***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[Henry Ford]

Plus universal background checks are unconstitutional, have at it. Today it is illegal for an individual to sell a firearm out of state. Private sales of firearms represent intrastate commerce not to be confused with interstate commerce. Given this, the Commerce Clause does not apply and it is out of the domain of the federal government. It is the responsibility of each state to regulate private sales.

Stellar as always

No content as always, ignored.

He's laughing at you because even a first year law student knows that what you wrote above is completely wrong.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-Legal-Action-Against-New-York-Governor-CuomoNRA files legal action against Gov. Cuomo and the NY Safe Act citing violations of the Interstate Commerce Clause

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...-Legal-Action-Against-New-York-Governor-Cuomoarticle

Just doubling down without understanding any of it, aren't you?

The lawsuit says the gun law, which passed in January, violates the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause, which empowers the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, because the law restricts interstate commerce by requiring private gun owners to go through dealers if they want to sell guns to a private party in another state.

Are you saying the NRA is wasting their time challenging the SAFE Act as unconstitutional?I know there were a lot of people laughing in this thread at the thought of the AWB as being unconstitutional.

No, I'm saying you have no idea what the relationship is, if there is any, between the first statement by you in the nested quotes and the legal allegations in the legal action the NRA just joined.

 

[Henry Ford]

Hint: you claimed originally that the Feds couldn't regulate gun sales because they are intrastate. The NRA is alleging the exact opposite according to the quote you just put up.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Hint: you claimed originally that the Feds couldn't regulate gun sales because they are intrastate. The NRA is alleging the exact opposite according to the quote you just put up.

That's what I thought, you are nitpicking the exact legal verbiage I chose and ignoring the argument at large even though the NRA is using violations of the Commerce Clause as its basis because it is more important for you to act like an elitist than to confirm the unconstitutionality of the SAFE Act.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

If they claim poll results, those poll results are accurate.

Even if those polls are only targeted at a certain demographic/region, asked in a very vague way without any specific details?

 

[bigbottom]

Hint: you claimed originally that the Feds couldn't regulate gun sales because they are intrastate. The NRA is alleging the exact opposite according to the quote you just put up.

That's what I thought, you are nitpicking the exact legal verbiage I chose and ignoring the argument at large even though the NRA is using violations of the Commerce Clause as its basis because it is more important for you to act like an elitist than to confirm the unconstitutionality of the SAFE Act.

I haven't read familiarized myself with the arguments on this issue, but in Commerce Clause jurisprudence, noting the distinction between interstate and intrastate is anything but nitpicking.

 

[Henry Ford]

Hint: you claimed originally that the Feds couldn't regulate gun sales because they are intrastate. The NRA is alleging the exact opposite according to the quote you just put up.

That's what I thought, you are nitpicking the exact legal verbiage I chose and ignoring the argument at large even though the NRA is using violations of the Commerce Clause as its basis because it is more important for you to act like an elitist than to confirm the unconstitutionality of the SAFE Act.

No, I'm saying that the NRA is arguing exactly the opposite of what you are.You: it has to be left to the states.NRA: It has to be left to the feds.

 

[Cookiemonster]

The failure of Feinstein's new assault weapons ban is a good example of pluralism at work. (I tried to explain this concept in the lobbying thread.) The latest polls show that over 50% of the public is in favor of what Feinstein wants to do. If we were a fully democratic society, therefore, Congress should have voted in favor, reflecting the will of the public. But even though the people opposed to the AWB represent a numerical minority, they are actually much more powerful in this instance than the majority in favor. There are lots of reasons for this, but the main one is that those against are willing to vote and spend money opposing, while those in favor are not willing to do as much. Hence the bill fails.

In our society, the motivated is always much more powerful than the disinterested, no matter how the numbers fall.

Why do you think they are not happily voting it through? The majority does not support this, and they are afraid of losing future votes if they did because in a true democratic society, they would not have the support to do so. They know it will cost them valuable seats and votes.You should really expand your news sources to those outside the strong anti-gun rights capitols of L.A., New York and Washington. The only topic getting anywhere close to 50% is for universal background checks. Magazine restrictions are a distant second and AWBs are closer to 10-20% outside of CNN, the Post and the Times. If you look at pro-gun polls, the results are closer to 40%, 20% and 5% respectively. The White House polls, NY Times etc. have been religiously taking down polls that don't reflect their agenda before the day is over. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between the two, but to say that 50% of the population supports Feinstein's proposals is living in a very small world.

This is an amazing post. So I should simply ignore CNN, the Post , the Times, and follow "pro-gun sources" because they offer an opposing set of facts?

Read it again... carefully. I said the truth is somewhere in between. I did not say to ignore them, only to not limit yourself to them. They have a very anti-gun agenda. Pro-gun media will give you drastically different numbers and I don't think either side are too interested in actual numbers but in pumping support for their side. You obviously fall under the umbrella of the CNN, Post, Times demographic and their polls help you puff your chest about your (and their) views. Just recommending to you that before you profess how the American public feels, you may want to venture out of your social circle.

