Want universal background checks? A question....

[MXdad]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

This is why intelligence tests should be given as well as back ground checks. hands up, don't shoot

Ok fine gun ownership is a right, voting is a right. Are you in favor of IQ test in order to exercise your right to vote?

Who was shot with their hands up?

yes, I am all for referendums but we should be asked to take a test on the issue to make sure we are totally informed before we vote. not by these bs artists telling you half truths and mostly lies scaring you all to a stupid destructive decision for you all.

Interesting your for passing a test to enable you to exercise your right to vote, LOL what could go wrong there

If I understand it would seem you are not in favor of a person having rights, your more in favor of the Gov deciding who it chooses to allow to exercise their rights


I am guessing you were also in favor of poll taxes?

I'm not talking about voting for a few to be bought or threatened off their task of looking out for us. Yes, if you are a stupid person voting on an issue without a clue, then you are harming us all and should be made to know the real unbiased facts. not the fear facts and opinions of propaganda networks from either side. this is no small feat but must be done in future so we can grow up as a species.

I agree a person being informed of the issues prior to casting a vote would be ideal. However the Gov being allowed to determine who can and can't vote is going no where

Were you also in favor of poll taxes?

 

[haissem123]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

This is why intelligence tests should be given as well as back ground checks. hands up, don't shoot

Ok fine gun ownership is a right, voting is a right. Are you in favor of IQ test in order to exercise your right to vote?

Who was shot with their hands up?

yes, I am all for referendums but we should be asked to take a test on the issue to make sure we are totally informed before we vote. not by these bs artists telling you half truths and mostly lies scaring you all to a stupid destructive decision for you all.

you should know me better then this by now.

Interesting your for passing a test to enable you to exercise your right to vote, LOL what could go wrong there

If I understand it would seem you are not in favor of a person having rights, your more in favor of the Gov deciding who it chooses to allow to exercise their rights


I am guessing you were also in favor of poll taxes?

I'm not talking about voting for a few to be bought or threatened off their task of looking out for us. Yes, if you are a stupid person voting on an issue without a clue, then you are harming us all and should be made to know the real unbiased facts. not the fear facts and opinions of propaganda networks from either side. this is no small feat but must be done in future so we can grow up as a species.

I agree a person being informed of the issues prior to casting a vote would be ideal. However the Gov being allowed to determine who can and can't vote is going no where

Were you also in favor of poll taxes?

 

[MXdad]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

This is why intelligence tests should be given as well as back ground checks. hands up, don't shoot

Really not sure how this addresses the question....

Did you report the sale to the government? if not, how do they know about it at all? if so, who does the back ground check? you 2 or the government local or not? does this address the issue?

Sounds like you think there's no way for the state to prove we broke the law.

if they catch you with the gun there is.

The guns are not on a registry, how will the gov prove who they belong to or who sold them

 

[haissem123]

If you support imposing universal background checks on all gun sales, whether through a dealer or not, I have a question for you.

Say I meet up with Turtledude; he and I buy a gun off each other, get a beer, and go home.

How does the government prove that background checks were not run before we sold the guns?

This is why intelligence tests should be given as well as back ground checks. hands up, don't shoot

Really not sure how this addresses the question....

Did you report the sale to the government? if not, how do they know about it at all? if so, who does the back ground check? you 2 or the government local or not? does this address the issue?

Sounds like you think there's no way for the state to prove we broke the law.

if they catch you with the gun there is.

The guns are not on a registry, how will the gov prove who they belong to or who sold them

so If they arent registered, go shoot them outside and take your chances. If they catch you with an unregistered gun, then what? if you keep it in your house, i'd have to go near your house to be in danger.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sounds like you think there's no way for the state to prove we broke the law.

if they catch you with the gun there is.

How so?

 

[Wry Catcher]

If you sell your car and don't have a bill of sale and don't notify DMV a parking ticket will be your responsiblity, any hit and run, you are the suspect and will need to prove you weren't the driver.

Irrelevant to the conversation.

In your head, sense it directly applies, we can be nice and assume you're only willfully ignorant.

Not in the slightest.
The fact that you can trace a car back to a previous owner because of a BoS isnt relevant because the huge majority of private transfers have no such bill and there was certainly no such bill in the example provided.

Huh? Who cares, the debate isn't about what is, it's about a means to limit illegal sales. Thus a law to require both a BoS and a background check would be a means to limit the sale of a gun to a criminal, a psycho, a drunk or someone intent on killing themselves and wanting to kill others first.

Sigh.
TD and I meet up. We each buy a gun off each other. No BoS, no background check.
How does the state prove we broke the law?

Not all law breakers are discovered by LE. The fact that you violated the law is necessary and sufficient to define you as a criminal.

Thus, you will make a choice and live with the consequences. In LE we referred to people like that as Felony Stupid, that is, someone who chooses to break the law because they believe they are smarter than everyone else and will not be apprehended.

 

[M14 Shooter]

so If they arent registered, go shoot them outside and take your chances. If they catch you with an unregistered gun, then what? if you keep it in your house, i'd have to go near your house to be in danger.

