gun crime with the laws now in place, we should be happy to put more useless laws on the books that do nothing but limit the rights of the law-abiding.
Figthing such legislation is the only rational course of action.

The ATF is not allowed to make gun shops take inventory. Tens of thousands of guns are "lost" every year from these shops. And those are just the ones they voluntarily hear about because they cannot force the shops to give them numbers.

They aren't allowed to keep records of background checks or gun sales. So gun tracing takes forever and is almost useless since they most often have no record of private transactions.

The NRA actively lobbies against budget increases for the ATF. While most other agencies have received a 500% budget increase since the 70's, the ATF's remains unchanged.

The ATF has no director. Primarily because those controlled by the NRA in congress have decided that having an ex-ATF agent in charge might mean they enforce current laws, so they have blocked his appointment since Bush appointed him (yes, Bush) to the position 6 years ago.

And there are more if you read the articles I linked.

So before people start spouting about "enforcing current gun laws" you should know that your NRA is making that almost impossible.

And every point I have made is verifiable a thousand places on the web, including the two sources I provided earlier.

pssst, you are totally missinformed. where the hell do you get your information from?

 

[SFC Ollie]

This is false. There are innumrable laws restricting who can purchase firearms from gun stores, the mosy obvious of which is the NICS. To say that the authorities can do nothing about criminals walking into gun stores and buying guns is dishonest at best,.

Yes, state laws. Not federal. And state laws vary widely.

You obviously didn't read the articles I posted. Both listed a half dozen different ways the authorities have been handcuffed.

As noted before, gun manufacturers do not sell to individuals, and so your claim regarding the motivation of the NRA is, at best, false.

Wow, so gun manufacturers have no incentive for gun dealers to sell more guns? That's an absurd statement. Obviously if gun dealers sell more guns, the manufacturers make more money.

Because, as we see, every time gun legislation is put in place, something else happens and the anti-gun side wants more legislation.
Thus, there is no reason for the NRA, or anyone, to give an inch, specially to legislation that does nothing to stop gun crime.

And here is the problem as I see it. Very little gun regulation (at the federal level) has been passed. What we have now is much less restrictive than the laws the founders had in place in their day.

And yet you continue with this notion that the federal government is running over your rights to own guns. You said, "Give an inch they'll take a mile." and yet failed to offer a single example.

The last batch of gun laws at the federal level (the assault weapons ban) was passed, and ended, without a new batch of gun laws to follow. There was no slippery slope.

Failure?
Clearly, because we have had so much success at stopping gun crime with the laws now in place, we should be happy to put more useless laws on the books that do nothing but limit the rights of the law-abiding.
Figthing such legislation is the only rational course of action.

The ATF is not allowed to make gun shops take inventory. Tens of thousands of guns are "lost" every year from these shops. And those are just the ones they voluntarily hear about because they cannot force the shops to give them numbers.

They aren't allowed to keep records of background checks or gun sales. So gun tracing takes forever and is almost useless since they most often have no record of private transactions.

The NRA actively lobbies against budget increases for the ATF. While most other agencies have received a 500% budget increase since the 70's, the ATF's remains unchanged.

The ATF has no director. Primarily because those controlled by the NRA in congress have decided that having an ex-ATF agent in charge might mean they enforce current laws, so they have blocked his appointment since Bush appointed him (yes, Bush) to the position 6 years ago.

And there are more if you read the articles I linked.

So before people start spouting about "enforcing current gun laws" you should know that your NRA is making that almost impossible.

And every point I have made is verifiable a thousand places on the web, including the two sources I provided earlier.

Wrong answer.

I suggest you learn about Form 4473, which must be filled out and retained by any licensed Gun dealer on every sale. It must be retained for 20 years and must be surrendered to Law enforcement during any criminal investigation. If the shop goes out of business these forms must be turned over to the Federal Authorities.......

Do play again.......

 

[Spoonman]

This is false. There are innumrable laws restricting who can purchase firearms from gun stores, the mosy obvious of which is the NICS. To say that the authorities can do nothing about criminals walking into gun stores and buying guns is dishonest at best,.

Yes, state laws. Not federal. And state laws vary widely.

You obviously didn't read the articles I posted. Both listed a half dozen different ways the authorities have been handcuffed.



Wow, so gun manufacturers have no incentive for gun dealers to sell more guns? That's an absurd statement. Obviously if gun dealers sell more guns, the manufacturers make more money.



And here is the problem as I see it. Very little gun regulation (at the federal level) has been passed. What we have now is much less restrictive than the laws the founders had in place in their day.

And yet you continue with this notion that the federal government is running over your rights to own guns. You said, "Give an inch they'll take a mile." and yet failed to offer a single example.

