background checks for ALL firearm sales will reduce the murder rate

[black_squirrel]

How does this square with the 2A? You seem to assert that a constitutional right must become a state issued privilege because some tiny minority have abused that right. The complete nationwide ban of many recreational drugs did not make them rare, but it did create a multi-billion dollar criminal network to meet the demand for them. You confuse the right to keep and bear arms with the right to commit a crime with a gun - the two are not realted.

If you can determine with accuracy who is so dangerous that they may not ever legally touch a gun then why are they left to wander freely among us? What if they instead get a hammer, knife or flamable liqiud - would that too require the same measures to be taken? Why trust these known violent, dangerous or insane folks (barred from ever touching a gun) to drive vehicles or to purchase gasoline in "to go" containers?

You seem to confuse the right to keep and bear arms, with the right to sell guns to criminals. With rights come responsibilities. Part of this responsibility is to make sure that your gun does not land in the hands of criminals.

 

[jamesrage]

In the USA, 12,000 people are murdered every year with firearms. A lot of these murders can be prevented.
Gun laws in the USA have loopholes. Background checks are not required for ALL firearm sales. For example they
often not apply to private sales. So criminals can easily obtain guns from a private seller. Moreover, gun laws
differ from state to state, which does not make sense. Strict laws for selling guns won't do much good if a
neighboring state has very lax gun laws.

To remedy this, it makes sense to
1. register ALL firearms
2. subject ALL sales to background checks
3. require ALL stolen guns to be reported

Most of the guns that are illegally possessed were once owned legally by someone. If law-abiding citizens
only sell guns to other people who can legally posses a gun, then criminals would have more difficulties
obtaining a gun. Any person who owns a gun legally, would think twice about selling a gun without a background check
would think twice because this gun could be tracked down to the him/her.

I seriously doubt that 12,000 murdered people were killed by those with a record.Forcing 70-80 million law abiding citizens to register 310 million plus firearms will not stop someone from being murdered.Criminals will get a gun regardless of what unconstitutional law is passed.Those who served their time behind bars should have all their rights restored and therefore should not be barred from owning a gun.Just because someone served their time behind bars does not mean they are still a criminal.Mentally ill people who are too dangerous to own a firearm should be locked up in the loony bin until they can trusted in the general public.So no to all 3 of your ideas.

 

[TurtleDude]

You seem to confuse the right to keep and bear arms, with the right to sell guns to criminals. With rights come responsibilities. Part of this responsibility is to make sure that your gun does not land in the hands of criminals.

where did the federal government properly get the power to make you not sell to criminals?

 

[LaMidRighter]

You seem to confuse the right to keep and bear arms, with the right to sell guns to criminals. With rights come responsibilities. Part of this responsibility is to make sure that your gun does not land in the hands of criminals.

Uh, no. You are assigning a government mandate, not a responsibility. You didn't even bother to ask anyone what they think and automatically went straight to talking points about criminal prohibitions. Most owners are careful about who we sell to, we ask questions, etc. and will not sell to criminals, the people who would don't care what laws you pass. If I have to do a background check to sell my property I have to PAY a dealer to perform it because only people who have a FFL or a law enforcement office have access to the NICS system, and guess what, they aren't going to do that without payment. So I have to either eat part of the value of my gun or ask for more than it's worth, no thank you.

 

[black_squirrel]

Now you do:

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.

Nothing was suggested about taking away that right. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you for ID if you want to buy a gun.

 

[Bob N]

No, some people offer constructive critcism, analogies, facts and links to supporting information.

Like I said: that and a dollar-two-eighty-three.

 

[black_squirrel]

If you think that registration is OK that means you support gun confiscation because the only reason for registration is confiscation.

to say other wise is akin to saying you support people registering for the draft but you don't support people being conscripted to serve in the military

The government already has a database of all people. The social security administration has all your names, dates of birth, address. If you are an able-bodied man of the right age,
they know where to find you. Don't worry about them coming after your guns. There going to come after YOU!

