Apply background checks for gun purchases to voting

For me, It's easier to address the arguments presented by breaking down the post. If you don't want people breaking down your post, make one argument per post.

 

Then perhaps the structure of the paragraphs needs to be addressed, so each paragraph contains only one specific point that is in need of actually being addressed. That way context cannot be lost.

 

Deleted? Didn't say you did. Another example of your taking quotes out of context and using them to promulgate lies.

Try rereading what I said.

AND...

No, first we start with a stated policy. Such as:
"All firearms transfers will require a background check be obtained by the current owner before transferring ownership."
Then we pass laws to enforce the policy.
Then regulations are created to define how the laws are actually enforced.

Until the policy is agreed to there can be no effective laws or regulations. Sort of like what we have right now.

 

The original and the inline

Please tell me how the 57 words spread across 3 sentences in two paragraphs requires being carved into 4 separate quotes spanning over 130 words?

Inline quotes are the liar's tool and their use is a clear demonstration that the user is not actually reading to understand but parsing to use preformed arguments.

 

A demonstration

Of course it's easier for you. It doesn't require you to actually understand the argument because you're just picking words to argue with rather than the argument as a whole.

Of course it's easier because the method requires no thought, just rote responses to predefined keys.

.
So that you can argue with individual words instead of ideas. Intellectually lazy and dishonest.

Would it matter when you choose to carve out three words, completely out of context, and use them as the basis for an "argument?"

This is the use of inline quotes. I never argued a position. Just took pieces of your words and used them to create false arguments without ever addressing the issue.

It is dishonest and lazy but, when dishonesty is all you've got...

 

the latter is correct for those who avid gun controllers. the former tend to be the pillow headed soccer moms who support "Everytown for Gun confiscation" and other astro-turf gun banning organizations. the leaders of the gun control movement are almost 100% dishonest about their true motivations and many of them are actually pro criminal

 

Interesting that quite a few of us here like to reply line by line. Perhaps it's just a style issue.

Sounds vaguely like "we have to pass it to know what's in it".

Which takes us back to

1. Is the background check just for sales, or for transfers like loans and gifts?
2. Would it be necessary for sales between family members?
3. In a community property state, if a spouse purchases a gun does the other spouse also need to pass a background check?
4. Would transfers to the following require a background check:
a. Law Enforcement Officers
b. Concealed Weapons permit holders.
c. Someone who already legally owns guns?
d. Someone who passed a background check yesterday or early in the same day?
5. Could two friends exchange guns while hunting without a background check?
6. Could two friends exchange guns while shooting at a range or in a National Forest?
7. What would happen if someone failed the background check?
8. How does an LEO know if a gun in someone's possession was acquired via a background check?

If you're suggesting that we pass the law and then decide if CCW holders do or don't need checks, or if LEO's do or don't need checks, or if I allow my friend to hold my new rifle in my home to admire it then he needs a check before hand, then no, your idea has no merit.

We already know that effective enforcement requires registration. The Department of Justice told us that. We've already seen how these laws passed by Democrats in some states aren't logical or even designed to be used against prohibited persons. In Colorado, I can give or loan a gun to my brother, but if I sell it to him he needs a background check. The Democrats added a term late in the discussion that required all members of a trust to get a background check when a gun is added to the trust, which makes no sense given that prohibited persons and would be criminals aren't going to tie their name to the serial number of a gun that they might use in a crime in a legal document.

 

"No, first we start with a stated policy. Such as:
"All firearms transfers will require a background check be obtained by the current owner before transferring ownership."

What part of "we agree to a policy" escapes your obviously miniscule capability to comprehend?

What part of "transferring ownership" escapes you?

What part of "Terrorists and criminals love your positions." escapes your notice.

If we cannot agree on policy how then can there ever be agreement on Implementation?

 

So we're debating the content of the policy now, or at least attempting to. I watched the complete liveatream of the Colorado legislature debating the details of HB 13-1229 in 2013, through about five iterations of that bill, so I'm aware that 1) there are always exemptions to the blanket statement you've presented as the proposed law, and enforcement issues that arise once it is passed, some of which are unexpected consequences. You should also familiarize yourself with the text of the Washington, Oregon and Nevada laws, none of which are exactly the same and all of which deviate from your proposed universal requirement.

You might want to consider how it would be enforced; the vast majority of sheriff's in the state of Colorado determined that it could not be, and have sued to have the law overturned. It's also not getting enforced here, mainly because it actually is not enforceable.

Regarding the insults, do you feel better when you post those? They lend nothing to your arguments.

 

I'm still trying to figure out who Registers in two or three different counties or States, and Votes in those counties at the same time ... oh wait, Ann Coulter did.

 

Sheriffs are politicians who make political decisions. Let's not imbue them with some special insight onto the legislative or legal process.

What was an insult? Pointing out that criminals and terrorists love your position? Pointing out to a fat man that the triple whopper with cheese, double order of fries, and super sized chocolate shake he's about to consume is unhealthy is not an insult, it is quite simply a fact. Your position only serves to protect those we want to keep away from firearms.

 

Still not actually addressing the issue, are you? Those questions and concerned all should be answered prior to getting to "agree upon a policy". They never have been, of course, because UBCs are never put in place via an agreement between Republicans and Democrats - they're foisted upon us by a Democratic majority who don't care if the law makes sense or is enforceable. They've done something for gun control, and that's a great campaign talking point.

