• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Private Party Firearm Sales

Why do you believe this?


We have TONS of federal laws that affect all kind of activities... Why do you believe the fantasy that severe federal penalties don't persuade your average person form violating them? Do the penalties for tax evasion prevent some tax evasion?
 
What is your opposition to this bill?


Because it unnecessarily requires a licensed dealer to be involved in the transaction, and it essentially results in de facto registration of firearms. In other words, it essentially outlaws private firearm sales.

It also prohibits you from lending a gun to someone who you KNOW is permitted to own one.

It makes no exception for people with licenses to carry.
 
Under HR.8, one of these situations in each set of three are illegal without a background check:

A gift to my brother.
A purchase of a gun my father left to my brother.
A “forever loan” of a gun to my nephew.

Loaning an AR-15 to my uncle to hunt coyotes on his ranch.
Loaning an AR- 15 to a complete stranger while we compete in 3 Gun
Loaning an AR-15 to my buddy the cop to shoot on his uncle’s property to see if he likes the trigger.

Loaning a shotgun to a co-worker to carry while he’s fishing two states away.
Loaning a shotgun to a close single mom friend whose violent ex-husband gets out of jail at the end of the week.
Loaning a shotgun to a neighbor to shoot some skeet at the local range.

Pick out the three illegal acts.


In other words, you don't give a SHIT about gun violence.. It's the same bullshit every time from the NRA idiots...
 
Because it unnecessarily requires a licensed dealer to be involved in the transaction, and it essentially results in de facto registration of firearms.

LMAO.... In other words, you don't give a shit how many are killed by gun violence... How long do you think the American voters will put up with that bullshit?
 
In other words, you don't give a SHIT about gun violence.. It's the same bullshit every time from the NRA idiots...

So you have no response other than your emotional bullshit.

If Democrats gave a shit about gun violence, they wouldn't be proposing laws that have all the problems we identified, and they wouldn't continue, after decades, to try to ban firearms based on whether they have adjustable shoulder stocks, pistol grips, or flash suppressors.

They certainly wouldn't have rejected an ACTUAL universal background check bill that lacked all those problems that was introduced by a Republican senator in 2013, just so they could engage in more political theater and continue to try to sneak gun registration by.

If they had a shred of honesty, which they claim Republicans lack (perhaps they do), they would just introduce a gun registration bill, and call it that, since that's obviously what they want. They wouldn't be hiding behind background checks (while simultaneously screeching at us that the evil Republicans won't vote for background checks).

And if they gave a shit about saving lives generally, they'd be trying to pass stricter drunk driving laws instead of this useless gun control nonsense.
 
Last edited:
In other words, you don't give a SHIT about gun violence.. It's the same bullshit every time from the NRA idiots...
In other words, you aren't interested in common sense, just government control.
 
There is NO federal background check requirement for private sales... None, nada, zip... Texas does not require me to check and ID or anything... This is called the gun show loophole..
how is that a loophole? and how does it involve gun shows?
 
What are the pros and cons to citizen to citizen firearm sales? Do the conditions change depending on what state the transaction takes place in?
In Colorado you must transfer through a FFL. It has not been a problem.
 
In other words, you don't give a SHIT about gun violence.. It's the same bullshit every time from the NRA idiots...
why do fans of Democrat schemes to further erode gun rights, assume that we don't give a shit about gun violence if we don't support their faux schemes that only pretend to address gun violence?

most of you all hate the NRA because the NRA helps conservatives win offices. that is what really bothers posters such as you
 
We have TONS of federal laws that affect all kind of activities... Why do you believe the fantasy that severe federal penalties don't persuade your average person form violating them? Do the penalties for tax evasion prevent some tax evasion?
In "Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016", the DOJ reported in Table 5 where criminals get their guns. We see that vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals come from straw purchases, family transfers, theft and the underground market (Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drug). A total of 0.8% come from gun shows. Purchases from "good guys" in private sales don't even show up.


