The Democrat’s Folly with Gun Control

[Tombstone1881]

I personally believe that Democrats should not be allowed to own guns since most mass murderers are Democrats.

I don't imagine any Democrats would oppose codifying this into law since they don;t like guns anyway.

Yes! It is clear to see on this map how the democratic strongholds are the areas with the greatest amount of gun death rates, right? /s

 

[LegendKiller]

Strip out suicides and gang/crime and those numbers plummet.

Not a single one of those countries has the demographics we do.

Apples to apples you know.

 

[Artdeco]

Strip out suicides and gang/crime and those numbers plummet.

Not a single one of those countries has the demographics we do.

Apples to apples you know.

But suicides are self murders, right?

 

[Fenixgoon]

That by definition is a loophole. Can you explain why, when you buy a gun from a dealer, a background check is required but when you buy that same gun via a private sale no background check is needed? Are people who buy guns from dealers more likely to be the "wrong kind" of person? Its a loophole in that it negates the effectiveness of a law.

It's basic fucking English, which, I know, already puts gun nutters at a disadvantage, so look it up in a the dictionary.

As to cars generally not having to be registered if they aren't driven on public roads (which is bullshit), let's assume your premise is true. Then you should be totally fine with people not being able to transport guns anywhere outside of their property, no open carry, no concealed carry. Are you good with that?

As to your other bullshit point about turning you into a criminal. I don't even understand your twisted logic on this one. Requiring background checks for every exchange of guns doesn't make you a criminal no more than having to register your car makes you a criminal.

A loophole is not purposefully designed into something. It is unintentionally designed into something. Otherwise it wouldn't be a loophole (i.e. a small opening - something not readily seen or inherently obvious). By contrast, an explicit private sales exemption is obvious, and private sales could be reasonably anticipated when creating a law in the first place.

Go to any track day - most vehicles that are dedicated track vehicles will not have plates, and therefore, no registrations.
And since you can trailer an unregistered vehicle (how else would you transport it?), you can do the same with a firearm by carrying it in your vehicle (generally speaking - as long as it is for lawful purposes, and unloaded, locked, and separate from ammo) - which is currently legally permitted.

CCW is the equivalent of taking your firearm onto "public roads", and I am totally ok with licensing and registration for that. And open carry, while it may be legal in some places, I would say is generally not the cultural norm, so while it might be legal in some places, I would consider it unadvisable.

I have no problem with easy, painless universal background checks. I have a lot of problems with "assault weapons" bans, "high capacity" magazine bans, and other bans that do nothing to effect a reduction in gun violence.

edit: also, umad.

 

[Artdeco]

How about you tell me which states don't. California and Georgia do. Now you can name two that don't.

And you'd be wrong. LOL.

 

[ivwshane]

A loophole is not purposefully designed into something. It is unintentionally designed into something. Otherwise it wouldn't be a loophole (i.e. a small opening - something not readily seen or inherently obvious). By contrast, an explicit private sales exemption is obvious, and private sales could be reasonably anticipated when creating a law in the first place.

Go to any track day - most vehicles that are dedicated track vehicles will not have plates, and therefore, no registrations.
And since you can trailer an unregistered vehicle (how else would you transport it?), you can do the same with a firearm by carrying it in your vehicle (generally speaking - as long as it is for lawful purposes, and unloaded, locked, and separate from ammo) - which is currently legally permitted.

CCW is the equivalent of taking your firearm onto "public roads", and I am totally ok with licensing and registration for that. And open carry, while it may be legal in some places, I would say is generally not the cultural norm, so while it might be legal in some places, I would consider it unadvisable.

I have no problem with easy, painless universal background checks. I have a lot of problems with "assault weapons" bans, "high capacity" magazine bans, and other bans that do nothing to effect a reduction in gun violence.

edit: also, umad.

You didn't answer the question. I'll try one more time: what is the purpose of requiring a background check?

 

[Artdeco]

You didn't answer the question. I'll try one more time: what is the purpose of requiring a background check?

The law was very clear, it excludes private sales. What are you arguing here?

 

[ivwshane]

The law was very clear, it excludes private sales. What are you arguing here?

Kind odd that you guys refuse to answer a simple question.

 

[Artdeco]

Kind odd that you guys refuse to answer a simple question.

Kind of odd you think it matters. Talk to the Brady people about why they left out private sales...

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Section 922(n) of the Act makes it unlawful for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receive any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.[4]

Currently, 92% of Brady background checks through NICS are completed while the FBI is still on the phone with the gun dealer.[5] In rare cases, a gun purchaser may have to wait for up to three business days if the NICS system fails to positively approve or deny his/her application to purchase a firearm. If a denial is not issued within those three days, the transfer may be completed at that time.