The last batch of gun laws at the federal level (the assault weapons ban) was passed, and ended, without a new batch of gun laws to follow. There was no slippery slope.

Failure?
Clearly, because we have had so much success at stopping gun crime with the laws now in place, we should be happy to put more useless laws on the books that do nothing but limit the rights of the law-abiding.
Figthing such legislation is the only rational course of action.

The ATF is not allowed to make gun shops take inventory. Tens of thousands of guns are "lost" every year from these shops. And those are just the ones they voluntarily hear about because they cannot force the shops to give them numbers.

They aren't allowed to keep records of background checks or gun sales. So gun tracing takes forever and is almost useless since they most often have no record of private transactions.

The NRA actively lobbies against budget increases for the ATF. While most other agencies have received a 500% budget increase since the 70's, the ATF's remains unchanged.

The ATF has no director. Primarily because those controlled by the NRA in congress have decided that having an ex-ATF agent in charge might mean they enforce current laws, so they have blocked his appointment since Bush appointed him (yes, Bush) to the position 6 years ago.

And there are more if you read the articles I linked.

So before people start spouting about "enforcing current gun laws" you should know that your NRA is making that almost impossible.

And every point I have made is verifiable a thousand places on the web, including the two sources I provided earlier.

Wrong answer.

I suggest you learn about Form 4473, which must be filled out and retained by any licensed Gun dealer on every sale. It must be retained for 20 years and must be surrendered to Law enforcement during any criminal investigation. If the shop goes out of business these forms must be turned over to the Federal Authorities.......

Do play again.......

and if the ATF comes into your store you have to be able to account for every single weapon. There is no lost inventory

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here's the problem....The far left loons have spoken and they are going all out...

Senate President John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, said his bill would ensure that in the future the manufacturers and sellers of assault weapons such as those used in Aurora and Sandy Hook will be held responsible for the events in civil court.

So we should also charge Ford for some drunk driver??????
It's this kind of stupidity that hardens people against the anti-gun crowd......

And they are honestly confused as to why people are buying up guns and ammunition.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

You're confusing two concepts. The fact that you need to be able to provide proof of age to buy alcohol does not mean that a government agency is tracking all of your alcohol purchases.

They are if you have to fill out a form for every purchase.

M14 is right, but I don't think he goes into enough detail. If you have Universal Background checks then every transfer of every weapon would have to be "checked." That would mean that the government could know where every weapon is. Right now, the government is prevented from picking up the forms from the gun shops etc. And, to their mind, there is no real point anyway. But, if there were a complete record, then there would be a point to the exercise.

The government only needs to say, after the next event, "OK now we need all the gun dealers to send in their forms. We must know where are these guns are to protect the children." Then the game is up.

The only way that can never happen is to maintain a loophole for private sale and gifting of firearms. There needs to be enough transactions so that a large number of guns could be "anywhere."

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good idea --- the manufacturers SHOULD be held responsible. They are selling an irresponsible product made purely for killing lots of people against the law!!...

Trying to decide if the above opinion is absurd silliness, or silly absurdity.
Either way, it is both absurd and silly.

 

[Underhill]

This is false. There are innumrable laws restricting who can purchase firearms from gun stores, the mosy obvious of which is the NICS. To say that the authorities can do nothing about criminals walking into gun stores and buying guns is dishonest at best,.

Yes, state laws. Not federal. And state laws vary widely.

You obviously didn't read the articles I posted. Both listed a half dozen different ways the authorities have been handcuffed.



Wow, so gun manufacturers have no incentive for gun dealers to sell more guns? That's an absurd statement. Obviously if gun dealers sell more guns, the manufacturers make more money.



And here is the problem as I see it. Very little gun regulation (at the federal level) has been passed. What we have now is much less restrictive than the laws the founders had in place in their day.

And yet you continue with this notion that the federal government is running over your rights to own guns. You said, "Give an inch they'll take a mile." and yet failed to offer a single example.

The last batch of gun laws at the federal level (the assault weapons ban) was passed, and ended, without a new batch of gun laws to follow. There was no slippery slope.

Failure?
Clearly, because we have had so much success at stopping gun crime with the laws now in place, we should be happy to put more useless laws on the books that do nothing but limit the rights of the law-abiding.
Figthing such legislation is the only rational course of action.

The ATF is not allowed to make gun shops take inventory. Tens of thousands of guns are "lost" every year from these shops. And those are just the ones they voluntarily hear about because they cannot force the shops to give them numbers.

They aren't allowed to keep records of background checks or gun sales. So gun tracing takes forever and is almost useless since they most often have no record of private transactions.

The NRA actively lobbies against budget increases for the ATF. While most other agencies have received a 500% budget increase since the 70's, the ATF's remains unchanged.

