Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[Bfgrn]

There is even scientific proof...

Study: Conservatives Have Larger 'Fear Centers' in Their Brains

Political opinions are considered choices, and in Western democracies the right to choose one's opinions -- freedom of conscience -- is considered sacrosanct.

But recent studies suggest that our brains and genes may be a major determining factor in the views we hold.

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives' brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other "primitive" emotions. At the same time, conservatives' brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate -- the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

If the study is confirmed, it could give us the first medical explanation for why conservatives tend to be more receptive to threats of terrorism, for example, than liberals. And it may help to explain why conservatives like to plan based on the worst-case scenario, while liberals tend towards rosier outlooks.

Or the truth...that the liberal center of the brain for truth, rationality, facts and common sense is grossly underdeveloped.....hence the resistance to reality, the truth, facts and common sense...........and the part of the brain that protects the self concept of the individual is so over developed it contributes to a false sense of superiority........

It explains why, when there is, in fact, crime each and every day, the typical liberal believes it does not exist, so there is no need to take common sense, precautions in case these situation arise.......

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You can't just make shit up and call it facts....

The study of the brain not only found that conservatives have larger fear centers (amygdala), conservatives have a smaller anterior cingulate, which is responsible for courage and optimism.

Liberal brains have more gray matter associated with anticipation and decision-making.

Brain study reveals right-wing conservatives have larger primitive amygdala Daily Mail Online

You know...in the past...scientists like the ones you quote explained the intelligence of blacks as inferior to whites because of the shapes of their heads....it is interesting to see lefty scientists are still up to their old tricks...........do you want to discuss what lefty scientists were up to in Germany in the 1940s?

This is not 'the past'...that right wing "science" was based on fear...

This is actual MRI scans of the human brain.

oh yes, science you disagree with doesn't count does it? LOL

"science" once claimed the earth was flat...

There is no doubt about the MRI results. The unanswered question is cause. Is it hereditary or environmental?

 

[Bfgrn]

There is even scientific proof...

Study: Conservatives Have Larger 'Fear Centers' in Their Brains

Political opinions are considered choices, and in Western democracies the right to choose one's opinions -- freedom of conscience -- is considered sacrosanct.

But recent studies suggest that our brains and genes may be a major determining factor in the views we hold.

A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives' brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other "primitive" emotions. At the same time, conservatives' brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate -- the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.

If the study is confirmed, it could give us the first medical explanation for why conservatives tend to be more receptive to threats of terrorism, for example, than liberals. And it may help to explain why conservatives like to plan based on the worst-case scenario, while liberals tend towards rosier outlooks.

Or the truth...that the liberal center of the brain for truth, rationality, facts and common sense is grossly underdeveloped.....hence the resistance to reality, the truth, facts and common sense...........and the part of the brain that protects the self concept of the individual is so over developed it contributes to a false sense of superiority........

It explains why, when there is, in fact, crime each and every day, the typical liberal believes it does not exist, so there is no need to take common sense, precautions in case these situation arise.......

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You can't just make shit up and call it facts....

The study of the brain not only found that conservatives have larger fear centers (amygdala), conservatives have a smaller anterior cingulate, which is responsible for courage and optimism.

Liberal brains have more gray matter associated with anticipation and decision-making.

Brain study reveals right-wing conservatives have larger primitive amygdala Daily Mail Online

Hee-hee! I think it's hilarious that you are SO biased that you would buy into this stuff. How about sticking to the topic here?

Why are you so angry about your fellow Americans practicing their constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms? Hmm?

Well I just told you in the last post that I SUPPORT the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property.

Maybe it is not a hearing problem...maybe it is a seeing problem...but I suspect the problem is cognitive.

I SUPPORT the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property.

Sorry, but I'm not a newbie to these kinds of forums. You are not fooling me. You are what we refer to as an "incremental" gun banner. And plenty of liberal "thinkers" would just love to take away our 2nd amendment right. It is important that we defend ALL of our rights equally, even the ones you may not like. I'm sure that you can figure out the WHY.

Thank you for proving my point...

Study: Conservatives have larger “fear center”

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Or the truth...that the liberal center of the brain for truth, rationality, facts and common sense is grossly underdeveloped.....hence the resistance to reality, the truth, facts and common sense...........and the part of the brain that protects the self concept of the individual is so over developed it contributes to a false sense of superiority........

It explains why, when there is, in fact, crime each and every day, the typical liberal believes it does not exist, so there is no need to take common sense, precautions in case these situation arise.......

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You can't just make shit up and call it facts....

The study of the brain not only found that conservatives have larger fear centers (amygdala), conservatives have a smaller anterior cingulate, which is responsible for courage and optimism.

Liberal brains have more gray matter associated with anticipation and decision-making.

Brain study reveals right-wing conservatives have larger primitive amygdala Daily Mail Online

You know...in the past...scientists like the ones you quote explained the intelligence of blacks as inferior to whites because of the shapes of their heads....it is interesting to see lefty scientists are still up to their old tricks...........do you want to discuss what lefty scientists were up to in Germany in the 1940s?

This is not 'the past'...that right wing "science" was based on fear...

This is actual MRI scans of the human brain.

oh yes, science you disagree with doesn't count does it? LOL

"science" once claimed the earth was flat...

There is no doubt about the MRI results. The unanswered question is cause. Is it hereditary or environmental?

oh true, I discount past science as well. I was talking about modern science.Modern science has some interesting things to say about gays and blacks, for instance, do you dispute the findings?

 

[2aguy]

Um, no. You and your side are the ones who demonstrate "fear." You fear your fellow law-abiding citizens. You fear the right to bear arms. Sad, really.

Most gun homicides are committed by gang members . . . criminals. Criminals who do not obey laws.

Yet it is gun clingers who fear background checks that help prevent 'criminals' from buying guns. I have said more than once on this thread that I SUPPORT the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. You gun nuts have a HEARING problem too.