No. The truth is not something inbetween. I don't care what kind of "agenda" you claim that CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times has. If they claim poll results, those poll results are accurate. You have no call to view them as not accurate. I realize that it's a standard conservative thing these days to discount anything reported by the "mainstream media", but the only result is that you live in your own false world. It's the same reason so many conservatives believed that Obama was sure to lose his re-election, because they discounted every poll done by the mainstream media.

Ah. I see. What's good for the goose is not good for the gander. I can't discount media outlets with an "agenda" that just has to be accurate, but you can discount other media outlets at a whim because I live in a false world.Denver Post Magazine Limit poll

Connecticut Poll on Gun Control Proposals

reason.com (notoriously known as left/liberal/anti-gun, gun control polls beginning at #32)

Here are a few from very anti-gun sources, just so you can't claim that I only get my info from NRA or pro-gun sources. Of course, pro-gun sources will have much different numbers than anti, but when you figure that there are 300+ million guns you can't assume that only 1 million gun owners own 300 guns each.

The truth is something in between. I don't care what kind of "agenda" you claim that CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times do not have. If they claim poll results, those poll results are accurate to their demographic. You have no call to view them as an accurate representation of the rest of the country's population. I realize that it's a standard liberal thing these days to discount anything reported by FOX or the NRA, but the only result is that you live in your own false world.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Hint: you claimed originally that the Feds couldn't regulate gun sales because they are intrastate. The NRA is alleging the exact opposite according to the quote you just put up.

That's what I thought, you are nitpicking the exact legal verbiage I chose and ignoring the argument at large even though the NRA is using violations of the Commerce Clause as its basis because it is more important for you to act like an elitist than to confirm the unconstitutionality of the SAFE Act.

No, I'm saying that the NRA is arguing exactly the opposite of what you are.You: it has to be left to the states.

NRA: It has to be left to the feds.

I was arguing about universal background checks from the standpoint of refuting a proposed federal law. FFL's are commercial businesses engaged in INTERstate commerce. That's clearly within the power of Congress to regulate. Private INTRAstate transactions are not. Congress can't regulate garage sales in your front yard either. They can't pass laws requiring you to pass federal inspections or prohibit the sale of furniture between individuals. Especially when their only reason to do so is to regulate crime/violence. That has already been struck down. That is not within the power of Congress. The SAFE Act provides for the establishment of a firearms database by the New York State Police. While the explicit language of the act states that the responsibility of the database shall not be borne by any municipality, an obvious attempt at circumventing FOPA, it does violate the intent of the law.NYTimes in reference to Harry Reid announcing that the Gun Bill will be taken up after Senate recess:

Nonetheless, this bill lacks the 60 votes necessary to get past a Republican filibuster, according to Senate officials. No Republican has signed on as a co-sponsor. So talks are under way to water it down a bit, to attract enough Republicans to beat a filibuster and pressure the House to go along.

Negotiators say the most likely compromise would require background checks for all commercial and advertised sales, including those on the Internet, along with sales at gun shows. That would cover most of the sales for which checks do not now take place, but it would leave out unadvertised, person-to-person sales of guns, a significant omission. Negotiators are exploring the possibility of a new government Web site that could verify buyers in these sales, though it is not clear whether that is feasible.

NY Counties response to the SAFE Act:

Cuomo has turned a deaf ear to the thousands of New Yorkers who have protested the SAFE ACT. Dozens of county legislatures have now passed resolutions condemning the Draconian gun law. In fact, 52 counties (of New York’s 62 counties) have either passed or have pending, a resolution opposing the SAFE ACT.

-------------What you are attempting to show is that since the NRA is arguing that the SAFE act is violating the Commerce Clause since NY is mandating NY residents can only purchase ammunition from a registered (commercial) manufacturer in NY State thereby creating a monopoly, that this is the opposite of what I said.

I haven't seen the 47 page complaint to quote the language used for every count in the complaint.

 

[Henry Ford]

Hint: you claimed originally that the Feds couldn't regulate gun sales because they are intrastate. The NRA is alleging the exact opposite according to the quote you just put up.

That's what I thought, you are nitpicking the exact legal verbiage I chose and ignoring the argument at large even though the NRA is using violations of the Commerce Clause as its basis because it is more important for you to act like an elitist than to confirm the unconstitutionality of the SAFE Act.

No, I'm saying that the NRA is arguing exactly the opposite of what you are.You: it has to be left to the states.

NRA: It has to be left to the feds.

I was arguing about universal background checks from the standpoint of refuting a proposed federal law. FFL's are commercial businesses engaged in INTERstate commerce. That's clearly within the power of Congress to regulate. Private INTRAstate transactions are not. Congress can't regulate garage sales in your front yard either. They can't pass laws requiring you to pass federal inspections or prohibit the sale of furniture between individuals. Especially when their only reason to do so is to regulate crime/violence. That has already been struck down. That is not within the power of Congress. The SAFE Act provides for the establishment of a firearms database by the New York State Police. While the explicit language of the act states that the responsibility of the database shall not be borne by any municipality, an obvious attempt at circumventing FOPA, it does violate the intent of the law.NYTimes in reference to Harry Reid announcing that the Gun Bill will be taken up after Senate recess:

Nonetheless, this bill lacks the 60 votes necessary to get past a Republican filibuster, according to Senate officials. No Republican has signed on as a co-sponsor. So talks are under way to water it down a bit, to attract enough Republicans to beat a filibuster and pressure the House to go along.