The ATF has no director. Primarily because those controlled by the NRA in congress have decided that having an ex-ATF agent in charge might mean they enforce current laws, so they have blocked his appointment since Bush appointed him (yes, Bush) to the position 6 years ago.

And there are more if you read the articles I linked.

So before people start spouting about "enforcing current gun laws" you should know that your NRA is making that almost impossible.

And every point I have made is verifiable a thousand places on the web, including the two sources I provided earlier.

Wrong answer.

I suggest you learn about Form 4473, which must be filled out and retained by any licensed Gun dealer on every sale. It must be retained for 20 years and must be surrendered to Law enforcement during any criminal investigation. If the shop goes out of business these forms must be turned over to the Federal Authorities.......

Do play again.......

I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with anything?

Yes they have some legal obligations. And many, but not all, states fill in the gaps where federal regulations do not exist.

But what I am saying comes from reliable sources. And if any of you would bother looking into it, you would find I am correct.

 

[Underhill]

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

You're confusing two concepts. The fact that you need to be able to provide proof of age to buy alcohol does not mean that a government agency is tracking all of your alcohol purchases.

They are if you have to fill out a form for every purchase.

M14 is right, but I don't think he goes into enough detail. If you have Universal Background checks then every transfer of every weapon would have to be "checked." That would mean that the government could know where every weapon is. Right now, the government is prevented from picking up the forms from the gun shops etc. And, to their mind, there is no real point anyway. But, if there were a complete record, then there would be a point to the exercise.

The government only needs to say, after the next event, "OK now we need all the gun dealers to send in their forms. We must know where are these guns are to protect the children." Then the game is up.

The only way that can never happen is to maintain a loophole for private sale and gifting of firearms. There needs to be enough transactions so that a large number of guns could be "anywhere."

That's conspiracy nonsense. It never has happened. And never will so long as we maintain an elected congress (which is in no danger of going anywhere).

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is false. There are innumrable laws restricting who can purchase firearms from gun stores, the mosy obvious of which is the NICS. To say that the authorities can do nothing about criminals walking into gun stores and buying guns is dishonest at best,.

Yes, state laws. Not federal. And state laws vary widely.
You obviously didn't read the articles I posted. Both listed a half dozen different ways the authorities have been handcuffed.

You said the authorities could do nothing.
To say that the authorities can do nothing about criminals walking into gun stores and buying guns is demonstrably dishonest at best.

As noted before, gun manufacturers do not sell to individuals, and so your claim regarding the motivation of the NRA is, at best, false.

Wow, so gun manufacturers have no incentive for gun dealers to sell more guns? That's an absurd statement. Obviously if gun dealers sell more guns, the manufacturers make more money.

Moving the goalposts. Sure sign that you know your statement was false, and that you refuse to admit as much.
As gun manufacturers do not sell to individuals, your claim regarding the motives of the NRA is demonstrably untrue. No way to honestly argue otherwise.

Because, as we see, every time gun legislation is put in place, something else happens and the anti-gun side wants more legislation.
Thus, there is no reason for the NRA, or anyone, to give an inch, especially to legislation that does nothing to stop gun crime.

And here is the problem as I see it. Very little gun regulation (at the federal level) has been passed.

Because there is no reason for the NRA, or anyone, to give an inch, specially to legislation that does nothing to stop gun related crime -- if the antii-gun side were to propose such legislation, there might well be support for it, but it does not, and so there is not.

Why would any rational, thinking person support gun control legislation that does nothing to stop gun related crime?

What we have now is much less restrictive than the laws the founders had in place in their day.

This is absurdly silly and and absolutely unsupportable.
Please show your statement to be true.

And yet you continue with this notion that the federal government is running over your rights to own guns. You said, "Give an inch they'll take a mile." and yet failed to offer a single example.

Did you read the OP? This entire topic about just that.

The anti-gun side wants UBC. UBC cannot work without universal registration. As soon as the anti-gun side gets UBC they will claim it cannot work w/o universal registration and push for that.

Of course, background checls themselves are useless w/o UBC, and so universal registration was the eventual goal from the start.

Failure?
Clearly, because we have had so much success at stopping gun crime with the laws now in place, we should be happy to put more useless laws on the books that do nothing but limit the rights of the law-abiding.
Figthing such legislation is the only rational course of action.

The ATF is not allowed to make gun shops take inventory. Tens of thousands of guns are "lost" every year from these shops....

This does not address what I said, and so, even if true, does nothing to negate the soundness of my statement - and so, my statement stands.

Figthing useless and ineffective legislation that serves to do nothing but restruct the rights of the law abiding is the only rational course of action.
Disagree? Please show otherwise.

The NRA actively lobbies against budget increases for the ATF.