1) we know that a gun registry has been used to ban guns in general in Europe and Australia, and particular classes of guns in our country....California and New York in particular...and that a Universal background check system by design, would need registration of guns to be implemented...in order to track private sales of guns...

2) We know the current system creates more false positives against normal, law abiding citizens than it stops criminals..

3) We know that even with the current background system, criminals and mass shooters still get the guns they want or need to use...whenever they want or need them....

So it isn't that we fear them per se, but we know how anti gunners think and what they want and what methods they will use to achieve their goals...we also know the truth, that background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns....

More bullshit posing as facts...

A summary of the Manchin-Toomey gun proposal

1) A specific ban on a gun registry

Some opponents of the amendment claimed that the legislation would have thrown gun owners into a national registry so the government could keep track of them.

"If your private gun transaction is covered by Toomey-Schumer-Manchin (and virtually all will be) ... you can assume you will be part of a national gun registry," the lobbying group Gun Owners of America said. (The group added the name of Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y, one of the co-sponsors.)

Actually, the amendment outlawed any such registry. In fact, a registry was already outlawed, and the amendment extra outlawed it.

It declared that nothing in the legislation should be construed to "allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a federal firearms registry. And it included these provisions:

• "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."

• "The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the ... acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof."

• "Any person who knowingly violates (the prohibition against consolidating or centralizing records) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both." (The threat of prison was a new layer.)

and we know how the gun grabbers think....

• "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."

that is the sticky part....how do you know if a private sale is a violation of the law if you don't know who has the gun originally. So they will mandate a simple record of ownership...you know...so that the guns "come out of the shadows"...especially older guns that have no original paper trail...and the Attorney General won't be consolidating the records......they can mandate the states do it....for the Feds......or they will withhold federal funding for whatever they want...


Please.....this isn't our first rodeo....

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

More bullshit. Why don't you try something new...READ before you emote?

More background checks, but exemptions for family and friends

Manchin, a Democrat, teamed up with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on the legislation, which came to be known as the Manchin-Toomey amendment (you can read the text of it here). It was a more limited proposal than a larger Senate bill on guns, which would have mandated criminal background checks on all sales between private parties with limited exceptions.

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

"It’d have to be pretty distant family" for the background check rule to apply, Chris Calabrese, legal counsel for the ACLU, told PolitiFact.

sorry....doesn't cut it.....they get background checks in private,sales, notice how they lie even in this explanation...they say they will now require background checks at gun shows and Internet sales....when those already exist........you can't buy a gun from a licensed gun deaLer at a gun show without one.....and if you get a gun over the Internet you have to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer to accept it....already...that they use gun grabber distortion a in this explanation does not lend itself to trust.....

also....most criminal guns do not come from gun shows in the first place...they already use family members who can pass background checks to get guns or they steal them...again, already by passing current background checks and any future bbackground checks....thus creating a solution that won't stop the crime they say they want to stop.....

again...not leading to trust of their motives....

and of course we don't know the "intended" unintended consequences of what they are proposing that won't come out till they pass the legislation...

again...not our first rodeo with gun grabbers......

 

[Bfgrn]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You can't just make shit up and call it facts....

The study of the brain not only found that conservatives have larger fear centers (amygdala), conservatives have a smaller anterior cingulate, which is responsible for courage and optimism.

Liberal brains have more gray matter associated with anticipation and decision-making.

Brain study reveals right-wing conservatives have larger primitive amygdala Daily Mail Online

You know...in the past...scientists like the ones you quote explained the intelligence of blacks as inferior to whites because of the shapes of their heads....it is interesting to see lefty scientists are still up to their old tricks...........do you want to discuss what lefty scientists were up to in Germany in the 1940s?

This is not 'the past'...that right wing "science" was based on fear...

This is actual MRI scans of the human brain.

oh yes, science you disagree with doesn't count does it? LOL

"science" once claimed the earth was flat...

There is no doubt about the MRI results. The unanswered question is cause. Is it hereditary or environmental?

oh true, I discount past science as well. I was talking about modern science.Modern science has some interesting things to say about gays and blacks, for instance, do you dispute the findings?

Cite?

 

[2aguy]

Yet it is gun clingers who fear background checks that help prevent 'criminals' from buying guns. I have said more than once on this thread that I SUPPORT the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. You gun nuts have a HEARING problem too.

1) we know that a gun registry has been used to ban guns in general in Europe and Australia, and particular classes of guns in our country....California and New York in particular...and that a Universal background check system by design, would need registration of guns to be implemented...in order to track private sales of guns...

2) We know the current system creates more false positives against normal, law abiding citizens than it stops criminals..

3) We know that even with the current background system, criminals and mass shooters still get the guns they want or need to use...whenever they want or need them....

So it isn't that we fear them per se, but we know how anti gunners think and what they want and what methods they will use to achieve their goals...we also know the truth, that background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns....

More bullshit posing as facts...

A summary of the Manchin-Toomey gun proposal

1) A specific ban on a gun registry

Some opponents of the amendment claimed that the legislation would have thrown gun owners into a national registry so the government could keep track of them.

"If your private gun transaction is covered by Toomey-Schumer-Manchin (and virtually all will be) ... you can assume you will be part of a national gun registry," the lobbying group Gun Owners of America said. (The group added the name of Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y, one of the co-sponsors.)

Actually, the amendment outlawed any such registry. In fact, a registry was already outlawed, and the amendment extra outlawed it.

It declared that nothing in the legislation should be construed to "allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a federal firearms registry. And it included these provisions:

• "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."

• "The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the ... acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof."

• "Any person who knowingly violates (the prohibition against consolidating or centralizing records) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both." (The threat of prison was a new layer.)

and we know how the gun grabbers think....

• "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."

that is the sticky part....how do you know if a private sale is a violation of the law if you don't know who has the gun originally. So they will mandate a simple record of ownership...you know...so that the guns "come out of the shadows"...especially older guns that have no original paper trail...and the Attorney General won't be consolidating the records......they can mandate the states do it....for the Feds......or they will withhold federal funding for whatever they want...