Negotiators say the most likely compromise would require background checks for all commercial and advertised sales, including those on the Internet, along with sales at gun shows. That would cover most of the sales for which checks do not now take place, but it would leave out unadvertised, person-to-person sales of guns, a significant omission. Negotiators are exploring the possibility of a new government Web site that could verify buyers in these sales, though it is not clear whether that is feasible.

NY Counties response to the SAFE Act:

Cuomo has turned a deaf ear to the thousands of New Yorkers who have protested the SAFE ACT. Dozens of county legislatures have now passed resolutions condemning the Draconian gun law. In fact, 52 counties (of New York’s 62 counties) have either passed or have pending, a resolution opposing the SAFE ACT.

-------------What you are attempting to show is that since the NRA is arguing that the SAFE act is violating the Commerce Clause since NY is mandating NY residents can only purchase ammunition from a registered (commercial) manufacturer in NY State thereby creating a monopoly, that this is the opposite of what I said.

If the commerce clause applies, it's Federal territory. You get that, right?And what I originally said was that you have no idea what relationship, if any, there is between what you said and what the NRA is saying. You still don't.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Hint: you claimed originally that the Feds couldn't regulate gun sales because they are intrastate. The NRA is alleging the exact opposite according to the quote you just put up.

That's what I thought, you are nitpicking the exact legal verbiage I chose and ignoring the argument at large even though the NRA is using violations of the Commerce Clause as its basis because it is more important for you to act like an elitist than to confirm the unconstitutionality of the SAFE Act.

No, I'm saying that the NRA is arguing exactly the opposite of what you are.You: it has to be left to the states.

NRA: It has to be left to the feds.

I was arguing about universal background checks from the standpoint of refuting a proposed federal law. FFL's are commercial businesses engaged in INTERstate commerce. That's clearly within the power of Congress to regulate. Private INTRAstate transactions are not. Congress can't regulate garage sales in your front yard either. They can't pass laws requiring you to pass federal inspections or prohibit the sale of furniture between individuals. Especially when their only reason to do so is to regulate crime/violence. That has already been struck down. That is not within the power of Congress. The SAFE Act provides for the establishment of a firearms database by the New York State Police. While the explicit language of the act states that the responsibility of the database shall not be borne by any municipality, an obvious attempt at circumventing FOPA, it does violate the intent of the law.NYTimes in reference to Harry Reid announcing that the Gun Bill will be taken up after Senate recess:

Nonetheless, this bill lacks the 60 votes necessary to get past a Republican filibuster, according to Senate officials. No Republican has signed on as a co-sponsor. So talks are under way to water it down a bit, to attract enough Republicans to beat a filibuster and pressure the House to go along.

Negotiators say the most likely compromise would require background checks for all commercial and advertised sales, including those on the Internet, along with sales at gun shows. That would cover most of the sales for which checks do not now take place, but it would leave out unadvertised, person-to-person sales of guns, a significant omission. Negotiators are exploring the possibility of a new government Web site that could verify buyers in these sales, though it is not clear whether that is feasible.

NY Counties response to the SAFE Act:

Cuomo has turned a deaf ear to the thousands of New Yorkers who have protested the SAFE ACT. Dozens of county legislatures have now passed resolutions condemning the Draconian gun law. In fact, 52 counties (of New York’s 62 counties) have either passed or have pending, a resolution opposing the SAFE ACT.

-------------What you are attempting to show is that since the NRA is arguing that the SAFE act is violating the Commerce Clause since NY is mandating NY residents can only purchase ammunition from a registered (commercial) manufacturer in NY State thereby creating a monopoly, that this is the opposite of what I said.

If the commerce clause applies, it's Federal territory. You get that, right?And what I originally said was that you have no idea what relationship, if any, there is between what you said and what the NRA is saying. You still don't.

Can you be any more vague? I don't think you have a clue what the NRA's position is.Please elaborate on the NRA's position of Universal Background Checks and firearms registration as described in their 47 page complaint against the NY State SAFE act.

 

[Henry Ford]

Hint: you claimed originally that the Feds couldn't regulate gun sales because they are intrastate. The NRA is alleging the exact opposite according to the quote you just put up.

That's what I thought, you are nitpicking the exact legal verbiage I chose and ignoring the argument at large even though the NRA is using violations of the Commerce Clause as its basis because it is more important for you to act like an elitist than to confirm the unconstitutionality of the SAFE Act.

No, I'm saying that the NRA is arguing exactly the opposite of what you are.You: it has to be left to the states.

NRA: It has to be left to the feds.