This is absurdly silly and and absolutely unsupportable.
Please show your statement to be true.

The ATF has no director. Primarily because those controlled by the NRA in congress have decided that having an ex-ATF agent in charge might mean they enforce current laws, so they have blocked his appointment since Bush appointed him (yes, Bush) to the position 6 years ago.

This is absurdly silly and and absolutely unsupportable.
Please show your statement to be true.

So before people start spouting about "enforcing current gun laws" you should know that your NRA is making that almost impossible.

This is absurdly silly and and absolutely unsupportable.
Please show your statement to be true.

Your responses here are decidedly lacking.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Yes, state laws. Not federal. And state laws vary widely.

You obviously didn't read the articles I posted. Both listed a half dozen different ways the authorities have been handcuffed.



Wow, so gun manufacturers have no incentive for gun dealers to sell more guns? That's an absurd statement. Obviously if gun dealers sell more guns, the manufacturers make more money.



And here is the problem as I see it. Very little gun regulation (at the federal level) has been passed. What we have now is much less restrictive than the laws the founders had in place in their day.

And yet you continue with this notion that the federal government is running over your rights to own guns. You said, "Give an inch they'll take a mile." and yet failed to offer a single example.

The last batch of gun laws at the federal level (the assault weapons ban) was passed, and ended, without a new batch of gun laws to follow. There was no slippery slope.



The ATF is not allowed to make gun shops take inventory. Tens of thousands of guns are "lost" every year from these shops. And those are just the ones they voluntarily hear about because they cannot force the shops to give them numbers.

They aren't allowed to keep records of background checks or gun sales. So gun tracing takes forever and is almost useless since they most often have no record of private transactions.

The NRA actively lobbies against budget increases for the ATF. While most other agencies have received a 500% budget increase since the 70's, the ATF's remains unchanged.

The ATF has no director. Primarily because those controlled by the NRA in congress have decided that having an ex-ATF agent in charge might mean they enforce current laws, so they have blocked his appointment since Bush appointed him (yes, Bush) to the position 6 years ago.

And there are more if you read the articles I linked.

So before people start spouting about "enforcing current gun laws" you should know that your NRA is making that almost impossible.

And every point I have made is verifiable a thousand places on the web, including the two sources I provided earlier.

Wrong answer.

I suggest you learn about Form 4473, which must be filled out and retained by any licensed Gun dealer on every sale. It must be retained for 20 years and must be surrendered to Law enforcement during any criminal investigation. If the shop goes out of business these forms must be turned over to the Federal Authorities.......

Do play again.......

I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with anything?

Yes they have some legal obligations. And many, but not all, states fill in the gaps where federal regulations do not exist.

But what I am saying comes from reliable sources. And if any of you would bother looking into it, you would find I am correct.

We have more than enough gun regulation at every level. We're teetering on the edge of too much regulation. So, the only answer you'll get from anyone with any common sense on this issue is, NO! No fingerprints, no pictures, no registration, no permits NO. I will throw you a bone though, just because I feel bad for you. We can ban magazines larger than 50 rounds. Happy now?

 

[Circe]

[ We can ban magazines larger than 50 rounds. Happy now?

No. You only want to ban very high-capacity magazines because they have been shown by two recent mass murderers to jam. (The Batman shooter and the Oregon mall shooter.) I suppose these rampages are viewed as good testing for the gun collector crowd.

About your sig quote: I'm something of an expert on C.S. Lewis, and you are misusing that quote if you suppose he'd be in favor of all this mass murder and collecting of assault rifles and all these atrocities. He was a civilized and elegant person and would, I believe, have assumed these collectors of mass-murder weaponry are just as crazy and dangerous as I suspect they are.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because there's no way for the state to show when a gun changed hands, the only way they can be effective is if we have universal gun registration.

You're confusing two concepts. The fact that you need to be able to provide proof of age to buy alcohol does not mean that a government agency is tracking all of your alcohol purchases.

They are if you have to fill out a form for every purchase.

M14 is right, but I don't think he goes into enough detail. If you have Universal Background checks then every transfer of every weapon would have to be "checked." That would mean that the government could know where every weapon is. Right now, the government is prevented from picking up the forms from the gun shops etc. And, to their mind, there is no real point anyway. But, if there were a complete record, then there would be a point to the exercise.

The government only needs to say, after the next event, "OK now we need all the gun dealers to send in their forms. We must know where are these guns are to protect the children." Then the game is up.

The only way that can never happen is to maintain a loophole for private sale and gifting of firearms. There needs to be enough transactions so that a large number of guns could be "anywhere."

Of course, here's the question that cannot be answered:

Where in the constitution is the government given the power to regulate a sale of a firearm between my next door neighbor and myself?