 

[TurtleDude]

The government already has a database of all people. The social security administration has all your names, dates of birth, address. If you are an able-bodied man of the right age,
they know where to find you. Don't worry about them coming after your guns. There going to come after YOU!

ALL the better reason to have the means to take out a few of them in the process

 

[ttwtt78640]

You seem to confuse the right to keep and bear arms, with the right to sell guns to criminals. With rights come responsibilities. Part of this responsibility is to make sure that your gun does not land in the hands of criminals.

Since when is it my responsibility for the actions of another? Is it also my responsibility not to feed, house, hire, or to otherwise support these "sub-citizens"? If I know them to be a fugative then try me for that offense. To assert that I am an accomplice or criminal only for the act of allowing a free adult person the opportunity to purchase a gun is insane. If you are to treat all persons as if they were FFL dealers then give us all free access to do the NICS database checks. What is next - mandating that I do a DMV records check before selling a car?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nothing was suggested about taking away that right. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you for ID if you want to buy a gun.

Neither do I, but does that ID indicate anything about past criminal history?

 

[black_squirrel]

God that is stupid. Cast your eyes upon studies concerning the war on drugs and get back to us.

If no one was a bad guy we wouldn't have any crimes

If you had wheels you could be a trolley car

most "law abiding" citizens (ie those who don't have a record and can buy a gun legally) are NOT Law abiding if they are engaging in straw purchases .

Law abiding citizens sell guns to criminals, but they may not know it. Also, the non-law abiding citizens who do not have a record can do as they like. Straw purchases are hard to spot if done right.
The laws I suggest are necessary to prevent straw purchases.

 

[TurtleDude]

Law abiding citizens sell guns to criminals, but they may not know it. Also, the non-law abiding citizens who do not have a record can do as they like. Straw purchases are hard to spot if done right.
The laws I suggest are necessary to prevent straw purchases.

if they don't know the only person to prosecute is the criminal. your solution is a cure far worse than any disease

 

[Lutherf]

Every newly sold gun will be registered, and all sales will be registered. It would be difficult to register all the guns that are already lying around, though. So it might
take some time before most of the guns in circulation would be registered.

One possibility is that private sales would have to be done through a middle man, perhaps a licensed gun dealer. One could perhaps think
of other ways to comply without too much hassle for private sales.

If a crime was committed with a gun that could be tracked to some person and the person did not report the gun as stolen, that person would be in trouble. This means, at least a fine, and if the person
"looses" guns on a regular basis, (s)he will no longer be able to buy guns.

So newly manufactured firearms will all be registered......that happens now.

If a person goes to a licensed dealer they will have to register as the new owner....unless they don't go to a registered dealer.

If someone gets popped with an unregistered firearm they will be penalized....I assume that means even one that was owned before registration became mandatory.

Out of curiosity, are you familiar with the illegal drug trade? It seems to me that people are all required to "register" before they can obtain prescription medication but somehow or other those doggone drugs keep ending up in the hands of "unregistered" people. All your proposal will do is create an underground economy for guns. That's the way it worked when booze was outlawed and when drugs were outlawed but for some damned fool reason you figure it will work this time with guns.

Besides all of that, what do you think that universal registration will accomplish? Do you think that all of a sudden criminals are going to just figure it's time to comply with the law?

Here's what would happen if we implemented laws like you suggest:
1. Smuggling of guns and ammunition would take off like a rocket.
2. Since the risk of getting caught with little stuff like pistols and revolvers would result in harsh penalties we'll see an influx of RPG's, heavy machine guns and high explosives. Why risk your ass on little stuff if it's just as much penalty for big stuff?
3. Law enforcement will be bought off as will politicians and judges.
4. Groups that now control drug smuggling corridors will also be controlling gun corridors.
5. Law enforcement will fight back the only way they know how....with more raids and more firepower.
6. People will beg their politicians for more protection and next thing you know we'll see random searches of private property for "contraband".
7. Throw in a MASSIVE resistance to all of this and you'll get here what has happened in Libya and Syria.
8. The good news is that you will have done something to curb violence:roll:

I have to keep asking myself, why do people like you insist on going after law abiding people with your agenda? Why do you resist going after criminals? Why do you avoid trying to fix the problem?