Firearm transfers by unlicensed private sellers that are "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms are not subject to the Brady Act, but may be covered under other federal, state, and local restrictions.

The Brady Bill also does not apply to licensed Curios & Relics (C&R) collectors, but only in respect to C&R firearms.[6] The FFL Category 03 Curio & Relic license costs $30 and is valid for three years. Licensed C&R collectors may also purchase C&R firearms from private individuals or from federal firearms dealers, whether in their home state or in another state, and ship C&R firearms in interstate commerce by common carrier. Curios or relics are defined in 27 C.F.R. 478.11 as "Firearms which are of special interest to collectors by reason of some quality other than is associated with firearms intended for sporting use or as offensive or defensive weapons." The regulation further states:

 

[ivwshane]

Kind of odd you think it matters. Talk to the Brady people about why they left out private sales...

Sure, right after you answer the very simple question. But I do enjoy the deflection!

 

[shady28]

As I'm sure you are well aware, before Heller, there was 100+ years of precedent that viewed the 2nd as a collective right and not an individual right...

Just as an example of more of your self-serving revisionist history. Here is what the SCOTUS said in the past :


United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
... the application of the First and Second Amendments "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,"


Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) -
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress."


United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution ...the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms..."


United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
...'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) -
"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."[1]


To wit, Even in Dred Scott - if you were free :

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
"It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

 

[Artdeco]

Sure, right after you answer the very simple question. But I do enjoy the deflection!

Despite your intent, you're pushing a poor argument, I didn't write the law, if I had, it wouldn't have been such a mess.

You want me to guess at the intent of a poorly written law the antis have had 2+ decades to fix?

New gun sales are easy to regulate, private sale restrictions are virtually uninforceable and turns law abiding citizens into felons.

 

[ivwshane]

Try again! This time try reading the opinions in their entirety and in context as opposed to cherry picking just the pieces you like.

Just as an example of more of your self-serving revisionist history. Here is what the SCOTUS said in the past :


United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
... the application of the First and Second Amendments "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,"


Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) -
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress."


United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."'

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution ...the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms..."


United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990)
...'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."


District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) -
"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."[1]


To wit, Even in Dred Scott - if you were free :

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
"It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

 

[ivwshane]

Despite your intent, you're pushing a poor argument, I didn't write the law, if I had, it wouldn't have been such a mess.

You want me to guess at the intent of a poorly written law the antis have had 2+ decades to fix?

New gun sales are easy to regulate, private sale restrictions are virtually uninforceable and turns law abiding citizens into felons.

Do private auto sales turn people into felons? Of course not because your argument is bullshit.

Now stop being a little bitch and answer the very simple question: what is the purpose of having a background check?

You and I both know why you refuse to answer that question.

 

[Artdeco]

ivwshane, you win, I'll just turn in the 5 guns I'm picking up on Monday.

Am using the gun show loophole by buying a gun (an AR15, actually they're all AR 15's) and then shipping it to Hawaii to a FFL dealer there so a friend can pick it up, 1 gun, 2 background checks and 2 FFL's, is that enough background checks for you? Perhaps 3 background checks are necessary?

 

[Artdeco]

Do private auto sales turn people into felons? Of course not because your argument is bullshit.

Now stop being a little bitch and answer the very simple question: what is the purpose of having a background check?

You and I both know why you refuse to answer that question.

To make Jim and Sara Brady feel better for passing a law that is easily circumvented? Perhaps Hinckley should have used an Ar15 so you can throw that in the mix, poor guy was shot with a 22 revolver, but you know, evil black guns and all...

Your anger is showing, dude... No guns in your house, right?

 

[ivwshane]

To make Jim and Sara Brady feel better for passing a law that is easily circumvented?

Your anger is showing, dude...

Lol! Anger? No, I'm laughing at your expense as you struggle to come up with new deflections in order to avoid answering a very simple question.

 

[Artdeco]

Lol! Anger? No, I'm laughing at your expense as you struggle to come up with new deflections in order to avoid answering a very simple question.

Strangely enough, I'm fully aware the intent of the Brady bill was to limit gun sales to convicted felons and those convicted of some high misdemeanors. It was a poorly written law back then, it's still a poorly written law today, and it led to a shitload of Democrats not being re-elected, and turned gun legislation into a 3rd rail for politicians for a very long time. Another 9-11 type event and you can expect calls for further gun control to be met with a massive backlash.