The attempted insults were "liar", "dishonest", "lazy" and "your obviously miniscule capability to comprehend". Such ill become you.

 

No, you can't begin to address those issues until you have agreed on a policy.

What if the policy becomes "we will never require any background for any type of firearm transaction ever?"

Would that be implemented differently from "we require background checks on all firearms transfers?"

And, if you're going to make obviously stupid comments as though they represent some great thought please don't expect that they will go unnoticed. They won't

 

There is no "agree on a policy". It's pass a law or not. Like VG likes to say, "any law can be changed" if one side takes control.

The implementation of your "never" is quite simple. No action by anyone is required, at last until that law is overturned. The implementation of "all transfers must have background checks" is very different, as there is not single state UBC law currently in place that doesn't have exemptions to that basic premise, and no two state laws are completely alike. It's not even enforceable as declared.

If your position is that if in power Democats will pass whatever law they want, regardless of implications or logic, then I can agree with you. They have and they will continue to do so without really doing anything to make society any safer.

 

Of the transactions i have made, over the years. less than 10% have been through private parties.. individuals with no background check. I consider myself a typical gun buyer, & i would probably put MOST legal gun buyers in the NON-private party buyer category. I can see no rational statistic that would make me think that the millions of firearms sold, in just the last decade or so, were not through legal background checks. Even 'gun buyer', internet sales from individuals must go through an FFL.

Private party sales are infinitesimal, in the total gun sales, & are pretty much a non factor, in the growth & possession of legal firearms. Now, ILLEGAL firearms are almost always by individual, or criminal acquisition. But making background checks more onerous only deters the legal buyers, or inconveniences them pointlessly.

Any statistic about private sales are fabricated.. there is no way of knowing. Given the culture, & knowing other gun owners, i would say there are very few private sales.. only a handful of aficionados or collectors buy from individuals.. most buy from dealers or internet sales, all of which go through the background check at an FFL.

 

Societal approval of universal background checks hovers around 85%.

If you and yours cannot accept a public policy approved by an 85% majority then, yes, when, not if, when, you lose power please expect a whole raft of legislation that your "non-activists" judges will, of course, let stand because they believe the courts should not legislate from the bench.

Unless, of course, it's to get Bush elected, or to keep Republicans in power in Texas then it's OK.

 

"Si 50 millions de personnes disent une bêtise, c'est quand même une bêtise"

If the Democrats who pushed for "universal background checks" also included the DOJ position that they are unenforceable without registration and that a background check would be required to hand a gun to your brother the percentage in favor might not be so high. To actually be honest they'd also have to point out that the four biggest sources of guns to criminals, straw purchases, corrupt FFLs, illegal street sellers and theft would absolutely not be affected by an requirement for a background check.

 

But that's not what it is is it? That crap is straight from the lunatic imaginations at the NRA. Not a word based in fact, just the ongoing attempt top frighten the intellectually impaired. Better known as "conservatives."

Geez. You guys are worse then Jehova's Witnesses.

 

Those that seek universal background checks fall into two camps
-People who understand UBC leads to universal registration
-People who do not know any better.

Universal registration is the goal -- and no one wonders why.
http://www.snopes.com/virgin-islands-order-seizure-weapons-irma/

 

The DOJ was unequivocal in their 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies" that UBCs required registration. You can claim otherwise if you wish, but that's a lick on you.

Is letting my brother hold my rifle for 2 minutes a transfer or not? You want all transfers to have a background check. That definition must be in the law.

 

Of course.
W/o universal registration, there's no way to prove a transfer took place, much less the date of same.
Absent those facts, or some sort of covert sting operation, it is impossible to prove the law was violated.

 

Does using a valet to park your constitute a transfer?

Try to be a little less...I don't know what's that stupid word I'm thinking of????

A report from the DoJ or anyone else for that matter, cheery picked by you or anyone else for that matter, does not constitute any part of the legislative process.

If we cannot agree on what the law would do then how can we possibly discuss HOW the law will be enforced?

Geez. This is the Gunner's position on this.

We can't stop all rapes so we should just get rid of rape laws.
We can't stop all drug use so we should just get rid of all drug laws.
We can't stop all bank robberies so we should get rid of all laws making robbery illegal...

Yeah, it is stupid but that is your position.

 

Bull.

You get picked up with your gun.
Police ask where you got it.
You answer
They check to corroborate your story and find the source.
They ask the source for the proof that a background check was done.
No proof? The guy transferring ownership has committed a crime.

It ain't rocket science fellas.

 

"Where did you get this gun"
"I plead the fifth". "I've had it for years". "I don't remember". It's borrowed from a friend, inside the 3 day window allowed by law.

Police check: It's not reported stolen. A tracing takes days to complete, and would show that it was sold to a private citizen in 2007.

On your way.

 

Scenario:

A middle age white gun is headed to the range out in the country and gets pulled over for speeding. In his car are four rifles: one purchased new at an FFL with a background check. One was purchased in a private sale prior to the new law requiring background checks for private sales. One was borrowed within the three day window for loans without background checks allowed by Colorado law; one was purchased after the new law went into effect, but the age of the firearm predates the law.

How does the police officer know that a crime was committed?