I was arguing about universal background checks from the standpoint of refuting a proposed federal law. FFL's are commercial businesses engaged in INTERstate commerce. That's clearly within the power of Congress to regulate. Private INTRAstate transactions are not. Congress can't regulate garage sales in your front yard either. They can't pass laws requiring you to pass federal inspections or prohibit the sale of furniture between individuals. Especially when their only reason to do so is to regulate crime/violence. That has already been struck down. That is not within the power of Congress. The SAFE Act provides for the establishment of a firearms database by the New York State Police. While the explicit language of the act states that the responsibility of the database shall not be borne by any municipality, an obvious attempt at circumventing FOPA, it does violate the intent of the law.NYTimes in reference to Harry Reid announcing that the Gun Bill will be taken up after Senate recess:

Nonetheless, this bill lacks the 60 votes necessary to get past a Republican filibuster, according to Senate officials. No Republican has signed on as a co-sponsor. So talks are under way to water it down a bit, to attract enough Republicans to beat a filibuster and pressure the House to go along.

Negotiators say the most likely compromise would require background checks for all commercial and advertised sales, including those on the Internet, along with sales at gun shows. That would cover most of the sales for which checks do not now take place, but it would leave out unadvertised, person-to-person sales of guns, a significant omission. Negotiators are exploring the possibility of a new government Web site that could verify buyers in these sales, though it is not clear whether that is feasible.

NY Counties response to the SAFE Act:

Cuomo has turned a deaf ear to the thousands of New Yorkers who have protested the SAFE ACT. Dozens of county legislatures have now passed resolutions condemning the Draconian gun law. In fact, 52 counties (of New York’s 62 counties) have either passed or have pending, a resolution opposing the SAFE ACT.

-------------What you are attempting to show is that since the NRA is arguing that the SAFE act is violating the Commerce Clause since NY is mandating NY residents can only purchase ammunition from a registered (commercial) manufacturer in NY State thereby creating a monopoly, that this is the opposite of what I said.

If the commerce clause applies, it's Federal territory. You get that, right?And what I originally said was that you have no idea what relationship, if any, there is between what you said and what the NRA is saying. You still don't.

Can you be any more vague? I don't think you have a clue what the NRA's position is.Please elaborate on the NRA's position of Universal Background Checks and firearms registration as described in their 47 page complaint against the NY State SAFE act.

The relevant part is that the negative implications of the Commerce Clause restrict the State of New York from an act which the NRA views as regulation of interstate commerce.You'll notice that's the opposite of your earlier statement that the Feds can't regulate these issues because of intrastate commercial concerns.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

They are literally saying "please don't filibuster because of the children."

How long are they going to use this strategy to advance their agenda?!

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

They are literally saying "please don't filibuster because of the children."

How long are they going to use this strategy to advance their agenda?!

Only while there are children that we need to think of.

 

[[icon]]

They are literally saying "please don't filibuster because of the children."

How long are they going to use this strategy to advance their agenda?!

Dear White House: Shut the #### up and stay on your side of the checks and balances fence.

Signed,

The American People.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

They are literally saying "please don't filibuster because of the children."

How long are they going to use this strategy to advance their agenda?!

Only while there are children that we need to think of.

Weren't ALL guns already banned in schools? Criminals and looney's don't follow those rules but somehow it's expected that they will stop bringing guns into schools, where they are already banned, if we ban certain types of guns and clips outside of schools..

 

[[icon]]

They are literally saying "please don't filibuster because of the children."

How long are they going to use this strategy to advance their agenda?!

Only while there are children that we need to think of.

Weren't guns already banned in schools?

Yes. Now Schools are shooting SAFE ZONES!!!1!!

 

[ATC1]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

 

[[icon]]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

Yes I can see it now:The Day The Law Prevailed

SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: (In shock) Wait! Really? I don't know I could just give it to you here.

FELON: Woman! Get ahold of yourself! That #### would be ILLEGAL!

ACCOMPLICE: Well... but...

FELON: I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT. Plan foiled! (Shakes Fist at Sky) Damn you Government! I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for your pesky newfangled transfer law!!!

LITTLE BOY OUTSIDE TRAILER: (leans away from trailer door, smile beaming); Golly Jeepers... thank you Mr Obama! We're all safe now!

(CURTAINS)

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

I think that's proof that even if sales have to go through a dealer, someone looking to break the law (shoot someone) is going to circumvent that legislation anyways...

 

[timschochet]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

Yes I can see it now:SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: (In shock) Wait! Really? I don't know I could just give it to you here.

FELON: Woman! Get ahold of yourself! That #### would be ILLEGAL!

ACCOMPLICE: Well... but...

FELON: I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT. Plan foiled. (Shakes Fist at Sky) Damn you Government! I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for your pesky newfangled transfer law!!!

(CURTAINS)

Stupid.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

Yes I can see it now:SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: (In shock) Wait! Really? I don't know I could just give it to you here.

FELON: Woman! Get ahold of yourself! That #### would be ILLEGAL!

ACCOMPLICE: Well... but...

FELON: I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT. Plan foiled. (Shakes Fist at Sky) Damn you Government! I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for your pesky newfangled transfer law!!!

(CURTAINS)

Stupid.