A significant number of the LGBT's are getting concealed carry permits, I welcome them to the club, there's room for everyone.

(I had to pass another background check to get the CCW permit, does that make you happy?)

When the assassination attempt happened, I'd already had a permit to carry for 3 years.

 

[Fenixgoon]

You didn't answer the question. I'll try one more time: what is the purpose of requiring a background check?

your original question was:

Can you explain why, when you buy a gun from a dealer, a background check is required but when you buy that same gun via a private sale no background check is needed?

and the answer is - because federal law requires that federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs) perform a background check, but federal law does not require a private party to perform a background check. state laws vary.

to answer your second question - what is the purpose of a background check - so people who are otherwise disqualified from owning firearms are not able to purchase them (legally, anyway).

 

[ivwshane]

Strangely enough, I'm fully aware the intent of the Brady bill was to limit gun sales to convicted felons and those convicted of some high misdemeanors. It was a poorly written law back then, it's still a poorly written law today, and it led to a shitload of Democrats not being re-elected.

When the assassination attempt happened, I'd already had a permit to carry for 3 years.

Ah! So background checks are done to limit sales to convicted felons and other violent misdemeanors?! Now tell me why that restriction is important when guns are sold through dealers but not through private sales? Surely you agree that a convicted felon and someone convicted of violent misdemeanors is still a convicted felon and a violent misdemeanant regardless of where or from whome they try and purchase a gun from, right?

So if the point of a background check is to limit the sale of guns to felons and misdemeanants and a law includes a way for that to be avoided, would you say that's a deficiency or inadequacy of the law? In other words, it's a fucking loophole!

See how easy that was?

Now I'll return the favor: the gun show loophole is a poor description of the problem because the loophole doesn't just exist at gun shows.

Yeah! We did it! And since we now both agree that such a loophole exists and thanks to your other posts we also agree that the original law was poorly written perhaps we can also agree that a way to fix it would be to require all sales of guns to require a background check.

I bet we can even agree to how those background checks should be done!

 

[ivwshane]

your original question was:



and the answer is - because federal law requires that federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs) perform a background check, but federal law does not require a private party to perform a background check. state laws vary.

to answer your second question - what is the purpose of a background check - so people who are otherwise disqualified from owning firearms are not able to purchase them (legally, anyway).

First, thanks for answering. Second, that was my original question, true. However as I explained in a subsequent post, I knew it was a complicated question to answer, so I asked a simpler, more direct question. Of course my intentions were to prove a point, a point that most gun nutters do not wish to address. You can see that point in my previous post.

 

[Artdeco]

Ah! So background checks are done to limit sales to convicted felons and other violent misdemeanors?! Now tell me why that restriction is important when guns are sold through dealers but not through private sales? Surely you agree that a convicted felon and someone convicted of violent misdemeanors is still a convicted felon and a violent misdemeanant regardless of where or from whome they try and purchase a gun from, right?

So if the point of a background check is to limit the sale of guns to felons and misdemeanants and a law includes a way for that to be avoided, would you say that's a deficiency or inadequacy of the law? In other words, it's a fucking loophole!

See how easy that was?

Now I'll return the favor: the gun show loophole is a poor description of the problem because the loophole doesn't just exist at gun shows.

Yeah! We did it! And since we now both agree that such a loophole exists and thanks to your other posts we also agree that the original law was poorly written perhaps we can also agree that a way to fix it would be to require all sales of guns to require a background check.

I bet we can even agree to how those background checks should be done!

I don't agree with the law, so your "point" is moot.

And it's not a "loophole" the law is decades old, and it's enforced as written.

I'd be awed if you really understood the "loopholes" in private gun sales, but not going to help you, it's funny watching you go after this stupid stuff.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't agree with the law, so your "point" is moot.

Except my point still stands regardless of whether you agree with the law or not so...




Hint: my point wasn't about being able to come together to make the law better. You are an irrational gun nutter, I already knew that wasn't going to happen but it's hard to convey facetiousness over the internet.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't agree with the law, so your "point" is moot.

And it's not a "loophole" the law is decades old, and it's enforced as written.

I'd be awed if you really understood the "loopholes" in private gun sales, but not going to help you, it's funny watching you go after this stupid stuff.

Speaking of stupid.

 

[Artdeco]

Speaking of stupid.

I don't know that insulting me is helping your cause, or enlightening you.

If you'd like, send me a pm with your phone # & I'll send you a pic of the 5 AR's I'm picking up on Monday to sell privately