So what you both are getting at, is that a background check for a private sale is a punishment for the seller, regardless if its the responsibility of the buyer to obtain it?
Printable View
So what you both are getting at, is that a background check for a private sale is a punishment for the seller, regardless if its the responsibility of the buyer to obtain it?
Wut?Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
I probably wouldnt call it punishment..... its a government overreach. It serves little to no purpose and has misguided intent. Background checks will have no effect on criminals. We have car registration and that doesnt stop criminals from stealing and transporting cars. The left wants a gun free america, this is just one step towards that goal. Theyre dishonest about their agenda and it's insulting to anyone with half a brain to watch them parade around with a pocket full of caskets on their campaign trail.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Let me put it to you this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
If you sell a car to someone that does not have a drivers license, and they pull out into the road, floor it, and hit and kill someone, should you be held liable for their actions, since you did not verify that they were allowed to take the car into the road?
Here's a hint - our legal system says that you are not liable for their actions.
Why do you believe it has misguided intent? The intent is to stop the felon from defrauding a legitimate seller to take possession of a weapon before it happens. Would such a system not prevent this? I'm not asking if they're gonna find other methods of obtaining a weapon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
Would a required background check for private sales prevent me, a felon, from withholding information from you to buy a gun from you, the non-felon seller, Yes or no?
In keeping your analogy consistent, are felons allowed to have cars? And is it legal to sell a gun to someone without a concealed carry permit? This information is important, as I want to answer your question as accurate as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Wait a minute. You just talked about having a Glock, and now you say that you are a felon? I think that we need to report you ASAP to the authorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
J/K
Would you propose that sellers that do not obtain a background check prior to selling a firearm in a private transaction be criminalized, and be legally punishable?
I didn't ask the other questions. Just answer what I asked. One step at a time. We are simply asking if you do not check their license, should you be responsible for the buyers criminal behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
The intent is to chip away at guns rights via any measure deemed publicly acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
If they truly cared about both gun rights and safety, they would find a way to accommodate both. Theyre not..... theyre seeking to remove gun rights under the guise of safety.
Make felons register themselves as felons. What a law abiding citizen does or owns is none of your business. List "prohibited from firearms" on a person's drivers license, then encourage gun owners to use that information when determining a sell. The left already says "90% of gun owners support X__________", then they clearly think that 90% of gun owners are responsible.... give us the tools to make responsible decisions regarding gun sales.
I will not register my guns, i will not observe any law prohibiting guns
This government cant be trusted...... so forgive me im "up in arms" when they seek to take my "anti tyranny kit" away.
Congress, Obama Plan Amnesty in Secret
Well, then its a false analogy, and a false choice has been presented.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
If, however, its illegal for a felon to own a car, and I sell the felon that car and he goes and kills someone with it, then yes, I should be legally culpable.
I would be ok with that................Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
after the fact.
What part of history makes you think they are taking away your right to own a gun? Which part of the bill makes you believe they're trying to take away your right to own a gun?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinfix_15
A person without a license that pulls straight out into the road from your sale and kills someone is no different than a felon. A simple drivers license check would be just like a background check, right? Just a little yes or no that they have a valid drivers license. All you have to do is run their license, or have an officer do it for you. Or you could just meet at the DMV, wait 8 hours, and finally get an approval or rejection. Doesn't that sound reasonable? After all, you could be keeping someone who is not licensed to drive from buying a car that could be used to kill people.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
It's a much more accurate analogy than your "highly capable cars are limited by government policies" analogy.
This is probably your best argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Here's something to consider though:
If you think that the government’s promise of a “safer environment” is what is actually delivered, consider how the people of Great Britain relinquished their right to bear arms because their government promised that it would make everyone safer. It started with licenses and registration, and step-by-step more restrictions came into play. As a result, today the only people in Great Britain who possess guns are the bad guys; the law-abiding citizens must now live without the ability to respond to criminals with firearms.
No it's not. If I've been convicted of a separate felony, Ive lost the right to own a gun, I can still own a car. The license is analogous to a carry permit. Lets try to keep the analogies consistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
You're stretching to try to avoid answering the question. Everyone in this thread knows the real answer. You're the only one in denial.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Yes. I am the only one in this thread who understands what a false analogy is. I didnt avoid your question, I answered it after I filled in the details you conveniently left out. And, coincidentally, Im also the only one in the thread who isn't putting fourth the right-wing narrative. Hmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Ok. So in your new analogy, the driving license is no longer analogous to a carry permit, but in your old analogy it was. Just not sure why it changes. Maybe to fit your narrative. I'm not sure. Just want to be clear.