I have 2 relatives who are police officers; as such I've been "caught" innumerable times with several unregistered guns. Nothing happened.

 

[M14 Shooter]

TD and I meet up. We each buy a gun off each other. No BoS, no background check.
How does the state prove we broke the law?

Not all law breakers are discovered by LE.

So you agree that the state cannot prove that we broke the law.
Correct?

 

[Wry Catcher]

A criminal record is not necessarily a reason to provent someone from owning, possessing, etc. a gun. A crime of violence is; as is a mental condition wherein a person has a demonstrated history of little or no self control, or has a history of substance abuse.

Consider the most recent mass murderers were not criminals until they entered a school or movie theater or political rally with a gun and began shooting. A BGC is much more than simply looking at a history of arrests.

[Before hiring LEO's we would look at the entire record of the candidate, including civil judgments, credit reports, marriage history, residence stability, job stability, school records, military records and FI cards (police field interviews) of police agencies in all city/towns wherein the candidate lived, and review refernces with neighbors, teachers, coaches and family members as well as state and federal arrest/detention records. Plus, a written and two interviews with a psychologist and at least two interviews with command staff.]

So what's the big deal about BGC's for civilians seeking to purchase a gun. If the buyer wants a gun, and has no nefarious plans why wouldn't the buyer be as willing to undergo a BGC? BTW, there is no right to privacy nor is their funding sufficient to carry out an extensive BGC for all civilians who want to buy a gun.

We could start now, and require all new purchases of guns to include a BGC. Thus all the gun lovers can keep their guns safe and secure from government oversight; at least until they violate laws restricting the sale of guns, commit an act of violence, demonstrate a lack of self control, are detained as a danger to themselves or others or have been determined to be a drug or alcohol abuser.

It's funny that you mentioned the mass shootings at school, theater and political rally.

Sandy Hook - Guns were purchased legally, buyer passed BGC. Shooter killed mother stole the guns

Giffords shooting - shooter legally purchased guns, passed BGC

Aurora theater shooting - shooter passed BGC guns purchased legally


There your BGC was in effect and had no effect on the outcome.

Next

Which is why a seller of at least average intelligence ought to secure the buyers name on a BoS, signed and dated by the buyer; and, secure a background check (even thought they may be inadequite as your examples suggest).

 

[Wry Catcher]

TD and I meet up. We each buy a gun off each other. No BoS, no background check.
How does the state prove we broke the law?

Not all law breakers are discovered by LE.

So you agree that the state cannot prove that we broke the law.
Correct?

You cannot prove that TD won't give you up if the weapon was used in a crime.

 

[M14 Shooter]

TD and I meet up. We each buy a gun off each other. No BoS, no background check.
How does the state prove we broke the law?

Not all law breakers are discovered by LE.

So you agree that the state cannot prove that we broke the law.
Correct?

You cannot prove that TD won't give you up if the weapon was used in a crime.

You did not answer my question.
So you agree that the state cannot prove that we broke the law.
Correct?

 

[The Rabbi]

Register the serial number of the gun and provide a title, just like an automobile.

We're told by gun lovers that cars are just as dangerous, just as lethal as cars. If we accept this premise, then guns should be registered and titled.

I would also require insurance for that gun. Everyone who owns a gun should have to take out insurance to cover any damage or death caused by that gun.

Do we require insurance to own a ladder? To own a swimming pool? To own narcotics or cleaning agents? Because all those things cause more deaths than guns.
Such a law would fall most heavily on the poor, who suffer from crime disproportianally.
Another lib unable to think beyond Stage One.

I was replying to a post that was comparing cars with guns. The law requires everyone to have at least liability insurance on their car. If they don't have it and they're either stopped by a cop or is in an accident, they're in a lot of financial trouble.

However, there's already insurance for ladders, narcotics and cleaning agents. It's call Health Insurance. There's already insurance for swimming pools. It's called Homeowner's Insurance. In the case of a pool, I think there's an extra charge on the insurance for the pool.

Those who own a gun should be required to have insurance to cover any damage or death to innocent people caused by that gun.

If a person can't afford insurance then they shouldn't be able to have a gun. Just like with cars.

The poor pay for their car insurance, if they have a car. They can pay for insurance for their gun. An innocent person shouldn't be liable for all financial responsibilities when someone shoots them. Being poor isn't a good enough excuse to be able to harm or kill someone and just walk away from the financial responsibility of what they did.

There is no insurance REQUIRED to own a ladder or a pool or anything else.
And if you intentionally shoved someone in the pool and they drowned for whatever reason your homeowners would probably not pay off. Because insurance does not cover intentional acts. And shooting someone is an intentional act.
So your argument is a total fail.

 

[The Rabbi]

TD and I meet up. We each buy a gun off each other. No BoS, no background check.
How does the state prove we broke the law?

Not all law breakers are discovered by LE.

So you agree that the state cannot prove that we broke the law.
Correct?

