The REAL Reason the Hard Left Supports Gun Control

Such is your opinion.

Then they ultimately serve no legitimate reason for existence.

That is exactly what registration is. Cease denying what is reality.

Demonstrate such. Show where the public has been told exactly what would be needed for so-called universal background checks to become an enforceable reality, and exactly what would be necessary to be in compliance with the requirement.

The united state supreme court has said otherwise on the matter.

Both involve the victim of a reported crime being treated as an accomplice for the part they played in the illegal act taking place. Therefore the two standards are comparable to one another. Prosecuting someone for their firearm being reported as stolen, is no different than prosecuting a victim of sexual assault for being raped.

 

no, that is a demonstrable fact.

they serve as a transaction log.

no it isn't.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/

they did no such thing.

the two are in no way comparable. One is sexual assault, the other is a stolen firearm, that was failed to be reported and can not be shown in the acquisition/disposition log.

 

I don't waste my time on conspiracy theories.

 

I notice conservatives do a lot of projecting.

 

There is no "gun show loophole". The law works exactly as the Democrats who wrote it, passed it and signed it intended it to work. I can' wait to see how you ensure that "every single firearms transfer" has a background check. You aren't counting on a law doing that, are you?

 

The universal background check is ineffective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. See "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies", DOJ, 2010.

 

And yet the ATF states otherwise.

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/factsheet-ffl-complaincepdf-0/download

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), pursuant to the Gun Control Act (GCA) and the Federal firearms regulations, is responsible for licensing persons engaging in a firearms business. With certain exceptions, the GCA allows ATF to conduct one warrantless, annual compliance inspection of a federal firearms licensee(FFL). The purpose of the inspection program is to educate the licensee about regulatory responsibilities and to evaluate the level of compliance. Compliance inspections also serve to protect the public in that they promote voluntary internal controls to prevent and detect diversion of firearms from lawful commerce to the illegal market.

Do pay close attention to the highlighted portion of the article. What does it say? It says annual inspection, thus disproving the claim on the part of yourself.

Which is exactly what registration is supposed to do.

It is indeed a form of registration. Denying such does not change the fact.

Such does not prove that such information is presented to the public when asked if they support universal background checks.

They stated such the moment they ruled homosexual marriage is a constitutional right.

Both are victims of a violent crime being committed against them, and sexual assaults are rarely reported in a timely manner when evidence is fresh.

There is nothing presented on the part of yourself that would show how someone who cannot account for a particular firearm could be prosecuted for improper disposal of a firearm on the basis that it was stolen. Despite the popular myth believed by those who support greater firearm-related restriction, not every firearm owner possesses an encyclopedic memory of every firearm in their possession, nor performs a visual inspection every single day just to ensure everything is still present. They would logically have no reason to do such if they do not have reason to believe they have actually been a target of robbery.

The standard supported on the part of yourself would never hold up to scrutiny if challenged in a court of law. It is an unreasonable expectation for private property owners, and it is a standard that does not extend to any other piece of private property to insure against criminal acquisition or misuse, thus making it wholly discriminatory against the legal exercise of a constitutional right.

 

irrelevant. annual inspections are not required, nor do they take place.

no it isn't.

it is of course not registration. Denying such does not change the fact.

of course it does

they of course did not say anything remotely close to what you are trying to use as a comparison.

the 2 are in no way comparable, as I've shown you.

this is why acquisition/disposition logs are needed.

unsupportable nonsense.

 

The ATF states otherwise. And their opinion supersedes that of yourself.

The failure to recognize registration for what it is, is the fault of yourself. A record of transaction, showing who owns what, is registration.

If it is believed otherwise, then actually prove otherwise. Show how being able to link a firearm by serial number to a specific person and specific address is not registration.

The public is only asked if they support the concept of background checks for all firearm sales. They are never informed that for such to be enforceable it would require the registration of every single firearm in existence, as the department of justice itself has stated. Nor are they informed about the abysmal enforcement rate of such requirements, or just how few individuals are ever actually convicted for violating background check requirements. Your denial of such is nothing more than perpetuating the great lie that is ever-present in this discussion.

Denying the facts does not change that they are facts.

You have claimed. You have not actually shown anything but ignorance.

Which is why the proposal is entirely unenforceable and thus useless. The documentation needed to make it work does not exist, nor can it actually be made to exist. Those hundreds of millions of unregistered firearms currently in private circulation will continue to remain unregistered, and thus untraceable. They will continue to be traded without paperwork, with no way of knowing who owned what prior to the requirement, or even after the requirement. Even the nation of Canada failed to get previously owned firearms registered, and had to focus exclusively on newly purchased firearms. Anything owned prior to their registration efforts was treated as not existing, and exempted from record keeping requirements.

Then by all means, actually prove such to be the case.

 

irrelevant. No such annual audit takes place.

no it isn't.

there is no central database. It is logged in a book, held by the seller and purchaser.

proven false.

which is why you need to stop denying the facts.

no, as I've shown, not claimed.

ive shown it is of course enforceable.

it of course can be made to exist.

and when found in possession of someone who can not show an acquisition/disposition, they will be in violation of the law.

Is this why all machine guns prior to 1986 weren't registered, and the US government only focuses on new machine guns? lol

I did

 

Are you actually calling the ATF liars?

Denial of fact.

When a firearm is found at the scene of a crime, or taken off a suspect in custody, the serial number will be run. It will show which manufacturer produced it and when. The manufacturer will have a record of which federally licensed firearms dealer was shipping the firearm with that particular serial number, who will in turn have a record of who the firearm was legally sold to and when the sale took place. All of which is available to law enforcement with a simple warrant, and all serving the exact same function as centralized registration.

