Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

So how is 'alcohol' an example of regulation?

 

You don’t think providing alcohol to a minor under 21 is regulated federally ? Look it up.

 

Huh ? That is a guess. I’m in favor of a federally regulated state program where only licensed individually can buy, sell or exchange or gift firearms or ammunition through a dealer or privately or even posses a firearm except for hunting with a long gun. . If states don’t comply, they lose federal funding of a portion there of. Also, I would like to see any semi automatic firearm need additional licensing and registration and treated the same way as full auto firearms are now. Heck, semi auto firearms are designed to litter the environment with toxic materials. On that premise alone semi autos both hand and long guns should be heavily regulate.

 

So would you be in favour of changing the law so that licensed dealers are not required to do background checks?

 

Oh sure, but isn't providing guns to a minor under 18/21 regulated federally? And I've just now been reminded about how much of a joke it is that an 18 year cannot buy alcohol, but they can buy a non-handgun gun!

 

Exactly. Providing alcohol to a minor is punishable by law whether you know the individual is a minor or not. There is no loop hole other then the word “publically.”

 

Yes, but isn't providing guns to a minor punishable by law?

 

Surely you jest. There is no requirement for a private seller to age require a person taking possession of your firearm. There is for alcohol.

 

You need to look up federal firearms laws. There are two parts to regulations. One has to do with enforcement. You don’t seem to know that. Sellers of alcohol both privately and by licensed dealers, need to age identify “buyers” to avoid prosecution.
A private seller of a firearm does not. There is no requirement of the seller or transferee. Nada, nix.

 

@Rucker61, is this correct?

 

Why are you asking some one else ? Look it up. Don’t trust me or anyone else on the Internet. This is the freakin problem with any discussion. The facts are out there and provided by ligit institutions.

 

Please correct the reading problem. It sounds like you’re trolling. A firearm carry license should be PROOF OF A BACKGROUND CHECK.

 

Yes, its the same because you are just applying to get your Rights back. You don't apply for each Right. Its an all or nothing deal. Now a days its getting easier to get your voting Rights back though as many States (read politicians) are wanting those votes so are making laws allowing felons to vote.

No. You have to go and apply for your Rights back in the State that you were convicted in. Usually in the same County also. So if I have a felony conviction in Seattle Washington I have to apply to get my rights back in King County Washington. Some States even require that you go to the same court where you were convicted in.

 

What the hell? What if the day after someone gets a license they commit a crime which now means that they can't legally buy a gun?

 

So you agree:
Current federal law does not require background checks on private sales because of the Democrats.
Thanks!

 

Apparently you have not even read what I've written and are characteristically evading a salient fact. If you're going to respond, please pay attention.

[1] Firstly, I wrote that a dear old friend gave me his favorite revolver just before he died of cancer.

HE gave the revolver to ME.

No one SOLD anything. Because I had known him well for our whole lives AND both of us had witnessed the other passing background checks when we both bought guns together in the past, neither of us chose to notify the US Government of anything.

I don't see a "loop hole" in good friends and well known relatives giving, trading, or selling guns to each other especially when you have witnessed the receiver already passing a background check.

[2] My 2nd fact which you have been careful to evade is that that strict gun laws do not affect human behavior as there are well over 50 countries around the world (Russia, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico etc)(1) with nothing like our 2nd Amendment, far stricter gun laws/bans and far higher homicide rates.
The fact remains that if strict gun laws/bans worked, they would work everywhere, not just in a few cherry picked, old, White, "developed" countries(2).



(1) "Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people) - Country Ranking"
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5/rankings


(2) "The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

EXCERPT " Note, however, that these comparisons always employ a carefully selected list of countries, most of which are very unlike the United States. They are countries that were settled long ago by the dominant ethnic group, they are ethnically non-diverse today, they are frequently very small countries (such as Norway, with a population of 5 million) with very locally based democracies (again, unlike the US with an immense population and far fewer representatives in government per voter). Politically, historically, and demographically, the US has little in common with Europe or Japan.

The US has the highest murder rate in the "developed world" — presumably because of its lax guns laws —we are told again and again.

Few people who repeat this mantra have any standard in their heads of what exactly is the "developed" world. They just repeat the phrase because they have learned to do so. They never acknowledge that when factors beyond per capita GDP are considered, it makes little sense to claim Sweden should be compared to the US, but not Argentina. Such assertions ignore immense differences in culture, size, politics, history, demographics, or ethnic diversity. Comparisons with mono-ethnic Asian countries like Japan and Korea make even less sense"CONTINUED

 

Not at easy.
.22LR rifles can cost as little as $100, probably less
An FGM-148? Considerably more.

Both ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel are cheap and easy to get, and the cement mixer has a built-in stir function.

Not necessarily - but sure, why not?
Most mass shooters know they will wind up dead.

 

Trolls are like that.

 

They have to be stupid enough to get caught.

Any number of ways - the state can prove you know your brother is a felon because you visited him in prison; if you sell him a gun, you commit a crime.

 

I'm not suggesting that @dagosa is a troll but it is both annoying as well as revealing to have to repeat myself 3 times only to read "responses" that have nothing to do with what I wrote and evade the salient reality that over 50 countries with complete gun bans have far higher homicide rates than the US.

Thanks,

 

You know the old adage - if it walks like a duck...

 

I know & you may be right, it's just that I try to avoid name calling.

The fact that @dagosa cannot and will not address the fact that laws have no effect on human behavior speaks for itself.

If the right of Americans to keep and bear arms was the cause of homicides, the US would not have over 50 countries with far higher homicide rates.

Finally, you may enjoy the following article.

"5 Tricks Gun-Control Advocates Play"
https://mises.org/wire/5-tricks-gun-...advocates-play

EXCERPT "And finally, there is the problem of the fact that not all countries count homicides in quite the same way. In the US, killings committed in self defense are included as homicides, as are unsolved homicides. Things are done differently in the UK, for example, as noted in this April 2000 report from Parliament:

Figures for crimes labelled as homicide in various countries are simply not comparable. Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent. "CONTINUED

 

I'm not an expert on alcohol laws, but a quick search shows that we have the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984 which sets the minimum legal drinking age to 21 and every State abides by that standard. We still have underage drinking. Evidently even with federal and state laws addressing the issue people just ignore it. I have a friend who was the head DUI enforcement officer for our city PD and he introduced his daughters to a glass of wine on special occasions well before they turned 21. If the enforcers ignore it, you can bet everyone does, too.

Federally, there is no requirement to check the age of a buyer in a private sale. State laws can create such a requirement. In my state, prior to our "universal" background check law, you had to confirm that someone was a state resident to sell them a long gun in a private sale. That was opportunity to check the age. I knew people who, prior to the law, wouldn't sell to anyone without a CCW license in a private sale.

Dagosa seems to be under the impression that sales from lawful citizens to criminals is a major source of guns to criminals. It's not. You can be assured that people who would sell to criminals without an UBC will still sell to criminals without a UBC. California has very strict gun laws with regards to private sales, yet 2/3 of the guns traced to criminals in California originate in California. That should indicate how useless such laws are.

 

There's certainly no underage drinking going on in the US because of that law, is there? Thank you for demonstrating that ineffective, unenforceable laws are a bad idea.

 

Then why don't all Democratically led states allow CCW holders to bypass background checks?