Please.....this isn't our first rodeo....

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

More bullshit. Why don't you try something new...READ before you emote?

More background checks, but exemptions for family and friends

Manchin, a Democrat, teamed up with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on the legislation, which came to be known as the Manchin-Toomey amendment (you can read the text of it here). It was a more limited proposal than a larger Senate bill on guns, which would have mandated criminal background checks on all sales between private parties with limited exceptions.

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

"It’d have to be pretty distant family" for the background check rule to apply, Chris Calabrese, legal counsel for the ACLU, told PolitiFact.

sorry....doesn't cut it.....they get background checks in private,sales, notice how they lie even in this explanation...they say they will now require background checks at gun shows and Internet sales....when those already exist........you can't buy a gun from a licensed gun deaLer at a gun show without one.....and if you get a gun over the Internet you have to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer to accept it....already...that they use gun grabber distortion a in this explanation does not lend itself to trust.....

also....most criminal guns do not come from gun shows in the first place...they already use family members who can pass background checks to get guns or they steal them...again, already by passing current background checks and any future bbackground checks....thus creating a solution that won't stop the crime they say they want to stop.....

again...not leading to trust of their motives....

and of course we don't know the "intended" unintended consequences of what they are proposing that won't come out till they pass the legislation...

again...not our first rodeo with gun grabbers......

And again...they create a "solution" that is unecessary...it is already against the law to sell a gun to a felon..."knowingly" so if you don't know someone you can...right now, today, without this law, ask them to go to a gun store and get a background check done before you sell them a gun....right now...today.......and if the guy says, "I can't pass a background check" and you sell them the gun....you are a crimnal, and face federal prison time.....

so again, the Universal Background check is not necessary because:

1) the current system can deal with the current issues

and

2) criminals already get around the current background checks in ways that will void a universal background check as well....thus making Universal background checks stupid.....

But the gun grabbers know that.....don't they....so today...they want Universal Background Checks because it tightens the noose......then, when that doesn't stop criminals from getting guns, which it won't as I have shown, then they will say "Well........I guess since criminals actually get their guns from family members who can pass background checks....we will need to check backgrounds of family members to prevent criminals from getting guns"

We know how gun grabbers think, we know what they want, and we know their methods.......

Not one more gun, bullet or piece of equipment will be surrendered to their irrational fear of average citizens.....

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You know...in the past...scientists like the ones you quote explained the intelligence of blacks as inferior to whites because of the shapes of their heads....it is interesting to see lefty scientists are still up to their old tricks...........do you want to discuss what lefty scientists were up to in Germany in the 1940s?

This is not 'the past'...that right wing "science" was based on fear...

This is actual MRI scans of the human brain.

oh yes, science you disagree with doesn't count does it? LOL

"science" once claimed the earth was flat...

There is no doubt about the MRI results. The unanswered question is cause. Is it hereditary or environmental?

oh true, I discount past science as well. I was talking about modern science.Modern science has some interesting things to say about gays and blacks, for instance, do you dispute the findings?

Cite?

I don't want to derail this thread by citing a bunch of other studies on non related topics, you really can't just concede that those studies exist?

 

[2aguy]

This is not 'the past'...that right wing "science" was based on fear...

This is actual MRI scans of the human brain.

oh yes, science you disagree with doesn't count does it? LOL

"science" once claimed the earth was flat...

There is no doubt about the MRI results. The unanswered question is cause. Is it hereditary or environmental?

oh true, I discount past science as well. I was talking about modern science.Modern science has some interesting things to say about gays and blacks, for instance, do you dispute the findings?

Cite?

I don't want to derail this thread by citing a bunch of other studies on non related topics, you really can't just concede that those studies exist?

My thread...I won't mind.....I won't tell......

 

[Bfgrn]

Yet it is gun clingers who fear background checks that help prevent 'criminals' from buying guns. I have said more than once on this thread that I SUPPORT the right of law abiding citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. You gun nuts have a HEARING problem too.

1) we know that a gun registry has been used to ban guns in general in Europe and Australia, and particular classes of guns in our country....California and New York in particular...and that a Universal background check system by design, would need registration of guns to be implemented...in order to track private sales of guns...

2) We know the current system creates more false positives against normal, law abiding citizens than it stops criminals..

3) We know that even with the current background system, criminals and mass shooters still get the guns they want or need to use...whenever they want or need them....

So it isn't that we fear them per se, but we know how anti gunners think and what they want and what methods they will use to achieve their goals...we also know the truth, that background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns....

More bullshit posing as facts...

A summary of the Manchin-Toomey gun proposal

1) A specific ban on a gun registry

Some opponents of the amendment claimed that the legislation would have thrown gun owners into a national registry so the government could keep track of them.

"If your private gun transaction is covered by Toomey-Schumer-Manchin (and virtually all will be) ... you can assume you will be part of a national gun registry," the lobbying group Gun Owners of America said. (The group added the name of Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y, one of the co-sponsors.)

Actually, the amendment outlawed any such registry. In fact, a registry was already outlawed, and the amendment extra outlawed it.

It declared that nothing in the legislation should be construed to "allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a federal firearms registry. And it included these provisions:

• "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."

• "The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the ... acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof."

• "Any person who knowingly violates (the prohibition against consolidating or centralizing records) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both." (The threat of prison was a new layer.)

and we know how the gun grabbers think....

• "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."

that is the sticky part....how do you know if a private sale is a violation of the law if you don't know who has the gun originally. So they will mandate a simple record of ownership...you know...so that the guns "come out of the shadows"...especially older guns that have no original paper trail...and the Attorney General won't be consolidating the records......they can mandate the states do it....for the Feds......or they will withhold federal funding for whatever they want...


Please.....this isn't our first rodeo....

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

More bullshit. Why don't you try something new...READ before you emote?

