How Do Background Checks Prevent Normal Citizens From Getting Guns?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Jazz001, May 18, 2013.

  1. raytri

    raytri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    38,841
    Likes Received:
    2,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Um... the OP contains a link to the bill.
     
  2. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Number of issues here. I'm sure posters have already pointed these problems, out, but just in case, I'll toss in my 2 cents worth.

    First, I don't get the point of your joke. It doesn't mean anything.

    Second, yes felons will simply buy guns on the black market.

    The point that it isn't really illegal, is already false. First if it wasn't illegal, it wouldn't be called black market. Black market, by definition means, not legal.

    We have black market guns already. You can buy guns that have been stolen. We can also buy illegally smuggled guns. That's not legal. That's black market. Of course if you pass the background check law, those black market transactions are still going to happen. If they are willing to steal or smuggle property and sell it, they are not going to suddenly go "Oh wait, I have to do a background check on you!"

    So that entire point is complete and utter nonsense.

    Further, black market inherently changes depending on the laws. When they banned the sale of alcohol, the sale of alcohol still happened, it was just black market now. It did not *stop* happening, it simply became black market.

    Similarly, if you prevent legal sales of guns, from private individuals, sales will still happen, they'll just be black market now.

    Two examples. A year back I was looking for a pistol. I went to a friends house who offered me a .357 revolver for $300. Right there, on the spot, in his house. How do you propose to enforce your back ground check in that situation? No one else knew I was in his house, I doubt anyone knew he even had the gun. Nor would anyone have known if I left with a gun. Unless I was stupid enough to pay with a check, and write "for .357 pistol" on the memo of the check, there is no possible way anyone could have known about that transaction.

    Second, I have a brother in law, who purchased a 9mm glock off the highway, between home and work. He found a contact, and arranged to meet the guy at a rest stop. He gave him cash, and the other gave him a pistol. How would you propose to enforce a back ground check in that situation?

    Point being, that if decent law abiding people can conduct buying and selling of weapons in society, that would be impossible to track or back ground check, why in the world would you conclude that criminals or felons can not?

    Again, this is like illegal drugs. Prohibition of pot has worked perfectly. Building on the success, let's try it with guns?

    Finally, why do people on the right, such as myself, oppose this kind of law?

    Very simply, it doesn't work. If it worked, I'd for it. If gun control of any kind, actually worked, and crime fell or was eliminated, I'd be for it.

    But it doesn't. You can't cite for me a single country on the face of this planet, which has banned guns, and crime was reduced. In several instances, the exact opposite has happened.

    Even if you banned absolutely everything fire arm, you still couldn't keep guns out of the country. A gun is not a super difficult device. Years ago, a man in Michigan made a gun on a home lathe, and shot his wife with it. No serial number. No tracking. No back ground check. Nothing. He made the gun from raw material, and shot someone with it.

    If you banned guns completely, the results would simply be that black market gun manufactures would spring up, to make big money selling home made guns.

    Just recently, a gun had a accidental firing in his home. The police arrived to find he had a full automatic rifle..... he built with mail order parts. How do you propose to back ground check raw parts ordered through the mail?

    Lastly, if you missed it, you can now build a gun using a 3D-printer. Now a savvy techy person, can download off the internet 3D printer files, and have a computer print you out a gun.

    Do you intend to back ground check everyone who purchases a 3D printer?

    Or how about my uncle who owns a CNC machine. He can buy a block of metal, and have the CNC machine cut out the parts for a gun in his basement. Do you intend to background check everyone who purchases a CNC machine?

    So what is the point of passing yet another law that won't work?

    Regardless of the intention of the law, the fact is this is one more step towards totalitarianism. Free societies do not suddenly implode into dictatorship. It's slow and steady steps, chipping away at freedom, one so-called 'reasonable' law after another.

    We already know what is going to happen here. The law won't work. But instead of saying we need to change direction, the failure of that law, will only be used to justify even more restrictions and more government control over who can own a gun.

    And worse yet, Canada has already proven this idea doesn't work. Canada had a universal gun owner registry. Not only did it have no effect whatsoever on gun crime, but the registry was never ounce used in putting a single criminal behind bars. Yet look at what happened in New Orleans. The government sent police officers to confiscated and destroy guns owned by lawful citizens, even while roaming gangs were shooting people.

    So if this is the history of government gun control laws, how would a national background check be of any use? Do you really think a criminal won't get a fake ID if needed to purchase a gun on someone else's Social? High school students can easily a fake ID for smokes, alcohol and night clubs, but a felon who networked with dozens of felons in prison can not?