I agree, the idea that gun transfer legislation will stop criminals from obtaining guns is stupid..

 

[timschochet]

You guys keep making the same dumb arguments over and over. Background checks WILL impede illegal transfers. Right now there is only one party breaking the law in an illegal sale- the buyer, because the seller doesn't know. Once universal background checks are in place, both buyer and seller will knowingly have to break the law for an illegal sale to take place. Which means the number of illegal sales will go way down. It's a no brainer, really.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

Yes I can see it now:SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: (In shock) Wait! Really? I don't know I could just give it to you here.

FELON: Woman! Get ahold of yourself! That #### would be ILLEGAL!

ACCOMPLICE: Well... but...

FELON: I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT. Plan foiled. (Shakes Fist at Sky) Damn you Government! I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for your pesky newfangled transfer law!!!

(CURTAINS)

Stupid.

Version 2:

SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: That's ok, if they trace it back to me I'll tell them to wait while I go get it...then tell them it appears it has been stolen, "I only use this gun for protection and didn't realize it was no longer in my home."

 

[timschochet]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

Yes I can see it now:SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: (In shock) Wait! Really? I don't know I could just give it to you here.

FELON: Woman! Get ahold of yourself! That #### would be ILLEGAL!

ACCOMPLICE: Well... but...

FELON: I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT. Plan foiled. (Shakes Fist at Sky) Damn you Government! I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for your pesky newfangled transfer law!!!

(CURTAINS)

Stupid.

Version 2:

SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: That's ok, if they trace it back to me I'll tell them to wait while I go get it...then tell them it appears it has been stolen, "I only use this gun for protection and didn't realize it was no longer in my home."

Your silly arguments only prove my point, because your script is between a Felon and an Accomplice. Under current law there is no Accomplice, only an innocent seller who has no idea he is breaking the law.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You guys keep making the same dumb arguments over and over. Background checks WILL impede illegal transfers. Right now there is only one party breaking the law in an illegal sale- the buyer, because the seller doesn't know. Once universal background checks are in place, both buyer and seller will knowingly have to break the law for an illegal sale to take place. Which means the number of illegal sales will go way down. It's a no brainer, really.

Universal Background checks are not going to stop criminals intent on killing someone from getting their hands on a gun..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

Yes I can see it now:SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: (In shock) Wait! Really? I don't know I could just give it to you here.

FELON: Woman! Get ahold of yourself! That #### would be ILLEGAL!

ACCOMPLICE: Well... but...

FELON: I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT. Plan foiled. (Shakes Fist at Sky) Damn you Government! I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for your pesky newfangled transfer law!!!

(CURTAINS)

Stupid.

Version 2:

SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: That's ok, if they trace it back to me I'll tell them to wait while I go get it...then tell them it appears it has been stolen, "I only use this gun for protection and didn't realize it was no longer in my home."

Your silly arguments only prove my point, because your script is between a Felon and an Accomplice. Under current law there is no Accomplice, only an innocent seller who has no idea he is breaking the law.

The link we are talking about shows a woman in an orange jumpsuit that purchased a firearm and transferred it to the shooter, and was arrested for doing so... I'd call her an accomplice

 

[[icon]]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

Yes I can see it now:SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: (In shock) Wait! Really? I don't know I could just give it to you here.

FELON: Woman! Get ahold of yourself! That #### would be ILLEGAL!

ACCOMPLICE: Well... but...

FELON: I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT. Plan foiled. (Shakes Fist at Sky) Damn you Government! I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for your pesky newfangled transfer law!!!

(CURTAINS)

Stupid.

Version 2:

SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: That's ok, if they trace it back to me I'll tell them to wait while I go get it...then tell them it appears it has been stolen, "I only use this gun for protection and didn't realize it was no longer in my home."

Your silly arguments only prove my point, because your script is between a Felon and an Accomplice. Under current law there is no Accomplice, only an innocent seller who has no idea he is breaking the law.

Congrats. You're the first human to ever fail an IQ Test. HEre's your sign.

 

[timschochet]

You guys keep making the same dumb arguments over and over. Background checks WILL impede illegal transfers. Right now there is only one party breaking the law in an illegal sale- the buyer, because the seller doesn't know. Once universal background checks are in place, both buyer and seller will knowingly have to break the law for an illegal sale to take place. Which means the number of illegal sales will go way down. It's a no brainer, really.

Universal Background checks are not going to stop criminals intent on killing someone from getting their hands on a gun..

It will make things more difficult. Under your logic, why have any laws at all?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

Yes I can see it now:SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: (In shock) Wait! Really? I don't know I could just give it to you here.

FELON: Woman! Get ahold of yourself! That #### would be ILLEGAL!

ACCOMPLICE: Well... but...

FELON: I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT. Plan foiled. (Shakes Fist at Sky) Damn you Government! I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for your pesky newfangled transfer law!!!

(CURTAINS)

Stupid.

Version 2:

SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: That's ok, if they trace it back to me I'll tell them to wait while I go get it...then tell them it appears it has been stolen, "I only use this gun for protection and didn't realize it was no longer in my home."