More background checks, but exemptions for family and friends

Manchin, a Democrat, teamed up with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on the legislation, which came to be known as the Manchin-Toomey amendment (you can read the text of it here). It was a more limited proposal than a larger Senate bill on guns, which would have mandated criminal background checks on all sales between private parties with limited exceptions.

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

"It’d have to be pretty distant family" for the background check rule to apply, Chris Calabrese, legal counsel for the ACLU, told PolitiFact.

sorry....doesn't cut it.....they get background checks in private,sales, notice how they lie even in this explanation...they say they will now require background checks at gun shows and Internet sales....when those already exist........you can't buy a gun from a licensed gun deaLer at a gun show without one.....and if you get a gun over the Internet you have to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer to accept it....already...that they use gun grabber distortion a in this explanation does not lend itself to trust.....

also....most criminal guns do not come from gun shows in the first place...they already use family members who can pass background checks to get guns or they steal them...again, already by passing current background checks and any future bbackground checks....thus creating a solution that won't stop the crime they say they want to stop.....

again...not leading to trust of their motives....

and of course we don't know the "intended" unintended consequences of what they are proposing that won't come out till they pass the legislation...

again...not our first rodeo with gun grabbers......

You are the one dealing in deception and lies..YES, background checks at gun shows are required for LICENSED dealers. Background checks are NOT required at guns shows for people who pose as "private dealers". The intent of the law was to allow mom and pop to have a table at a gun show to sell their "private" collection. Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

AND...
investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

 

[Bfgrn]

This is not 'the past'...that right wing "science" was based on fear...

This is actual MRI scans of the human brain.

oh yes, science you disagree with doesn't count does it? LOL

"science" once claimed the earth was flat...

There is no doubt about the MRI results. The unanswered question is cause. Is it hereditary or environmental?

oh true, I discount past science as well. I was talking about modern science.Modern science has some interesting things to say about gays and blacks, for instance, do you dispute the findings?

Cite?

I don't want to derail this thread by citing a bunch of other studies on non related topics, you really can't just concede that those studies exist?

Concede WHAT? I don't know what you are talking about..

 

[2aguy]

1) we know that a gun registry has been used to ban guns in general in Europe and Australia, and particular classes of guns in our country....California and New York in particular...and that a Universal background check system by design, would need registration of guns to be implemented...in order to track private sales of guns...

2) We know the current system creates more false positives against normal, law abiding citizens than it stops criminals..

3) We know that even with the current background system, criminals and mass shooters still get the guns they want or need to use...whenever they want or need them....

So it isn't that we fear them per se, but we know how anti gunners think and what they want and what methods they will use to achieve their goals...we also know the truth, that background checks do not stop criminals from getting guns....

More bullshit posing as facts...

A summary of the Manchin-Toomey gun proposal

1) A specific ban on a gun registry

Some opponents of the amendment claimed that the legislation would have thrown gun owners into a national registry so the government could keep track of them.

"If your private gun transaction is covered by Toomey-Schumer-Manchin (and virtually all will be) ... you can assume you will be part of a national gun registry," the lobbying group Gun Owners of America said. (The group added the name of Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y, one of the co-sponsors.)

Actually, the amendment outlawed any such registry. In fact, a registry was already outlawed, and the amendment extra outlawed it.

It declared that nothing in the legislation should be construed to "allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a federal firearms registry. And it included these provisions:

• "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."

• "The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the ... acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof."

• "Any person who knowingly violates (the prohibition against consolidating or centralizing records) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both." (The threat of prison was a new layer.)

and we know how the gun grabbers think....

• "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."

that is the sticky part....how do you know if a private sale is a violation of the law if you don't know who has the gun originally. So they will mandate a simple record of ownership...you know...so that the guns "come out of the shadows"...especially older guns that have no original paper trail...and the Attorney General won't be consolidating the records......they can mandate the states do it....for the Feds......or they will withhold federal funding for whatever they want...


Please.....this isn't our first rodeo....

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

More bullshit. Why don't you try something new...READ before you emote?

More background checks, but exemptions for family and friends

Manchin, a Democrat, teamed up with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on the legislation, which came to be known as the Manchin-Toomey amendment (you can read the text of it here). It was a more limited proposal than a larger Senate bill on guns, which would have mandated criminal background checks on all sales between private parties with limited exceptions.

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

"It’d have to be pretty distant family" for the background check rule to apply, Chris Calabrese, legal counsel for the ACLU, told PolitiFact.

sorry....doesn't cut it.....they get background checks in private,sales, notice how they lie even in this explanation...they say they will now require background checks at gun shows and Internet sales....when those already exist........you can't buy a gun from a licensed gun deaLer at a gun show without one.....and if you get a gun over the Internet you have to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer to accept it....already...that they use gun grabber distortion a in this explanation does not lend itself to trust.....

also....most criminal guns do not come from gun shows in the first place...they already use family members who can pass background checks to get guns or they steal them...again, already by passing current background checks and any future bbackground checks....thus creating a solution that won't stop the crime they say they want to stop.....

again...not leading to trust of their motives....

and of course we don't know the "intended" unintended consequences of what they are proposing that won't come out till they pass the legislation...

again...not our first rodeo with gun grabbers......

You are the one dealing in deception and lies..YES, background checks at gun shows are required for LICENSED dealers. Background checks are NOT required at guns shows for people who pose as "private dealers". The intent of the law was to allow mom and pop to have a table at a gun show to sell their "private" collection. Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

AND...
investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

And if they sell to a felon, who already knows it is against the law to own a gun, they are breaking current law.......especially since they can already get background checks done.........

investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Thanks for proving my point.....they are already breaking the law...already breaking the law...get it...your own quote shows this is true....it is already breaking the law with current background checks.......and nothing in a Universal Background Check law would stop it either.......nothing...at....all......