    And lastly, in my opinion, this shows a huge flaw in how are penal system works. If a person is convicted of a crime, and pays his time in prison, and he is released because he's 'rehabilitated', then...... are you not punishing him again for something he's already paid the price for?

    If he can't be trusted in society, then he shouldn't be released. If he's trust worthy enough to be released, then we shouldn't have a problem with him getting a gun.

    Because if he wants a gun, he'll get one whether we make it legal or not. So if you can't trust him with a fire arm in society, you shouldn't have released him from prison.
     
  3. mtguy8787

    mtguy8787 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    93% of guns used in crimes are obtained illegally.

    1% of guns used in crimes were obtained at gun shows.

    More background checks and "closing the gunhole loophole" will do nothing to stop criminals from obtaining guns.

    The war on drugs does not stop people from getting drugs, and the black market drug trade creates alot more problems of its own. Why does it make any sense to think that gun control will stop criminals from getting guns?

    Laws do not stop the black market -- its a basic fact of society.

    In the UK, where gun control is very strict, the estimated number of black market guns has doubled from 1990 to 2000, in spite of measures implemented in 1986 and 1997

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/sep/03/ukguns.tonythompson
     
  4. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Dude, why not read our own supreme law of the land. Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is Necessary to the security of a free State. Why do gun lovers object to being necessary to the security of a free State if they love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns?
     
  5. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So all the crime statistics we have.... that's all an imagined threat?
     
  6. Casper

    Casper Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    12,540
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So, since checks would not stop all criminals from buying guns your answer is to simply not have any rules? So since drunk driving laws don't stop all drunks from driving drunk get rid of the laws, heck go one step further why have any laws since people will ignore them anyway. You logic has some seriously large holes in it.
     
  7. Toefoot

    Toefoot Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    1,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Comparing a right to a privilege is your logic? Casper, 2A is a reality.

     
  8. dudeman

    dudeman New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My first thought is that the initial poster is a gun dealer intent on increasing sales by eliminating competition via the strong arm of the law. My second thought is that he/she is another nitwit that views an inanimate object as cursed and the source of all evil. Given that type of thinking, I suppose it would be considered racist to suggest that "Sandy Hook"-style incidents are less than 1 % of murders in the USA and it would be far more appropriate to consider segregation to resolve the 99%. A gun placed on the ground with a magazine separated from it will corrode and become inoperable before it will ever fire itself. Focus on the problem (i.e. improper human usage). If it is all about gun control, why are all cities in West Virginia extremely safe compared to cities in New Jersey despite the ridiculous difference in gun laws? Hint- look at race statistics. I'm not opposed to background checks. I just view them as another cowardly way to avoid reality so that a politician can put a notch in their hat without really doing anything to resolve a problem.
     
  9. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Would this even be an issue if persons could easily and conveniently establish a relationship with a local militia; ostensibly to lower our tax burden by ending our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

     
  10. dudeman

    dudeman New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So let me try to understand your argument, Daniel. You want to form a militia to eliminate crime, drugs, poverty and terror? You might want to check with your local government. They might view this as an infringement upon their job responsibilities. Or do you have a comprehension issue with the second amendment?
     
  11. stjames1_53

    stjames1_53 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    12,736
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All Progressive Libs think Rights are really entitlements and privileges in disguise.
    What they have a hard time getting their heads around, is that they, as Americans, have those same Rights too.
     
  12. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What a great circular argument. So you only what to talk to people who didn't have a gun, and claim they were in a situation where not having gun would result in their death? You realize those people are dead, and thus can't respond to your question?

    16,000 people were murdered in 2010. I'm guessing most of those didn't have a gun when they were attacked and killed. No I am not suggesting if they had, they would have all survived, but the fact is the majority of the time when a criminal is confronted by an armed civilian, he runs.

    The bottom line is, your specific situation is great and wonderful. In the real world, people are murdered. It does happen. And I'm not only worried about murder alone. How many assaults, rapes, robberies happen because people are not able to defend themselves?

    When the UK banned all guns, the result was all crime increased. It wasn't limited only to homicide. Rapes drastically increased. Assaults drastically increased. Robbery drastically increased. In fact, in nearly all other types of criminal activity, the UK has over taken the US.

    So, now if you life is truly so safe, I'm all for that. I would LOVE to live in a country where there was truly no need for any self defense. I think that would be wonderful. If I believed that restricting or banning guns would achieve that, I would in fact be for it.