A federal law won't actually have any measurable effect on criminals getting guns. All it will do is make some non-prohibited persons pay more for a transfer.
 
In Colorado you must transfer through a FFL. It has not been a problem.
why should you be forced to do this when it doesn't do anything useful?
 
So you have no response other than your emotional bullshit.

If Democrats gave a shit about gun violence, they wouldn't be proposing laws that have all the problems we identified, and they wouldn't continue, after decades, to try to ban firearms based on whether they have adjustable shoulder stocks, pistol grips, or flash suppressors.

They certainly wouldn't have rejected an ACTUAL universal background check bill that lacked all those problems that was introduced by a Republican senator in 2013, just so they could engage in more political theater and continue to try to sneak gun registration by.

If they had a shred of honesty, which they claim Republicans lack (perhaps they do), they would just introduce a gun registration bill, and call it that, since that's obviously what they want. They wouldn't be hiding behind background checks (while simultaneously screeching at us that the evil Republicans won't vote for background checks).

And if they gave a shit about saving lives generally, they'd be trying to pass stricter drunk driving laws instead of this useless gun control nonsense.


How about we computerize all firearms purchase be recorded and digitized for easy searching.. Agree? We can prosecute immediately anyone who sells for a prohibited person..
 
In other words, you don't give a SHIT about gun violence.. It's the same bullshit every time from the NRA idiots...
Au contraire. I don't give a shit for unconstitutional, ineffective or unenforceable laws.

Try these on:

⦁ Allow individual access to NICS so that private sales can utilize the background check process. Sen Coburn sponsored a bill that would be very effective for this.
⦁ Exempt CCW and LEO from background checks.
⦁ Arrest those who commit felonies while attempting to get guns. In 2010, 72,000 applicants were denied permission to purchase a firearm via the NICS and state systems. 34,000 of these were denied for previous felony convictions. Another 20,000 were denied for state and local prohibited status. Only 10 (10!) were convicted. We still have tens of thousands of people who committed a felony by lying on the Form 4473 and have a violent past free to find guns through illegal means. Given that a violent felon is looking for a gun, how many violent crimes could be prevented by arresting and incarcerating these felons? https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
⦁ Focus on the gun dealers and sellers who sell large amounts of guns to ineligible buyers. If the Brady Campaign knows who they are, then ATF knows who the major sellers are.
⦁ Mandatory sentences for those who use guns in acts of criminal violence. Stop plea bargaining away gun crimes. http://chicagoreporter.com/thousand...-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/
⦁ Extend the legal possession geographies for CCW holders.
⦁ Go arrest the criminals who have guns illegally now - don't wait for them to commit a crime.
⦁ Fully prosecute and punish straw purchasers. http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/pol...cle_dcd60ace-8716-5651-9125-cb297998694e.html

My suggestion to reduce mass shootings like active shooter and domestic violence looks at three actions: prevention, isolation, intervention.

Prevention is the process to reduce the chance that a shooter will have a firearm in the first place. It's easier for DV than for active shooters, as the Lautenberg Amendment can be used to disarm anyone convicted of domestic violence or with a personal protective order sworn against them preemptively or actively. For Lautenberg to be effective, we need to educate potential victims, their legal support and local law enforcement. Potential active shooters don't have that history and with HIPAA restrictions find it easier to pass background checks. Prevention against rampage shooters is much less effective.

Isolation is the action of keeping a shooter separated from his victims. For DV, removal of the family to a safe house is the primary tool, unless the DV offender commits another crime or is caught violating a PPO before any homicide attempts occur, when he can be arrested. For active shooters, limiting access to schools or other targeted areas via channelized entry, metal detectors and similar passive measures are the first step. Being able to effectively lock down classrooms and other sub-geographies is also necessary.