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found.

again....thanks for proving my point for me.......they are already breaking the law and not using background checks we currently have and just making a "Super Dooper" universal background check law will not stop it because what they do now to bypass currrent background checks will still be done for "SUPER DOOPER" universal background checks.....

If they are breaking federal law.....fucking arrest them now...you don't need a fucking new "SUPER DOOPER" universal background check to arrest these people right fucking now...............

But you don't want to arrest them.....you want to arrest the law abiding gun owners, the people you can actually stop buying guns....since criminals will just ignore your asses and buy their guns anyway....

 

[2aguy]

Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

If a Federally Licensed Dealer is posing as a "private" seller to avoid conducting current background checks......arrest his fucking ass and strip his license and throw him in jail........all of which you can do now without "Super dooper" universal background checks.........right?

 

[Bfgrn]

More bullshit posing as facts...

A summary of the Manchin-Toomey gun proposal

1) A specific ban on a gun registry

Some opponents of the amendment claimed that the legislation would have thrown gun owners into a national registry so the government could keep track of them.

"If your private gun transaction is covered by Toomey-Schumer-Manchin (and virtually all will be) ... you can assume you will be part of a national gun registry," the lobbying group Gun Owners of America said. (The group added the name of Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y, one of the co-sponsors.)

Actually, the amendment outlawed any such registry. In fact, a registry was already outlawed, and the amendment extra outlawed it.

It declared that nothing in the legislation should be construed to "allow the establishment, directly or indirectly, of a federal firearms registry. And it included these provisions:

• "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."

• "The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the ... acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof."

• "Any person who knowingly violates (the prohibition against consolidating or centralizing records) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both." (The threat of prison was a new layer.)

and we know how the gun grabbers think....

• "The Attorney General shall be prohibited from seizing any records or other documents in the course of an inspection or examination authorized by this paragraph other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law."

that is the sticky part....how do you know if a private sale is a violation of the law if you don't know who has the gun originally. So they will mandate a simple record of ownership...you know...so that the guns "come out of the shadows"...especially older guns that have no original paper trail...and the Attorney General won't be consolidating the records......they can mandate the states do it....for the Feds......or they will withhold federal funding for whatever they want...


Please.....this isn't our first rodeo....

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

More bullshit. Why don't you try something new...READ before you emote?

More background checks, but exemptions for family and friends

Manchin, a Democrat, teamed up with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on the legislation, which came to be known as the Manchin-Toomey amendment (you can read the text of it here). It was a more limited proposal than a larger Senate bill on guns, which would have mandated criminal background checks on all sales between private parties with limited exceptions.

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

"It’d have to be pretty distant family" for the background check rule to apply, Chris Calabrese, legal counsel for the ACLU, told PolitiFact.

sorry....doesn't cut it.....they get background checks in private,sales, notice how they lie even in this explanation...they say they will now require background checks at gun shows and Internet sales....when those already exist........you can't buy a gun from a licensed gun deaLer at a gun show without one.....and if you get a gun over the Internet you have to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer to accept it....already...that they use gun grabber distortion a in this explanation does not lend itself to trust.....

also....most criminal guns do not come from gun shows in the first place...they already use family members who can pass background checks to get guns or they steal them...again, already by passing current background checks and any future bbackground checks....thus creating a solution that won't stop the crime they say they want to stop.....

again...not leading to trust of their motives....

and of course we don't know the "intended" unintended consequences of what they are proposing that won't come out till they pass the legislation...

again...not our first rodeo with gun grabbers......

You are the one dealing in deception and lies..YES, background checks at gun shows are required for LICENSED dealers. Background checks are NOT required at guns shows for people who pose as "private dealers". The intent of the law was to allow mom and pop to have a table at a gun show to sell their "private" collection. Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

AND...
investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

And if they sell to a felon, who already knows it is against the law to own a gun, they are breaking current law.......especially since they can already get background checks done.........

investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Thanks for proving my point.....they are already breaking the law...already breaking the law...get it...your own quote shows this is true....it is already breaking the law with current background checks.......and nothing in a Universal Background Check law would stop it either.......nothing...at....all......

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found.

again....thanks for proving my point for me.......they are already breaking the law and not using background checks we currently have and just making a "Super Dooper" universal background check law will not stop it because what they do now to bypass currrent background checks will still be done for "SUPER DOOPER" universal background checks.....

If they are breaking federal law.....fucking arrest them now...you don't need a fucking new "SUPER DOOPER" universal background check to arrest these people right fucking now...............

But you don't want to arrest them.....you want to arrest the law abiding gun owners, the people you can actually stop buying guns....since criminals will just ignore your asses and buy their guns anyway....

Are you a liar or obtuse? Under current laws, private sellers are NOT required to run a background check at gun shows. But dealers POSING as private sellers are circumventing the law.

The Manchin-Toomey gun proposal would close the gun show loophole.

 

[ChrisL]

and we know how the gun grabbers think....

that is the sticky part....how do you know if a private sale is a violation of the law if you don't know who has the gun originally. So they will mandate a simple record of ownership...you know...so that the guns "come out of the shadows"...especially older guns that have no original paper trail...and the Attorney General won't be consolidating the records......they can mandate the states do it....for the Feds......or they will withhold federal funding for whatever they want...


Please.....this isn't our first rodeo....

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

More bullshit. Why don't you try something new...READ before you emote?

More background checks, but exemptions for family and friends

Manchin, a Democrat, teamed up with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on the legislation, which came to be known as the Manchin-Toomey amendment (you can read the text of it here). It was a more limited proposal than a larger Senate bill on guns, which would have mandated criminal background checks on all sales between private parties with limited exceptions.