Claimed, not actually proven. There has been nothing presented on the part of yourself to demonstrate the public is made aware of just what would actually be required to make background check requirements on private sales enforceable or workable.

The only denial of facts being presented is upon that of yourself.

Nothing has been shown. Stop denying such and actually prove otherwise.

Except for the fact that it is not, and has not actually been enforced. The ATF itself has proven that it is unenforceable.

With firearms that were purchased, thirty, forty, even fifty years before the requirement was ever put into place? How exactly?

Or they will successfully argue they legally purchased the firearm years before the record keeping requirement ever came into effect, and it will be impossible for law enforcement to prove otherwise. Therefore the accused cannot be convicted of committing a crime for doing what was legal prior to the requirement ever existing.

Fully-automatic firearms were not commonly owned before such requirements ever came into play. There was no widespread ownership of such firearms, meaning the requirements were put into place long before it could ever become a problem in need of addressing. The same cannot be said with regard to all other types of firearms, which are numbered in the hundreds of millions, subject to widespread ownership, and can never be found or accounted for by law enforcement. The two standards are not in any way similar or comparable to one another, anymore than apples and red clay bricks are comparable to one another.

Making a claim is not evidence. And presently nothing is possessed on the part of yourself except for empty claims and false statements.

 

If the reason for trying to ban pistol grips on rifles is anything other than "the joy that leftists get from violating people's civil liberties" then what is the actual reason why leftists try to ban pistol grips on rifles?

 

I'm educating you on ATF policies. They do not conduct annual audits.

the fact is you are incorrect, as I've shown.

that is not registration, no matter how hard you stomp your feet.

no, proven.

the citation I gave you shows otherwise.

demonstrably incorrect.

it of course has been shown.

except of course I've shown it is enforceable.

same way machine guns made before the NFA were.

if they do not have an acquisition log for that firearm, they will be in violation of the law.

if they fail to place in an acquisition log, they will be convicted.

irrelevant.

there is no difference between the 2. We did it with full autos, and there is no reason it can not be done with any other type of firearm.

you know this is false.

 

I have one - my OH CCW card/.

You want the state to require a permit before you can exercise your rights?

 

And you STILL haven't denied any of it.

 

i see no reason to not have a fed issued 'background' id card that must be shown in order to purchase a gun, rights or no rights, this should be a non issue, its already required in many states to get a handgun , so why not extend that to rifles & shotguns...
its not a denial of your rights, it still allows you to buy guns while ensuring felons cant buy them, & my idea of an 'fbi app' will a
stop those sales at shows & privately...

again, a no brainer...

will it completely stop illegal gun sales, nope & neither would a wall stop all illegal entry, yet its a good thing if it prevents some, even one death...

i'm kool with it, & i'm a gun toting conservative...

 

"We, the People"

 

How do "We, the People" plan to get every criminal selling guns to make sure that their customers pass a background check?

 

You sound authoritarian... and an argument against it.

 

They'll keep increasing until people take responsibility for their own security and are prepared to be their own First Responders.

 

Until the court and legislature "decides" they have the right to infringe upon a right to the extent the people themselves push back and says, "No more."

 

ya cant & no matter what laws are passed, including banning everything, the criminals will still have them...

 

The problem isn't guns. It is the cowardice and laziness of the American people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves, their rights, and their security.

 

The ATF states that they are authorized by law to perform an annual inspection of all sales records by federally licensed firearm dealers. Simply because they do not get around to doing such in an annual manner does not mean the authorization to do such does not exist.

Then explain, in precise details, exactly what firearms registration would entail, and what it would accomplish that the currently existing system would not and could not accomplish on its own.

When the public is polled, they are asked to evaluate a saying, not the details behind the policy being presented to them. That is how random polling is done. The public is ignorant of what would be needed to make universal background checks workable, as they do not have the attention span to be read all the relevant details before being asked to answer whether or not they support such.

The ATF proves otherwise.

https://www.atf.gov/docs/undefined/cawebsite17183919pdf/download

In the last year for which the data is available, the ATF was asked to trace 41,527 firearms for the state of California. Of that amount, the ATF found that the largest percentage, 42 percent, were originally sold within the state of California to begin with. The next largest amount, approximately 5 percent, were traced to the state of Arizona.

What this means is that in the state of California, where every single firearm transaction is recorded, registered, and required to go through a federally licensed firearm dealer for documentation, it still supplies more firearms to the criminal element than any other state that does not require background checks for private purchases.

If background checks on private sales are indeed enforceable, as is being claimed by yourself, there is absolutely no legitimate excuse for that amount to be so exceedingly high. There is no legitimate reason the number of firearms traced back to the state of California, should be nearly nine times higher than the number of firearms successfully smuggled in from the state of Arizona.

The ones that were not privately owned due to how expensive they were? The ones held by the united states government in national guard armories since they were government property, rather than private property?

By having privately purchased the firearm decades before the requirement was ever implemented? Such would never stand up in a court of law, and there is nothing that can be cited on the part of yourself to prove otherwise.

Such will never stand up in a court of law, and there is nothing that can be cited on the part of yourself to prove otherwise. If there were, it would have been cited before now.

There was no widespread ownership of hundreds of millions of fully-automatic firearms prior to the implementation of the restrictions. Those restrictions were implemented long before fully-automatic firearms ever entered private circulation, meaning the framework existed first. With all other firearms it is the exact opposite, and thus it cannot be done as is being claimed on the part of yourself. Even the nation of Canada could not do it, and it does not even have one tenth of the number of firearms as the united states.

There are no citations on the part of yourself to verify these claims. Therefore statement is factually correct. No citations means no proof. No proof means the statements on the part of yourself are false. Not merely factually incorrect, but outright false.

 

No... the worst part for YOU has yet to come.