You still don't want to answer a simple question of if you could be held responsible for another's actions. That's really the core of the question. The laws and courts have already addressed it, your opinion doesn't really matter, as we all know the truth. Do you think that the seller should be criminalized or punished for a buyer's actions? Obviously, you favor that, based upon your previous comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
I'm not putting forth right-wing or left-wing narrative. I simply state the facts and statistics, and utilize logic and reason with them. If you think that means it's right wing, then perhaps you should examine what the left-wing is promoting.
I know my opinion doesn't matter, that's why I haven't offered it in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
No. I don't believe a seller should be punished for a buyers actions at all.Quote:
Do you think that the seller should be criminalized or punished for a buyer's actions?
So why do you believe a background check is a punishment for the seller, if the buyer is required to obtain it?
QUESTIONS WITH QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!! I QUESTION ALL OF IT!!!!!!!
Sorry.
I reverted to a 3rd grade level of rebuttal of questioning, which apparently that's all blank can respond to.
So, we are to assume that the seller cannot be charged with any crime then, whether or not he actually sees the results of a background check or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Its completely on the buyer to get the background check?
That's no different then what we have now. Its all honor system.
Correct. We have an honor system in place........for felons.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Someone, somewhere in this thread said something to the effect of "criminals don't follow laws"
...but then we should expect them to follow the honor system?
Ok, so your new background checks would not involve the seller at all then.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
So, how does this change anything? How is it proactive? How would it prevent felons from purchasing firearms?
Are you for or against the Manchin-Toomey language, which would have seller and buyer go to an existing FFL dealer without compensation for the FFL dealers time and effort?
Are you for or against Senator Coburn's proposed amendment to background checks which would prevent the seller from being criminalized in any way?
It sounds like you might lean toward Coburn's proposal, which is a Republican proposal.
What am I missing here?Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
If I were required by law to provide a background check to complete a private sale of a gun between me and you, and I was not able to provide a positive background check by being a felon, would I be able to complete the sale and take possession of that gun? Yes or no?
The method doesn't matter. LolQuote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Who is running the background check? What legal responsibility is being placed upon the seller to verify that the background check is accurate, if the buyer is providing the documentation? Is the seller expected to perform the background check on their own? There are variables that make all the difference in the world legally.
Your statement shows that you have no clue what is being proposed in the current legislation that is being discussed. They are two vastly different scenarios, with serious legal repercussions.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
How can anyone take you seriously, if you don't even know the basics?
Read and learn the summary at least, then come back with an answer. Manchin-Toomey Compromise On Gun Bill May Be Altered To Lure Rural Lawmakers
Here's the Toomey output: http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=965
Here's the initial Coburn response to Manchin-Toomey - his verbiage of an amendment might be out this week: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3056893.html
I used HuffPost so that you wouldn't claim right wing bias.
Because I didnt read those at all, nor would I need to to get the point acrossQuote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Oh, so you magically know what is being discussed in them?Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
I am laughing AT you, not with you.
Similar to whoever runs background checks for dealers. However you want to build that system doesnt matter, roll it into the carry permit and verify that, whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Use a state letterhead, watermarked piece of paper, roll it into the carry permit check and verify the permit, and require an up-to-date check every year or so, whatever, that would probably be the easiest way to avoid a registry. Keep the check with the bill of sale, or keep a record with the state that a bg check with the purpose of obtaining a gun was made on such and such date. Then, AFTER something like that is in place, ONLY WHEN A SELLER KNOWINGLY SELLS A GUN TO A FELON, would there be a punishment. If both individuals follow the law, there would be no punishment.Quote:
What legal responsibility is being placed upon the seller to verify that the background check is accurate
If you want it that way you can. All I said was leave it up to the buyer.Quote:
Is the seller expected to perform the background check on their own?
If this is going to turn into a registry conversation, I'm not against a registry. If I should be, and the only reason is that they use it for the purpose of confiscating guns from people who are legitimately allowed to have them, I'm gonna need evidence of this happening in a first world, federal republic superpower, with an equally intricate and advanced system of checks and balances.
I don't think I said I knew what was being discussed in the article. Particularly because I said I didn't read them. If you believe I said I did, quote me and I'll clarify what you might have misunderstood.Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
You're only laughing at yourself.
Having the seller keep a copy of each background check is not realistic. Fires, floods, etc, would cause more issues in the long term. You would need the background check system to keep a history of checks performed to have evidence that someone did not perform a background check. Furthermore, you are suggesting a vast expansion of laws to make all firearms buyers get a carry permit, essentially creating a national registry of permit holders. That does not follow the spirit of the law in the Second Amendment. Your lack of regard for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be frowned upon by our founding fathers.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
The only possible current background check proposal is that buyer would be responsible to bring a letter of state approval to show the seller. That is similar to the proposal by Senator Coburn.