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

"It’d have to be pretty distant family" for the background check rule to apply, Chris Calabrese, legal counsel for the ACLU, told PolitiFact.

sorry....doesn't cut it.....they get background checks in private,sales, notice how they lie even in this explanation...they say they will now require background checks at gun shows and Internet sales....when those already exist........you can't buy a gun from a licensed gun deaLer at a gun show without one.....and if you get a gun over the Internet you have to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer to accept it....already...that they use gun grabber distortion a in this explanation does not lend itself to trust.....

also....most criminal guns do not come from gun shows in the first place...they already use family members who can pass background checks to get guns or they steal them...again, already by passing current background checks and any future bbackground checks....thus creating a solution that won't stop the crime they say they want to stop.....

again...not leading to trust of their motives....

and of course we don't know the "intended" unintended consequences of what they are proposing that won't come out till they pass the legislation...

again...not our first rodeo with gun grabbers......

You are the one dealing in deception and lies..YES, background checks at gun shows are required for LICENSED dealers. Background checks are NOT required at guns shows for people who pose as "private dealers". The intent of the law was to allow mom and pop to have a table at a gun show to sell their "private" collection. Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

AND...
investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

And if they sell to a felon, who already knows it is against the law to own a gun, they are breaking current law.......especially since they can already get background checks done.........

investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Thanks for proving my point.....they are already breaking the law...already breaking the law...get it...your own quote shows this is true....it is already breaking the law with current background checks.......and nothing in a Universal Background Check law would stop it either.......nothing...at....all......

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found.

again....thanks for proving my point for me.......they are already breaking the law and not using background checks we currently have and just making a "Super Dooper" universal background check law will not stop it because what they do now to bypass currrent background checks will still be done for "SUPER DOOPER" universal background checks.....

If they are breaking federal law.....fucking arrest them now...you don't need a fucking new "SUPER DOOPER" universal background check to arrest these people right fucking now...............

But you don't want to arrest them.....you want to arrest the law abiding gun owners, the people you can actually stop buying guns....since criminals will just ignore your asses and buy their guns anyway....

Are you a liar or obtuse? Under current laws, private sellers are NOT required to run a background check at gun shows. But dealers POSING as private sellers are circumventing the law.

The Manchin-Toomey gun proposal would close the gun show loophole.

But it doesn't stop criminals from obtaining weapons. The biggest problems lie within the inner city communities where gangs are seemingly allowed to run rampant. That is where the biggest homicide rates stem from, and those people do not go through legal means to obtain weapons anyways.

However, I don't think I would be opposed to such a background check. If I was a seller of a weapon, and I happened to sell one to a dangerous person who then used it to commit a murder, I would probably feel much guilt about that. So I would not be opposed to closing that loophole. However, DO NOT expect that it will affect homicide rates in any way. That would be more just protection for the seller.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, you're wrong on that point. Background checks for individual sales are easy without any sort of registration.
It's simple. If I sell you a gun without a background check and you never commit a crime with that gun, it's no problem, and no one would ever even know.
But if I sell you that gun, and you DO commit a crime with it, you get charged with a further crime if you can't tell the police where you got the gun....

Only if the DA thinks he can prove that I got the gun from you after the background check was necessary, absent said check.
How does he do that?

and if you tell them from me, and when they come and ask I can't prove that I ran a background check on you, then I get charged with a crime.

Only if the DA thinks he can prove that you actually sold the gun after the background check was necessary, absent said check.
How does he do that?

As long as the purchaser never commits a crime, the state neither knows, nor cares...

The state does not care if someone breaks criminal law so long as he doesn't break another law after that?

 

[ChrisL]

and we know how the gun grabbers think....

that is the sticky part....how do you know if a private sale is a violation of the law if you don't know who has the gun originally. So they will mandate a simple record of ownership...you know...so that the guns "come out of the shadows"...especially older guns that have no original paper trail...and the Attorney General won't be consolidating the records......they can mandate the states do it....for the Feds......or they will withhold federal funding for whatever they want...


Please.....this isn't our first rodeo....

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

More bullshit. Why don't you try something new...READ before you emote?

More background checks, but exemptions for family and friends

Manchin, a Democrat, teamed up with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on the legislation, which came to be known as the Manchin-Toomey amendment (you can read the text of it here). It was a more limited proposal than a larger Senate bill on guns, which would have mandated criminal background checks on all sales between private parties with limited exceptions.

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

"It’d have to be pretty distant family" for the background check rule to apply, Chris Calabrese, legal counsel for the ACLU, told PolitiFact.

sorry....doesn't cut it.....they get background checks in private,sales, notice how they lie even in this explanation...they say they will now require background checks at gun shows and Internet sales....when those already exist........you can't buy a gun from a licensed gun deaLer at a gun show without one.....and if you get a gun over the Internet you have to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer to accept it....already...that they use gun grabber distortion a in this explanation does not lend itself to trust.....

also....most criminal guns do not come from gun shows in the first place...they already use family members who can pass background checks to get guns or they steal them...again, already by passing current background checks and any future bbackground checks....thus creating a solution that won't stop the crime they say they want to stop.....

again...not leading to trust of their motives....

and of course we don't know the "intended" unintended consequences of what they are proposing that won't come out till they pass the legislation...

again...not our first rodeo with gun grabbers......

You are the one dealing in deception and lies..YES, background checks at gun shows are required for LICENSED dealers. Background checks are NOT required at guns shows for people who pose as "private dealers". The intent of the law was to allow mom and pop to have a table at a gun show to sell their "private" collection. Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

AND...
investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

And if they sell to a felon, who already knows it is against the law to own a gun, they are breaking current law.......especially since they can already get background checks done.........

investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Thanks for proving my point.....they are already breaking the law...already breaking the law...get it...your own quote shows this is true....it is already breaking the law with current background checks.......and nothing in a Universal Background Check law would stop it either.......nothing...at....all......

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found.

again....thanks for proving my point for me.......they are already breaking the law and not using background checks we currently have and just making a "Super Dooper" universal background check law will not stop it because what they do now to bypass currrent background checks will still be done for "SUPER DOOPER" universal background checks.....

If they are breaking federal law.....fucking arrest them now...you don't need a fucking new "SUPER DOOPER" universal background check to arrest these people right fucking now...............