Your silly arguments only prove my point, because your script is between a Felon and an Accomplice. Under current law there is no Accomplice, only an innocent seller who has no idea he is breaking the law.

The link we are talking about shows a woman in an orange jumpsuit that purchased a firearm and transferred it to the shooter, and was arrested for doing so... I'd call her an accomplice

Wait they charged her? I thought all this nonsense about universal background checks was to allow them to enforce straw purchases?!?

 

[[icon]]

You guys keep making the same dumb arguments over and over. Background checks WILL impede illegal transfers. Right now there is only one party breaking the law in an illegal sale- the buyer, because the seller doesn't know. Once universal background checks are in place, both buyer and seller will knowingly have to break the law for an illegal sale to take place. Which means the number of illegal sales will go way down. It's a no brainer, really.

I love how he just completely dismisses the real scenarios then drops his stance as fact.. complete with CAPSLOCK!!

Anyone want to come over to Timmay's house to play?

 

[timschochet]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

Yes I can see it now:SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: (In shock) Wait! Really? I don't know I could just give it to you here.

FELON: Woman! Get ahold of yourself! That #### would be ILLEGAL!

ACCOMPLICE: Well... but...

FELON: I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT. Plan foiled. (Shakes Fist at Sky) Damn you Government! I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for your pesky newfangled transfer law!!!

(CURTAINS)

Stupid.

Version 2:

SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: That's ok, if they trace it back to me I'll tell them to wait while I go get it...then tell them it appears it has been stolen, "I only use this gun for protection and didn't realize it was no longer in my home."

Your silly arguments only prove my point, because your script is between a Felon and an Accomplice. Under current law there is no Accomplice, only an innocent seller who has no idea he is breaking the law.

The link we are talking about shows a woman in an orange jumpsuit that purchased a firearm and transferred it to the shooter, and was arrested for doing so... I'd call her an accomplice

I can't access links. But my argument is still valid.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

Yes I can see it now:SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: (In shock) Wait! Really? I don't know I could just give it to you here.

FELON: Woman! Get ahold of yourself! That #### would be ILLEGAL!

ACCOMPLICE: Well... but...

FELON: I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT. Plan foiled. (Shakes Fist at Sky) Damn you Government! I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for your pesky newfangled transfer law!!!

(CURTAINS)

Stupid.

Version 2:

SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: That's ok, if they trace it back to me I'll tell them to wait while I go get it...then tell them it appears it has been stolen, "I only use this gun for protection and didn't realize it was no longer in my home."

Your silly arguments only prove my point, because your script is between a Felon and an Accomplice. Under current law there is no Accomplice, only an innocent seller who has no idea he is breaking the law.

The link we are talking about shows a woman in an orange jumpsuit that purchased a firearm and transferred it to the shooter, and was arrested for doing so... I'd call her an accomplice

I can't access links. But my argument is still valid.

For the link impaired:

DENVER – The Colorado Bureau of Investigation agents on Wednesday arrested a woman accused of illegally transferring the gun authorities say was used to kill Colorado's prisons chief.

Investigators believe Stevie Marie Vigil, 22, of Commerce City, legally bought the firearm from a licensed dealer in the Denver suburb of Englewood and transferred it to Evan Ebel, who was a felon who couldn't legally possess a firearm, the CBI said.

Ebel is suspected in the shooting deaths of Colorado Department of Corrections head Tom Clements on March 19 and of Nathan Leon, who was shot March 17 while working as a pizza delivery driver in the Denver area.

Ebel died after a shootout in Texas last week. El Paso County, Colo., sheriff's investigators have said the gun Ebel used in the shootout was the same weapon used to kill Clements when he answered the front door of his home.

The identity of the Englewood firearms dealer wasn't disclosed. Authorities described the dealer as "extremely cooperative" and said the dealer had no knowledge of Vigil's alleged actions after buying the gun.

Vigil was being held on one felony count of unlawful purchase of a firearm. Her bail was set at $25,000.

It's not clear how Vigil and Ebel might have met. Records associated with her arrest have been sealed, and an El Paso County sheriff's office spokesman didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Ebel, 28, had most recently been sentenced to four years in prison for punching a prison guard in 2008, according to state records. He was paroled Jan. 28 after serving his full prison term, corrections officials have said. His record also includes pleading guilty to holding a pistol to an acquaintance's head and stealing his wallet.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

 

[timschochet]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

Yes I can see it now:SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: (In shock) Wait! Really? I don't know I could just give it to you here.

FELON: Woman! Get ahold of yourself! That #### would be ILLEGAL!

ACCOMPLICE: Well... but...

FELON: I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT. Plan foiled. (Shakes Fist at Sky) Damn you Government! I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for your pesky newfangled transfer law!!!

(CURTAINS)

Stupid.

Version 2:

SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: That's ok, if they trace it back to me I'll tell them to wait while I go get it...then tell them it appears it has been stolen, "I only use this gun for protection and didn't realize it was no longer in my home."

Your silly arguments only prove my point, because your script is between a Felon and an Accomplice. Under current law there is no Accomplice, only an innocent seller who has no idea he is breaking the law.