This would not criminalize the seller for not checking it, but would not keep a felon from getting a firearm. He would simply keep trying sellers until he found one that didn't ask him for the approval letter. This is not a real solution either, and none of these proposals would have prevented Aurora or Newtown, even though the President used references to Newtown repeatedly in discussion about current gun legislation just yesterday. Obama: "Unimaginable" That Congress Would "Defy" Americans And Not Pass Gun Control | RealClearPolitics
How is something proactive if it does not generated the desired and planned results?
I laughing at you because you think you actually know what you are talking about, when you have made it clear that you do not.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Now, I'm going to give you a little history here. This one should be broken out into its own point.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
In the UK, they allowed guns up until 1998, when they banned them. The final trigger for banning was a school massacre. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Restrictive gun laws have been around for almost 100 years in England, and getting a permit requires proving to police that you have a “good reason” for needing a gun. Self-defense is not considered to be a "good reason" in England. How is that proactive legislation working out for them in that first world country?
Australia banned many guns following a 1996 mass murder of 35 with assault rifles. The country tightened registration laws, banned assault rifles, pump-action shotguns, and also forced a buy back of more than 600,000 guns. A 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was relatively small, with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%. Do those restrictive policies appear to be paying off?
Does this seem like something we should copy?
You are indeed capable of critical thought. Just have have to ask the right questionsQuote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
FineQuote:
You would need the background check system to keep a history of checks performed to have evidence that someone did not perform a background check.
Your interpretation of the constitution, and your analysis of my lack of regard of it, I suppose, is a matter of opinion.Quote:
Furthermore, you are suggesting a vast expansion of laws to make all firearms buyers get a carry permit, essentially creating a national registry of permit holders. That does not follow the spirit of the law in the Second Amendment. Your lack of regard for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be frowned upon by our founding fathers.
This is the answer I was looking for, and that I knew you understood.Quote:
The only possible current background check proposal is that buyer would be responsible to bring a letter of state approval to show the seller. That is similar to the proposal by Senator Coburn.
This would not criminalize the seller for not checking it, but would not keep a felon from getting a firearm.
So, in this case, after this law would pass, and the seller sells to a felon, and the buyer buys without a check, are both of them breaking the law? If, in breaking the law, the buyer blows someone's head off with it, are they both responsible?Quote:
He would simply keep trying sellers until he found one that didn't ask him for the approval letter.
We have to stop looking at it like everything would prevent Newtown. If I wanted to prevent another Newtown, I could close down every elementary school. Not much could feasibly be done to prevent a Newtown.Quote:
...and none of these proposals would have prevented Aurora or Newtown, even though the President used references to Newtown repeatedly in discussion about current gun legislation just yesterday. Obama: "Unimaginable" That Congress Would "Defy" Americans And Not Pass Gun Control | RealClearPolitics
How is something proactive if it does not generated the desired and planned results?
Newtown, Aurora were used, however maliciously you may or may not believe, as a prompt to discuss steps we can take as a nation to reduce access of guns only to the people that can't, or shouldn't have them already. No one can argue with that. No one is arguing with that. That's all I'm going to take that as. I'm not going to attribute the use of Newtown as malice toward legitimate gun owners, because that is not its intent at all.
If, in these steps, a similar tragedy is prevented, or slowed down, or whatever, then we've got a bonus.
Based upon your answers, it appears that you would favor the amendment being proposed by Senator Coburn, and as you have stated, with a national firearm registry attached. The registry and the criminalization of sellers are the points of contention. I am completely opposed to those two items. I don't mind the background checks themselves, but as they have been stated to this point, they have no reasonable means to reduce criminal violence that utilized firearms, thus it is poor legislation, and better avenues of preventions should be explored.Quote:
Originally Posted by .blank cd
Since Newtown and Aurora are not related to the current legislation, perhaps the Administration should not keep promoting its marketing campaign with them as the focal points.
What other factors do you think play a role in the recent arming of police, and for the violence in the UK?Quote:
Originally Posted by David88vert
Gun culture?
Culture in general?
Population density?
What works for them, might not work for us....
Is it paying off? Is the firearms homicide rate declining? When you say "banned", do you mean your definition of banned, or just put on a list so that an extra step or two is required to obtain one?Quote:
Australia banned many guns following a 1996 mass murder of 35 with assault rifles. The country tightened registration laws, banned assault rifles, pump-action shotguns, and also forced a buy back of more than 600,000 guns. A 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides “continued a modest decline” since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was relatively small, with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%. Do those restrictive policies appear to be paying off?
Would a voluntary buyback work here in the states? Who knows. Who does a buyback target? Anyone who feels they don't need a gun to ensure their safety. Anyone who values money over guns. You know who a voluntary buyback wouldn't affect? A legal gun owning citizen who wants to keep his gun. But keep in mind, money is a major motivator today.
Is it something we should mimic? There are different factors to consider, so what works for them, may or may not work for us.