But you don't want to arrest them.....you want to arrest the law abiding gun owners, the people you can actually stop buying guns....since criminals will just ignore your asses and buy their guns anyway....

Are you a liar or obtuse? Under current laws, private sellers are NOT required to run a background check at gun shows. But dealers POSING as private sellers are circumventing the law.

The Manchin-Toomey gun proposal would close the gun show loophole.

So, you want to fill up jails and clog up the system with people who failed to perform a background check? Oh way to go to get the REAL criminals off the streets!

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

No, you're wrong on that point. Background checks for individual sales are easy without any sort of registration.
It's simple. If I sell you a gun without a background check and you never commit a crime with that gun, it's no problem, and no one would ever even know.
But if I sell you that gun, and you DO commit a crime with it, you get charged with a further crime if you can't tell the police where you got the gun....

Only if the DA thinks he can prove that I got the gun from you after the background check was necessary, absent said check.
How does he do that?

and if you tell them from me, and when they come and ask I can't prove that I ran a background check on you, then I get charged with a crime.

Only if the DA thinks he can prove that you actually sold the gun after the background check was necessary, absent said check.
How does he do that?

As long as the purchaser never commits a crime, the state neither knows, nor cares...

The state does not care if someone breaks criminal law so long as he doesn't break another law after that?

^ Prime example of a one issue moron who is unwilling to compromise at all.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Registration would not infringe, so your dumb ass probably should be willing to make some concessions that would negate the need to require registration.

 

[2aguy]

and we know how the gun grabbers think....

that is the sticky part....how do you know if a private sale is a violation of the law if you don't know who has the gun originally. So they will mandate a simple record of ownership...you know...so that the guns "come out of the shadows"...especially older guns that have no original paper trail...and the Attorney General won't be consolidating the records......they can mandate the states do it....for the Feds......or they will withhold federal funding for whatever they want...


Please.....this isn't our first rodeo....

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

More bullshit. Why don't you try something new...READ before you emote?

More background checks, but exemptions for family and friends

Manchin, a Democrat, teamed up with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on the legislation, which came to be known as the Manchin-Toomey amendment (you can read the text of it here). It was a more limited proposal than a larger Senate bill on guns, which would have mandated criminal background checks on all sales between private parties with limited exceptions.

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

"It’d have to be pretty distant family" for the background check rule to apply, Chris Calabrese, legal counsel for the ACLU, told PolitiFact.

sorry....doesn't cut it.....they get background checks in private,sales, notice how they lie even in this explanation...they say they will now require background checks at gun shows and Internet sales....when those already exist........you can't buy a gun from a licensed gun deaLer at a gun show without one.....and if you get a gun over the Internet you have to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer to accept it....already...that they use gun grabber distortion a in this explanation does not lend itself to trust.....

also....most criminal guns do not come from gun shows in the first place...they already use family members who can pass background checks to get guns or they steal them...again, already by passing current background checks and any future bbackground checks....thus creating a solution that won't stop the crime they say they want to stop.....

again...not leading to trust of their motives....

and of course we don't know the "intended" unintended consequences of what they are proposing that won't come out till they pass the legislation...

again...not our first rodeo with gun grabbers......

You are the one dealing in deception and lies..YES, background checks at gun shows are required for LICENSED dealers. Background checks are NOT required at guns shows for people who pose as "private dealers". The intent of the law was to allow mom and pop to have a table at a gun show to sell their "private" collection. Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

AND...
investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

And if they sell to a felon, who already knows it is against the law to own a gun, they are breaking current law.......especially since they can already get background checks done.........

investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Thanks for proving my point.....they are already breaking the law...already breaking the law...get it...your own quote shows this is true....it is already breaking the law with current background checks.......and nothing in a Universal Background Check law would stop it either.......nothing...at....all......

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found.

again....thanks for proving my point for me.......they are already breaking the law and not using background checks we currently have and just making a "Super Dooper" universal background check law will not stop it because what they do now to bypass currrent background checks will still be done for "SUPER DOOPER" universal background checks.....

If they are breaking federal law.....fucking arrest them now...you don't need a fucking new "SUPER DOOPER" universal background check to arrest these people right fucking now...............

But you don't want to arrest them.....you want to arrest the law abiding gun owners, the people you can actually stop buying guns....since criminals will just ignore your asses and buy their guns anyway....

Are you a liar or obtuse? Under current laws, private sellers are NOT required to run a background check at gun shows. But dealers POSING as private sellers are circumventing the law.

The Manchin-Toomey gun proposal would close the gun show loophole.

They still can't sell guns to felons...that is against the law right now.......and dealers posing as private sellers are Breaking the law since they aren't private sellers...are they...so they are....right now....breaking the law......right now....without universal background checks......right now.......so you send in police officers....ask the dealer posing as a private seller to sell you a gun...run his name and find out he is a licensed dealer....selling as a private seller....and fucking arrest him for breaking the current law.......right?

As to private sales not requiring a background check....sooooo what. They can't sell to felons........go to gun shows and pose as private sellers.....when a felon comes up to the guy pretending to be a private seller, you ask the guy...do you mind if I do a background check...if the guy says yes...I can't pass one... and then still actually buys a weapon, illegally, arrest him...........no need for universal background checks, since that can be done now without the universal background check....then......you pose as a felon and go to the private dealer...and tell him....I am a felon and can't pass a background check.....if he still sells the guy a gun.....fucking arrest him too......no need for universal background checks....

There is no need to make a new "super duper" background check law....law enforcement already has all the tools they need to stop felons from getting guns.....

And right now...background checks are voided by having people who can pass background checks buy the gun for the person who can't ......this is illegal...that means it is against the law.....so....

You pass the super duper universal background check where private sellers must do background checks at gun shows....the same people who can pass and actual background check from before...go in and get the new super duper universal background check......and then sell or give the gun to the felon who couldn't pass the original background check...

or they simply steal the gun, thus avoiding the current background check and the new, super duper background check.......

what part of all of this is so fucking hard for you anti-gun nuts to understand.................