The link we are talking about shows a woman in an orange jumpsuit that purchased a firearm and transferred it to the shooter, and was arrested for doing so... I'd call her an accomplice

I can't access links. But my argument is still valid.

For the link impaired:

DENVER – The Colorado Bureau of Investigation agents on Wednesday arrested a woman accused of illegally transferring the gun authorities say was used to kill Colorado's prisons chief.

Investigators believe Stevie Marie Vigil, 22, of Commerce City, legally bought the firearm from a licensed dealer in the Denver suburb of Englewood and transferred it to Evan Ebel, who was a felon who couldn't legally possess a firearm, the CBI said.

Ebel is suspected in the shooting deaths of Colorado Department of Corrections head Tom Clements on March 19 and of Nathan Leon, who was shot March 17 while working as a pizza delivery driver in the Denver area.

Ebel died after a shootout in Texas last week. El Paso County, Colo., sheriff's investigators have said the gun Ebel used in the shootout was the same weapon used to kill Clements when he answered the front door of his home.

The identity of the Englewood firearms dealer wasn't disclosed. Authorities described the dealer as "extremely cooperative" and said the dealer had no knowledge of Vigil's alleged actions after buying the gun.

Vigil was being held on one felony count of unlawful purchase of a firearm. Her bail was set at $25,000.

It's not clear how Vigil and Ebel might have met. Records associated with her arrest have been sealed, and an El Paso County sheriff's office spokesman didn't immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Ebel, 28, had most recently been sentenced to four years in prison for punching a prison guard in 2008, according to state records. He was paroled Jan. 28 after serving his full prison term, corrections officials have said. His record also includes pleading guilty to holding a pistol to an acquaintance's head and stealing his wallet.

Then it's a dumb anecdote. Most sellers who are engaged in illegal sales have no idea that the sale is illegal.

 

[tom22406]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

 

[[icon]]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Yes... and they will be 100% effective just like that time they made drugs and alcohol illegal. Oh..wait.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Well Tim said he was hopeful for a national gun registry, but wait there's no slippery slope!

 

[[icon]]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys.

Then stop. Please.

 

[ATC1]

This is why private gun sales should have to go through a licensed dealer. Huge problem.

Yes I can see it now:SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: (In shock) Wait! Really? I don't know I could just give it to you here.

FELON: Woman! Get ahold of yourself! That #### would be ILLEGAL!

ACCOMPLICE: Well... but...

FELON: I'LL HAVE NONE OF THAT. Plan foiled. (Shakes Fist at Sky) Damn you Government! I woulda gotten away with it if it wasn't for your pesky newfangled transfer law!!!

(CURTAINS)

Stupid.

Version 2:

SETTING: Doublewide trailer on Dusty New Mexico/Arizona border ; Sunset

ACCOMPLICE: Okay I've found a gun Here you go.

FELON: Wait... they JUST passed that law requiring we go to a gun shop and sign it over to me legally.

ACCOMPLICE: That's ok, if they trace it back to me I'll tell them to wait while I go get it...then tell them it appears it has been stolen, "I only use this gun for protection and didn't realize it was no longer in my home."

Your silly arguments only prove my point, because your script is between a Felon and an Accomplice. Under current law there is no Accomplice, only an innocent seller who has no idea he is breaking the law.

The link we are talking about shows a woman in an orange jumpsuit that purchased a firearm and transferred it to the shooter, and was arrested for doing so... I'd call her an accomplice

Wait they charged her? I thought all this nonsense about universal background checks was to allow them to enforce straw purchases?!?

My point of the link was not that she did go to jail, but that there are places (Louisiana included) where she would not have to go to jail. In those places, might as well not require background checks in any store that requires them for transfer. There would be no point because it won't stop criminals. In this case, at least there is a strict penalty for selling a gun to a criminal.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Yes... and they will be 100% effective just like that time they made drugs and alcohol illegal. Oh..wait.

Yes, because in your crazed paranoid deluded mind, having background checks for firearms is analogous to making them illegal.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys.

Then stop. Please.

I can't. Someone with reason may be reading this.

 

[Rayderr]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys.

Then stop. Please.

I can't. Someone with reason may be reading this.

Well, that someone ain't you. Hey-o!

 

[timschochet]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

Right now at a gun show:

BAD GUY: I'd like to buy that gun.

HONEST SELLER: It's $500.00

BAD GUY: Here's $500.00 in cash.

HONEST SELLER: Here's the gun.

A year from now at a gun show (if the law passes):

BAD GUY: I'd like to buy that gun.

HONEST SELLER: It's $500.00

BAD GUY: Here's $500.00 in cash.

HONEST SELLER: Great. Let;'s just run a background check, and then it's all yours. I'll need you to fill out this form, and I can call it in.

BAD GUY: Screw that form. How about $600 and we forget the form?

HONEST SELLER: I don't think so guy. I'm not going to jail because of you, sorry.

BAD GUY: Dammit!

