View Poll Results: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

Voters
3425. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2,115 61.75%
  • No

    1,310 38.25%
  1. #16641
    I'll probably regret posting this but here goes anyways: I can get a gun, right now, no questions asked, cheaply and in a more timely fashion then any one of you out there could legally. The guy I get it from, he won't give 2 craps what i do with it. And are not talking a 22 bolt action, pick your poison, he has it. I really don't see where any one of you guys posting advocating gun laws are addressing this. More laws and regs wont make a goddamm bit of difference to him. Actually it'll probably improve buisiness for him.

  2. #16642
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya420 View Post
    People who are irresponsible to the point that they lose their guns, deserve to be punished.
    Accident do happen do you want to take cars away from people who get in accidents? and not all accidents are at fault of the people involved

    ---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 05:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Thephayul View Post
    I'll probably regret posting this but here goes anyways: I can get a gun, right now, no questions asked, cheaply and in a more timely fashion then any one of you out there could legally. The guy I get it from, he won't give 2 craps what i do with it. And are not talking a 22 bolt action, pick your poison, he has it. I really don't see where any one of you guys posting advocating gun laws are addressing this. More laws and regs wont make a goddamm bit of difference to him. Actually it'll probably improve buisiness for him.
    Its just like the war on drugs. we have spent billion to try to stop drugs and they are just as accessible today as it was when they started the war

  3. #16643
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    People go to a dealer when they think they won't get turned down, not because they know they have a felony and need a gun for a crimewave.

    So, you've created a system to police the law abiding.

    Given there is no penalty enforced when a criminal tries and fails, there's also no harm in them trying.
    I think you missed my point, or I wasn't clear. You made the claim that expanding background checks to private sellers wouldn't work, because there's no risk/reward. But FFL's also have no risk/reward, by your admission (since its not enforced), yet they still implement millions of checks.

    I'm believe that trend will continue with private sellers. There's really no reason to believe it wouldn't.

    Don't you agree that instituting a voluntary background check system (via phone or internet) separate from the NICS and accessible by individuals would allow law abiding citizens that want to do the right thing to run a background check when a stranger is the buyer, while not creating some system where I need to run a background check on my long time buddy?
    Sure, it's better than what we have now, but I'd still like to see it be mandatory. Running a background check on a buddy isn't a big deal nor burdensome, imo.

    As you've brought up the internet guys asking for extra because they think it's illegal before, wouldn't you agree that those are the ones most likely to NOT do the background check?
    Likely? Sure. Exclusively? No.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  4. #16644
    Quote Originally Posted by Vyxn View Post
    Its just like the war on drugs. we have spent billion to try to stop drugs and they are just as accessible today as it was when they started the war
    Alright, let's make crack and heroin legal then.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gheld View Post
    If anybody is thinking of buying me a gift I would much rather they just donate that money to charity instead.
    Maybe I'm having a stroke.
    Poutine.

  5. #16645
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Emerald City
    Posts
    17,961
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    Alright, let's make crack and heroin legal then.
    I agree with this.
    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
    - Thucydides

    There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.
    - Eugen Weber

  6. #16646
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Thephayul View Post
    I'll probably regret posting this but here goes anyways: I can get a gun, right now, no questions asked, cheaply and in a more timely fashion then any one of you out there could legally. The guy I get it from, he won't give 2 craps what i do with it. And are not talking a 22 bolt action, pick your poison, he has it. I really don't see where any one of you guys posting advocating gun laws are addressing this. More laws and regs wont make a goddamm bit of difference to him. Actually it'll probably improve buisiness for him.
    What do you propose we do to stop him? Gun trafficking penalties were increased in recent proposals. Never made it through though.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  7. #16647
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    Alright, let's make crack and heroin legal then.
    All drug that don't cause people to be uncontrollably violent like bath salts should be legal


    The government isn't meant to make society "good". People should make their own choices in a non-violent and consensual manner. The extent that a state interferes with people acting non violently should end at providing the most basic of public services (roads, school, parks, etc) , in addition to defense, commerce/currency handling, and law enforcement ( incl. property rights).

  8. #16648
    Quote Originally Posted by Raidenx View Post
    All drug that don't cause people to be uncontrollably violent like bath salts should be legal
    not good enough. drugs that cause addiction that causes people to commit crimes to obtain that drug should remain illegal
    Pot should be made legal because when have you ever herd of some one knocking over a store to get money to buy another bag

  9. #16649
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    What do you propose we do to stop him? Gun trafficking penalties were increased in recent proposals. Never made it through though.

    I wish I had an answer to that. I guess our differences lie in the fact that I don't feel that legislation that goes further down the same road isn't the answer and that you do. What would you suggest for an answer here to help combat illegal gun buying and usage that doesn't hassle legitimate owners?

  10. #16650
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    You continue to push the same partisan rhetoric for pages while ignoring what is actually happening.

    Expand background checks so that every sale at a gun show or online must have one done. But since we're not enforcing the current law, there will be no enforcement, so we've done what?

    Universal Background Checks, same thing. There's no penalty for not doing it, no reward for doing it, so... it's a non-starter.

    And again you ignore the NIJ report that said requirements for private transfer background checks led to more guns reported stolen rather than less straw purchases.