Sometimes none of these work, or the area under attack isn't conducive to isolation, and that's where intervention is important. The FBI teaches Run, Hide, Fight when thrust into an active shooter situation, and data shows that the best way to fight is with a firearm. The current strategy of limiting ammunition magazine capacity to force reloads where the shooter can be physically restrained is untenable and hasn't been shown to be effective as an active response with a firearm. It suffers from fatal flaws: that the pool of potential victims includes someone that is brave enough to physically attack the shooter, that the brave person isn't among the first shot, that he or she is lucky enough to be in a close enough position during a reload and that he or she is physically capable of restraining a shooter. The biggest flaw, however, is that this tactic requires at least 10 shots to be fired with up to ten dead victims before there is a chance to stop the shooter. We've seen with both the Uber driver and Philly barbershop that CCW holders are not so restrained and can act quickly and effectively enough to stop a shooter with no innocent lives lost.
 
why should you be forced to do this when it doesn't do anything useful?
It makes street sales out of the back of vans illegal. Often they trade illegal drugs for guns.
 
How about we computerize all firearms purchase be recorded and digitized for easy searching.. Agree? We can prosecute immediately anyone who sells for a prohibited person..
why would we want gun banners to have such a list? why are you lefties always finding new ways to try to prosecute those who are not actually committing violent crimes? is it so you can pretend you are doing something about gun violence without doing anything about violent gun toting criminals?
 
why do fans of Democrat schemes to further erode gun rights, assume that we don't give a shit about gun violence if we don't support their faux schemes that only pretend to address gun violence?

most of you all hate the NRA because the NRA helps conservatives win offices. that is what really bothers posters such as you


Why do you pretend their are federal or state laws that require me to do a background check on the purchaser of a firearm in private sale. Please cite the law tou imagine are violated?
 
It makes street sales out of the back of vans illegal.
so we pass laws making things that are not themselves objectively harmful illegal and hope that will stop those who commit serious felonies such as murder and robbery?
 
why would we want gun banners to have such a list? why are you lefties always finding new ways to try to prosecute those who are not actually committing violent crimes? is it so you can pretend you are doing something about gun violence without doing anything about violent gun toting criminals?


In other words, you have NO interest in prohibiting sales to prohibited persons... It's all a bullshit facade...
 
Why do you pretend their are federal or state laws that require me to do a background check on the purchaser of a firearm in private sale. Please cite the law tou imagine are violated?
I don't think there should be. It is illegal to buy guns across state lines without a license. It is illegal to sell guns to someone from a state you don't live in. It is illegal to do business as a gun dealer without a license. are you unaware of those laws?
 
In Colorado you must transfer through a FFL. It has not been a problem.
And 90% of the country sheriffs said that they wouldn't enforce it, because they can't enforce it.

I live in Colorado:

Scenario: I’m traveling to the range on Sunday morning, which I do once or twice a month. It’s a 45 minute drive into country. In my car I have four rifles: one I bought new six years ago, with a background check (legal); one I bought used in a private sale, with a background check (legal); one I bought used in a private sale, without a background check, prior to HR.8 being passed (legal); one I bought used, after HR.8 was passed, without a background check (illegal)

Suppose I get stopped for speeding by the police. How does the LEO know that one of the guns in my car was illegally obtained?

HB 13-1229 was passed in 2013. The Colorado homicide rate in 2013 was 2.9. By 2019 it had increased to 3.8. It hasn't been effective, either.

Why should transfers between two non-prohibited persons be a crime?
 
In "Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016", the DOJ reported in Table 5 where criminals get their guns. We see that vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals come from straw purchases, family transfers, theft and the underground market (Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drug). A total of 0.8% come from gun shows. Purchases from "good guys" in private sales don't even show up.


A federal law won't actually have any measurable effect on criminals getting guns. All it will do is make some non-prohibited persons pay more for a transfer.

How the hell do you think the "underground market:" is supplied?
 
In other words, you have NO interest in prohibiting sales to prohibited persons... It's all a bullshit facade...
It is illegal for prohibited persons to have a gun. How about enforcing that? and prohibited persons mainly get guns from sources where your stupid background checks won't apply anyway
 
Back
Top Bottom