 

[ichris]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

I thought you said earlier you weren't in favor of laws that couldn't be enforced? Isn't that why you said you didn't think the 30 round mag ban would work?Canada shut down their gun registry because the compliance rate was abysmal. It wasn't worth the effort or the money. Canadians even like and trust big government. Do you think paranoid Americans will comply with a government run gun registry?

 

[Rayderr]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

Right now at a gun show:

BAD GUY: I'd like to buy that gun.

HONEST SELLER: It's $500.00

BAD GUY: Here's $500.00 in cash.

HONEST SELLER: Here's the gun.

A year from now at a gun show (if the law passes):

BAD GUY: I'd like to buy that gun.

HONEST SELLER: It's $500.00

BAD GUY: Here's $500.00 in cash.

HONEST SELLER: Great. Let;'s just run a background check, and then it's all yours. I'll need you to fill out this form, and I can call it in.

BAD GUY: Screw that form. How about $600 and we forget the form?

HONEST SELLER: I don't think so guy. I'm not going to jail because of you, sorry.

BAD GUY: Dammit!

Year from nowBad Guy #1: I need a gun.

Bad Guy #2: It'll cost you $500.

Bad Guy #1: OK, here you.

Bad Guy #2: And here's your gun, with serial number scraped off.

I'm not opposed to background checks for private sales, but I think it's a bit ridiculous if people think that's going to solve the problem.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

Right now at a gun show:

BAD GUY: I'd like to buy that gun.

HONEST SELLER: It's $500.00

BAD GUY: Here's $500.00 in cash.

HONEST SELLER: Here's the gun.

A year from now at a gun show (if the law passes):

BAD GUY: I'd like to buy that gun.

HONEST SELLER: It's $500.00

BAD GUY: Here's $500.00 in cash.

HONEST SELLER: Great. Let;'s just run a background check, and then it's all yours. I'll need you to fill out this form, and I can call it in.

BAD GUY: Screw that form. How about $600 and we forget the form?

HONEST SELLER: I don't think so guy. I'm not going to jail because of you, sorry.

BAD GUY: Dammit!

Year from nowBad Guy #1: I need a gun.

Bad Guy #2: It'll cost you $500.

Bad Guy #1: OK, here you.

Bad Guy #2: And here's your gun, with serial number scraped off.

I'm not opposed to background checks for private sales, but I think it's a bit ridiculous if people think that's going to solve the problem.

It's not going to solve the problem. Sure there will be two bad guys conspiring, some of the time, as you describe. But given that most people are honest, it will be more difficult for this to occur.

 

[ATC1]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

Right now at a gun show:

BAD GUY: I'd like to buy that gun.

HONEST SELLER: It's $500.00

BAD GUY: Here's $500.00 in cash.

HONEST SELLER: Here's the gun.

A year from now at a gun show (if the law passes):

BAD GUY: I'd like to buy that gun.

HONEST SELLER: It's $500.00

BAD GUY: Here's $500.00 in cash.

HONEST SELLER: Great. Let;'s just run a background check, and then it's all yours. I'll need you to fill out this form, and I can call it in.

BAD GUY: Screw that form. How about $600 and we forget the form?

HONEST SELLER: I don't think so guy. I'm not going to jail because of you, sorry.

BAD GUY: Dammit!

Year from nowBad Guy #1: I need a gun.

Bad Guy #2: It'll cost you $500.

Bad Guy #1: OK, here you.

Bad Guy #2: And here's your gun, with serial number scraped off.

I'm not opposed to background checks for private sales, but I think it's a bit ridiculous if people think that's going to solve the problem.

One year and two days from now. Bad Guy #1:commits a crime, goes to jail.

Bad Guy #2:goes to jail.

or

Bad Guy #2: doesn't go to jail and instead sells gun to Bad Guy #3 for crime #2.

 

[timschochet]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

I thought you said earlier you weren't in favor of laws that couldn't be enforced? Isn't that why you said you didn't think the 30 round mag ban would work?Canada shut down their gun registry because the compliance rate was abysmal. It wasn't worth the effort or the money. Canadians even like and trust big government. Do you think paranoid Americans will comply with a government run gun registry?

I'll have to read more about Canada. If what you write is true, then it might change my mind about a national database. I'd like to know all the factors. Perhaps they didn't spend enough money on it? I firmly believe, for the reasons I have stated, that background checks will make a difference. I am admittedly less certain about national registration, but at the moment I lean toward it being a good idea.

 

[tom22406]

I don't know why I waste my time arguing with you guys. You love anecdotes, but reason and logic appear to be completely meaningless to you on this subject. That's OK. Whether its in a few months or a few years, universal background checks ARE coming. Followed by, hopefully, a national registration of all firearms.

Universal background checks won't work unless you have registration.

Yes they will. They won't work quite as well, but they WILL work. The reason is because most people are honest. Most people who engage in private sales or transfers of firearms are not criminals, but are honest people who would not be involved in a crime if they knew about it. That is why this will make such a difference.

So explain again how you would enforce these laws?

 

[Chaos Commish]

Trying to stay out of this, but Canada scrapped the long gun registry because long guns are not worth tracking, Ms Feinswine. The handgun registry is alive and kicking.