You cannot prove that TD won't give you up if the weapon was used in a crime.

So a criminal claims he got a gun from a law abiding citizen who says he knows nothing about it.
Good luck prosecuting that case. Mr Former LEO.

 

[MXdad]

so If they arent registered, go shoot them outside and take your chances. If they catch you with an unregistered gun, then what? if you keep it in your house, i'd have to go near your house to be in danger.

So LE has nothing else to do put listen for gun shots then go see if they are registered. Sounds like a full time job where I live especially during hunting season. You sure we got enough LEO to handle that load?

So in your world if I walk outside and shoot as I often do then LEO can be free to enter and search?
Not surprised I guess that you would advocate for door to door searches. Are you also good with stop and frisk nationwide?

I guess for some like yourself living in a police state is pleasure. It's not for me, I will keep my freedoms

 

[g5000]

If I wanted a few Percocet and my buddy Jimbo had some that sold to me...how does the government even know that we broke the law?

This was the end of the topic. The very first response! Well done.

The ability to break the law does not invalidate the law. Otherwise, why bother outlawing murder if some people get away with murder?

It is amazing this topic has gone on for 10 pages when it was finished right out of the gate.

 

[The Rabbi]

If I wanted a few Percocet and my buddy Jimbo had some that sold to me...how does the government even know that we broke the law?

This was the end of the topic. The very first response! Well done.

The ability to break the law does not invalidate the law. Otherwise, why bother outlawing murder if some people get away with murder?

It is amazing this topic has gone on for 10 pages when it was finished right out of the gate.

That issue was already dealt with.
Laws are meant to punish law breakers after the fact. Not necessarily deter crime.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If I wanted a few Percocet and my buddy Jimbo had some that sold to me...how does the government even know that we broke the law?

This was the end of the topic. The very first response! Well done.

The ability to break the law does not invalidate the law. Otherwise, why bother outlawing murder if some people get away with murder?

It is amazing this topic has gone on for 10 pages when it was finished right out of the gate.

I see you did not try to answer the question.

 

[Wry Catcher]

TD and I meet up. We each buy a gun off each other. No BoS, no background check.
How does the state prove we broke the law?

Not all law breakers are discovered by LE.

So you agree that the state cannot prove that we broke the law.
Correct?

You cannot prove that TD won't give you up if the weapon was used in a crime.

You did not answer my question.
So you agree that the state cannot prove that we broke the law.
Correct?

Not with the facts as you present them. Of course I dealt with the issue above when I wrote about those who think they are smarter than everyone else. I'll post a scenario which you won't consider, but others will:

TD brings the gun home and hides it from his SO, who is afraid of guns and doesn't want one in their home. Two weeks later she finds the gun hidden in TD's closet and has a fit.

One thing leads to another and the argument is loud enough to alarm the neighbor who calls the police. When the police arrive and see the gun on the bed where it had been placed, they immediately cuff both TD and his SO and secure the weapon.

The officer asked the SO what happened and she reported how she found the gun and when she showed it to him he grabbed her arm, causing a red mark and a scratch.

The officers then arrested TD for domestic Violence. The gun was checked into evidence and the tech routinely ran the serial number; it came back as stolen. TD was then charged with Possession of Stolen Property as well as DV, and when interviewed by the investigators told them he had recently purchased the gun from M14.

A search warrant for M14's residence was approved by the court and the next day M14's wife and children were all cuffed and held on the floor of their home as the home was searched. A dozen weapons were found and taken into evidence.

Later it was learned that the original weapon had been cleared from the stolen property list by the reporting agency, but because of budget cuts the state had not yet updated
the computer.

M14's guns were returned to him seveal weeks later; TD was placed on Probation for DV, and M14 slept on the couch for several months.

 

[M14 Shooter]

TD and I meet up. We each buy a gun off each other. No BoS, no background check.
How does the state prove we broke the law?

Not all law breakers are discovered by LE.

So you agree that the state cannot prove that we broke the law.
Correct?

You cannot prove that TD won't give you up if the weapon was used in a crime.

You did not answer my question.
So you agree that the state cannot prove that we broke the law.
Correct?

Not with the facts as you present them.

Thank you.

Since the state cannot prove we broke the law, the state cannot enforce the law.

What sound argument is there that a law that cannot be enforced will pass a rational basis review?

 

[Wry Catcher]

TD and I meet up. We each buy a gun off each other. No BoS, no background check.
How does the state prove we broke the law?

Not all law breakers are discovered by LE.

So you agree that the state cannot prove that we broke the law.
Correct?

You cannot prove that TD won't give you up if the weapon was used in a crime.

You did not answer my question.
So you agree that the state cannot prove that we broke the law.
Correct?

Not with the facts as you present them.

Thank you.

Since the state cannot prove we broke the law, the state cannot enforce the law.

What sound argument is there that a law that cannot be enforces will pass a rational basis review?

You forgot to post my entire message, which of course you did not read - I suppose we should give you the benefit of the doubt and decide you are willfully ignorant (though I believe otherwise).