 

[Lutherf]

Law abiding citizens sell guns to criminals, but they may not know it. Also, the non-law abiding citizens who do not have a record can do as they like. Straw purchases are hard to spot if done right.
The laws I suggest are necessary to prevent straw purchases.

Of course they do:roll:

I can only assume that you feel this way because you are one of those people who simply assume that anybody who owns a gun is violent and dangerous.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Law abiding citizens sell guns to criminals, but they may not know it. Also, the non-law abiding citizens who do not have a record can do as they like. Straw purchases are hard to spot if done right.
The laws I suggest are necessary to prevent straw purchases.

Then give them simple a way to find out. WTF is so hard about either issuing "GUN OK" IDs or allowing anyone to request a free BG check on themsleves? Straw purchases are impossible to stop just as preventing a non-criminal from committing a first offense is - think Adam Lanza. You may have a paper trail AFTER a crime is committed, to go trotting after the one that supplied the weapon used, but certainly you don't expect to find out in advance, by making random checks of all citizens to ensure that they still have all the guns that they had ever purchased.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You seem to confuse the right to keep and bear arms, with the right to sell guns to criminals. With rights come responsibilities. Part of this responsibility is to make sure that your gun does not land in the hands of criminals.

A right to keep and bear arms must necessarily include the right to manufacture, buy, sell, trade, or otherwise freely exchange them. What good does it otherwise do me to have the right to keep and bear arms, if government can deny me the right to buy one, or someone else the right to sell me one?

Really, there is no purpose or effect to any restriction on the right to buy or sell a gun, other than to openly violate someone's right to have it.

 

[Lutherf]

Then give them simple a way to find out. WTF is so hard about either issuing "GUN OK" IDs or allowing anyone to request a free BG check on themsleves? Straw purchases are impossible to stop just as preventing a non-criminal from committing a first offense is - think Adam Lanza. You may have a paper trail AFTER a crime is committed, to go trotting after the one that supplied the weapon used, but certainly you don't expect to find out in advance, by making random checks of all citizens to ensure that they still have all the guns that they had ever purchased.

You've read this guys posts. Do you really think that he'd settle for a simple ID? It would be less than 6 seconds before that ID became a license to search and seize.

 

[haymarket]

You have been edified on what registration leads to.

I am sorry but I was not aware of that. Please help with my education on that point. Just link or reproduce the complete list of countries or states which have had registration and the list of the same which then confiscated guns and prevented private ownership. We can then compare the two to see if your point is valid or if you are just bluffing or making it up as you go along.

I look forward to your evidence.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I have to keep asking myself, why do people like you insist on going after law abiding people with your agenda? Why do you resist going after criminals? Why do you avoid trying to fix the problem?

The answer, of course, is obvious, and I have pointed it out many times before.

Those on the pro-gun-control side are not on the side of law-abiding citizens; they are—either through ignorance or though willful intent—on the side of criminals and tyrants.

 

[Goshin]

It is improbable.


Most legal sales are already subject to background check; the track record of the Justice Dept for prosecuting illegal attempts to buy is not simply poor, it is all but nonexistent... 7 out of 250,000 last I checked.


Second, most criminals do not get guns via legal sales. They buy them on the black market, from their drug dealer, or steal them, or get someone else to buy them for them.


Then there's the matter than many murders are committed without firearms... humanity was killing each other in job lots long before guns.



Little likelihood of any significant impact on murders.