All you have to do is if you catch a felon with a gun.....fucking arrest them and put them in jail for a long time.........end of story...easy peasy solution and no background check upgrade is needed......

What morons......

 

[2aguy]

No, you're wrong on that point. Background checks for individual sales are easy without any sort of registration.
It's simple. If I sell you a gun without a background check and you never commit a crime with that gun, it's no problem, and no one would ever even know.
But if I sell you that gun, and you DO commit a crime with it, you get charged with a further crime if you can't tell the police where you got the gun....

Only if the DA thinks he can prove that I got the gun from you after the background check was necessary, absent said check.
How does he do that?

and if you tell them from me, and when they come and ask I can't prove that I ran a background check on you, then I get charged with a crime.

Only if the DA thinks he can prove that you actually sold the gun after the background check was necessary, absent said check.
How does he do that?

As long as the purchaser never commits a crime, the state neither knows, nor cares...

The state does not care if someone breaks criminal law so long as he doesn't break another law after that?

^ Prime example of a one issue moron who is unwilling to compromise at all.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Registration would not infringe, so your dumb ass probably should be willing to make some concessions that would negate the need to require registration.

Registration is the first step in a ban or in confiscation of categories of guns....ask New York, and California and the other places that have used registration as a means of getting guns out of the hands of citizens....

 

[2aguy]

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

More bullshit. Why don't you try something new...READ before you emote?

More background checks, but exemptions for family and friends

Manchin, a Democrat, teamed up with Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on the legislation, which came to be known as the Manchin-Toomey amendment (you can read the text of it here). It was a more limited proposal than a larger Senate bill on guns, which would have mandated criminal background checks on all sales between private parties with limited exceptions.

Current law requires checks on purchases only from federally licensed gun dealers. So the Manchin-Toomey amendment attempted to find middle ground by expanding the checks to gun shows and Internet sales, but not requiring them of family members and friends giving or selling guns to each other.

"As under current law, transfers between family, friends and neighbors do not require background checks. You can give or sell a gun to your brother, your neighbor, your co-worker without a background check. You can post a gun for sale on the cork bulletin board at your church or your job without a background check," a press release from the senators said.

For friends buying and selling guns, no background check was required as long as the sale was not advertised online or in a publication.

The amendment went into greater detail on family members, saying that background checks would not be required if "the transfer is made between spouses, between parents or spouses of parents and their children or spouses of their children, between siblings or spouses of siblings, or between grandparents or spouses of grandparents and their grandchildren or spouses of their grandchildren, or between aunts or uncles or their spouses and their nieces or nephews or their spouses, or between first cousins, if the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law."

"It’d have to be pretty distant family" for the background check rule to apply, Chris Calabrese, legal counsel for the ACLU, told PolitiFact.

sorry....doesn't cut it.....they get background checks in private,sales, notice how they lie even in this explanation...they say they will now require background checks at gun shows and Internet sales....when those already exist........you can't buy a gun from a licensed gun deaLer at a gun show without one.....and if you get a gun over the Internet you have to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer to accept it....already...that they use gun grabber distortion a in this explanation does not lend itself to trust.....

also....most criminal guns do not come from gun shows in the first place...they already use family members who can pass background checks to get guns or they steal them...again, already by passing current background checks and any future bbackground checks....thus creating a solution that won't stop the crime they say they want to stop.....

again...not leading to trust of their motives....

and of course we don't know the "intended" unintended consequences of what they are proposing that won't come out till they pass the legislation...

again...not our first rodeo with gun grabbers......

You are the one dealing in deception and lies..YES, background checks at gun shows are required for LICENSED dealers. Background checks are NOT required at guns shows for people who pose as "private dealers". The intent of the law was to allow mom and pop to have a table at a gun show to sell their "private" collection. Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

AND...
investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

Dealers posing as "private" sellers are moving large volumes of guns without background checks.

And if they sell to a felon, who already knows it is against the law to own a gun, they are breaking current law.......especially since they can already get background checks done.........

investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Thanks for proving my point.....they are already breaking the law...already breaking the law...get it...your own quote shows this is true....it is already breaking the law with current background checks.......and nothing in a Universal Background Check law would stop it either.......nothing...at....all......

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what an undercover investigation found.

again....thanks for proving my point for me.......they are already breaking the law and not using background checks we currently have and just making a "Super Dooper" universal background check law will not stop it because what they do now to bypass currrent background checks will still be done for "SUPER DOOPER" universal background checks.....

If they are breaking federal law.....fucking arrest them now...you don't need a fucking new "SUPER DOOPER" universal background check to arrest these people right fucking now...............

But you don't want to arrest them.....you want to arrest the law abiding gun owners, the people you can actually stop buying guns....since criminals will just ignore your asses and buy their guns anyway....

Are you a liar or obtuse? Under current laws, private sellers are NOT required to run a background check at gun shows. But dealers POSING as private sellers are circumventing the law.

The Manchin-Toomey gun proposal would close the gun show loophole.

But it doesn't stop criminals from obtaining weapons. The biggest problems lie within the inner city communities where gangs are seemingly allowed to run rampant. That is where the biggest homicide rates stem from, and those people do not go through legal means to obtain weapons anyways.

However, I don't think I would be opposed to such a background check. If I was a seller of a weapon, and I happened to sell one to a dangerous person who then used it to commit a murder, I would probably feel much guilt about that. So I would not be opposed to closing that loophole. However, DO NOT expect that it will affect homicide rates in any way. That would be more just protection for the seller.

As a responsible seller you can...right now...tell the buyer that before you sell the gun both you and he have to go to a local gun store or police station and run his background.....no universal background law required.......

If you are not a responsible seller, and think a 600 dollar gun sale is worth several years of federal prison time....you would sell the gun to the guy who says he can't pass a background check anyway.....right now.....with the current system that states that felons can't buy guns........