    In reality, every time a police officer so much as farts towards a criminal, they make it into a media circus of police brutality, and the public does everything in it's power to hamper, hinder, and demoralize police officers. In 1992 and the LA riots, the police didn't even try and stop the public lynching of a truck driver, and numerous other people. In New Orleans, police officers did little to nothing to stop gangs shooting people, and massive criminal acts throughout the area. If anything, they disarmed lawful citizens, and left them to fend for themselves, this time without any means to defend themselves.

    If you think that can't happen to you, I can only hope you are right, because the people in LA, and the people in New Orleans, both thought the same. They were proven wrong. One thing I have come to realize is that at least in America, the veneer of civil society is very thin. We are not like Japan, where a tragedy far greater than we have ever experienced can happen, and yet the public remains calm, and civil.

    http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/04/tx-woman-shoots-robberrapist-terrorizing-residents/

    Three men, went on a 2 week long robbery/assault/rape spree. They kidnapped a woman at gun point, drove her to an ATM where she got them money, and then raped her and ditched her.

    They went on to try and repeat their criminal acts on another woman, who retrieved a gun, and shot one of them. They ran, ended up at a hospital, where the police arrested them.

    Are you really telling this lady she would have been better off unarmed? Raped? Kidnapped and robbed? Notice also, these were armed men, but when confronted with a single woman with a gun, they ran. They didn't 'get mad and shoot her' as leftists seem to think for some weird reason.
     
  13. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Whatever can you mean? A well regulated militia is specifically enumerated as necessary to the security of a free State; there is no reason why any organs of that State should not have their own local militias.
     
  14. dudeman

    dudeman New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We've had this debate before. The USA government has violated their power in the past with regard to eliminating mafias and militias. Given the BLATANT corruption of the USA government in the past, how can you expect the future to be anything but "Obama" logic?
     
  15. hiimjered

    hiimjered Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    7,924
    Likes Received:
    143
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    For the thread title:

    Background checks keep normal citizens from getting guns in the same way that ID requirements keep normal citizens from voting.
     
  16. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But again, the point is, why do something that isn't going to work?

    The thread title could also be:

    Background checks keep criminals from guns, the same way ID checks keep high school students from smokes, alcohol, and drugs.
     
  17. sailorman126

    sailorman126 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    174
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    28
    not even close. we already have background checks. what is now being proposed in your context is when you go to vote you have to have 10 forms of id be fingerprinted have a dna sample then wait 10 days before you get a letter saying you will be allowed to vote because a judge has ruled that it is ok for you to do so and you have to do that every time you vote. oh and before you vote you must take certain classes and pass them to make sure you are able to make good decisions.
     
  18. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Being specifically connected with well regulated militia service can solve that problem for gun lovers.
     
  19. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No you missed the entire point. You can't join a militia in order to get a gun. You have to have a gun, in order to join a militia. The entire point of a militia is to have an armed body independent of the state. That means, not funded or provided for by the state. In other words, you if you don't have a gun to begin with, you can't well join a militia.

    Further, as has been pointed out hundreds of times, the Militia Act of 1792, made it clear that every able bodied male was to join the militia. So the militia is... everyone.

    Now, if you want to make it a rule that only people who are 'members' of a militia can own a weapon, I would disagree with that premise, but at the same time, that would be just fine. I would have a open enrollment militia, and everyone can become a member for $10 life time membership (just enough to cover documenting it legally), and everyone who wants to own weapons can do so. If that is all that is required to make you happy, that's not going to be a problem.
     
  20. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's not specified one has to be part of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms scooter,just be a person,I/E 'the people'
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe not, but only a well regulate militia is specifically exempted from State laws regarding gun control that are meant for civil Persons who are specifically unconnected with militia service.
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <sigh>.....no.
     
  23. Casper

    Casper Banned at Members Request Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    12,540
    Likes Received:
    72
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Maybe you should have read my entire post, I used DWI as an example, but you missed the point about taking it one step further. As I said you answer is not regulations and no checks, yes that will work, YOUR logic.
     
  24. Andelusion

    Andelusion New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes and everyone able bodied male is considered part of the militia. Again, the Militia Act of 1792 made that clear. So.... that means everyone is part of the militia, and thus everyone has a right to bare arms.
     
  25. Toefoot

    Toefoot Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    1,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I missed nothing and read the post...your example was poor. You also tried to speak for the other person by taking it a step further and projecting logic for him, also a poor tactic.

    Here is my answer: 2A.

     

Share This Page