Examination of various states and nations gun laws, gun ownership rates, and murder/violent crime rates makes it clear that gun laws have very little impact on murder rates. Rather, poverty, corrupt government, factions/tribes/gangs and the drug trade are the chief motivating factors, along with cultural influences.




In short, why bother passing another ineffectual worthless law when we already have tens of thousands of such on the books.

 

[CalGun]

The study is by that extremist "right" wing group called the University of Hawaii (sarcasm intended)
20th Century Democide

I was off its only 262 million people - ah whats a million here or there when you are depending on govt for your safety.

I forgot the actual numbers but just about every communist revolution last century cost the citizenry of those countries millions, China, Cambodia, the USSR, South American instability, Africa, even under established takeovers, the genocides of Africa, the Holocaust, etc. The sad thing is the lucky ones were shot, many more were starved intentionally, gassed, or otherwise murdered in slow and painful manners...........all by some form of organized government structure.

 

[jimbo]

Wrong. The militia were all able bodied males(at that time 17-45) capable of military service, thus, able to be called to muster should a need arise. The "people" in the second clause means the citizens, the "Militia" is a very specific segment.

The 2nd and its militia actually had two purposes. To assist the government when required, and to resist the government when requred. Both required an armed militia, hence the second part of the sentence.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am sorry but I was not aware of that. Please help with my education on that point. Just link or reproduce the complete list of countries or states which have had registration and the list of the same which then confiscated guns and prevented private ownership. We can then compare the two to see if your point is valid or if you are just bluffing or making it up as you go along.

I look forward to your evidence.

well we know that England and Australia, NJ, NYC and California have all used registration lists to confiscate guns. And we cannot find any evidence of registration serving a useful purpose (of course lefties think confiscation is a useful purpose).

and we reject your silly argument that if registration DOES NOT ALWAYS LEAD (or I should say has YET to lead to confiscation) that actually supports imposing registration

you have been edified about those facts. you also have claimed that registration should be presumed OK if there are cases where it has not yet lead to confiscation

what you have totally failed to do is to proffer any support for registration other than the anonymous opinion of some supposed cops who claim they want it

 

[CRUE CAB]

In the USA, 12,000 people are murdered every year with firearms. A lot of these murders can be prevented.
Gun laws in the USA have loopholes. Background checks are not required for ALL firearm sales. For example they
often not apply to private sales. So criminals can easily obtain guns from a private seller. Moreover, gun laws
differ from state to state, which does not make sense. Strict laws for selling guns won't do much good if a
neighboring state has very lax gun laws.

To remedy this, it makes sense to
1. register ALL firearms
2. subject ALL sales to background checks
3. require ALL stolen guns to be reported

Most of the guns that are illegally possessed were once owned legally by someone. If law-abiding citizens
only sell guns to other people who can legally posses a gun, then criminals would have more difficulties
obtaining a gun. Any person who owns a gun legally, would think twice about selling a gun without a background check
would think twice because this gun could be tracked down to the him/her.

Gun ownership is up, gun crime. Including murder is down.
My guns are my personal property to which I have a constitutional right to own. Not property the nannys in the government have a right to tell me what to do with.

 

[haymarket]

well we know that England and Australia, NJ, NYC and California have all used registration lists to confiscate guns. And we cannot find any evidence of registration serving a useful purpose (of course lefties think confiscation is a useful purpose).

and we reject your silly argument that if registration DOES NOT ALWAYS LEAD (or I should say has YET to lead to confiscation) that actually supports imposing registration

you have been edified about those facts. you also have claimed that registration should be presumed OK if there are cases where it has not yet lead to confiscation

what you have totally failed to do is to proffer any support for registration other than the anonymous opinion of some supposed cops who claim they want it

Still awaiting the evidence I asked for..... again....

Just link or reproduce the complete list of countries or states which have had registration and the list of the same which then confiscated guns and prevented private ownership. We can then compare the two to see if your point is valid or if you are just bluffing or making it up as you go along.

I look forward to your evidence.