    You still have failed to show the NRA cutting funding to the ATFE, I assume you read Wells non-argument about the NRA campaigning to have the director of the ATFE confirmed the same as every other director and think that's somehow to blame? Or maybe the lack of registration databases? I know, it's because Federal Prosecutors that are not apart of the ATFE don't give a care in the world about taking cases?
    You're ignoring the fact that current background checks stop 117 gun sales a day. But if those people who get denied go to a private seller, they can buy a gun anyway.

    This "The current laws aren't properly enforced" thing is BS since they obviously work, just not optimally because there are holes in them that need closing and that's the entire point.
    Quote Originally Posted by supertony51 View Post
    I'm probably the nicest person on this whole damned forum, and you can make a sig from that.
    Quote Originally Posted by TZK203 View Post
    Just have a sig that says "I'm Batman."

  11. #16651
    Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Exactly.
    Your credibility just went down the toilet...

    Why do people keep arguing in absolutes? There's a difference between stopping and decreasing, the latter of which is the goal.
    Because in order to decrease the number of tragic events, we have to stop some of them. If the newton shooter had been stopped.... then there would have been one less mass shooting on record. The way you are arguing makes it seem like it's okay if Newton happened, but we should have only let him kill 15 people instead of 27.

    Feinstein does not represent the left. She's a clown that practically no one takes seriously.

    The left isn't trying to ban guns. Not now. Not ever. Stop the fear mongering.
    Feinstein is a liberal democratic senator, meaning she's not only representative of the liberal party, she's also responsible for a left leaning agenda which has become evermore anti gun. She's responsible for authoring the 1994 AWB and was also responsible for pushing for the recently failed AWB. If you think no one takes her seriously, you're pretty clueless.

    Not only has the president of the US been giving speeches strongly supporting the left's anti gun agenda, but he's harshly criticized the most recent failure of gun control legislation.

    I don't know what planet you live on, but here on earth, the left is very much trying to do everything they can to get rid of guns.

    It's not fear mongering when it's true and accurate.

    Which part of my post that you quotes makes it sound like there is currently no gun control?
    The part where you said:

    The USA isn't trying to ban guns. They're trying to limit access to criminals.
    We already limit access to criminals. What do you suggest we do differently? If you have a suggestion, can you show how it will be effective and worthwhile?

    Or is it just more conjecture like 'hey if we do enough background checks, we can stop all criminals from getting guns?'

    You just keep digging yourself into a hole.

    You're ignoring the fact that current background checks stop 117 gun sales a day. But if those people who get denied go to a private seller, they can buy a gun anyway.
    And you're ignoring the fact that 117 gun sales a day is less than .01% of all gun sales. Let's keep pissing in the ocean, shall we?

    This "The current laws aren't properly enforced" thing is BS since they obviously work, just not optimally because there are holes in them that need closing and that's the entire point.
    Okay, so you can be in charge of monitoring everyone and making sure every single private sale is subjected to a background check.

    Cuz that's what enforcement is. Someone making sure the rules are being followed, and either fining or charging people who don't follow them.

    But we don't have the ability to know who does or does not follow the rules and does a background check. So we can't possibly hope to enforce it.

    Damn, passing all these feel good laws makes me feel good.

    What do you propose we do to stop him? Gun trafficking penalties were increased in recent proposals. Never made it through though.
    That's the point: YOU CAN'T STOP HIM. You can't make him perform background checks on buyers. Requiring him to do so does fuckola.
    Last edited by Eroginous; 2013-04-23 at 11:26 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jevlin
    Why? Because fuck you, that's why.

    Every time you have a question that begins with "Why?" that is about what other people prefer to do with their own goddamn time, come back here, and reread the first row of this post. That will ALWAYS be the answer to your question. Have a nice day.

  12. #16652
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Your credibility just went down the toilet...
    You thought I was being serious with that statement? lol...

    I guess obvious sarcasm isn't obvious to everyone.

    If the newton shooter had been stopped...
    You keep saying "Newton." It's "Newtown."

    Feinstein is a liberal democratic senator, meaning she's not only representative of the liberal party, she's also responsible for a left leaning agenda which has become evermore anti gun.
    You mean the evermore anti gun agenda that decided to not extend the AWB? Or maybe how Obama increased gun ownership rights during his first term, instead of decreasing them? Gosh guys stop being so anti gun!

    The only anti gun legislation proposed was rejected by both parties.

    Not only has the president of the US been giving speeches strongly supporting the left's anti gun agenda, but he's harshly criticized the most recent failure of gun control legislation.
    Since background checks have zero effect on legal gun ownership, they aren't anti gun. They promote responsible and legal gun ownership.

    I don't know what planet you live on, but here on earth, the left is very much trying to do everything they can to get rid of guns.
    "Everything they can" is a bit of hyperbole. Some Democrats wanted to ban modifications, many others didn't. That's hardly "everything they can." It was actually one of the most pathetic attempts to pass a bill that I've seen in a while.

    The part where you said:
    The fact that I pointed out that we're trying to limit access to criminals does not mean we currently don't. Like I said, stop putting words in my mouth. If you have a question, just ask.

    Or is it just more conjecture like 'hey if we do enough background checks, we can stop all criminals from getting guns?'
    I love how you slipped the word "all" in there. It's basically an admission that you've been wrong this entire time.

    You just keep digging yourself into a hole.
    What does that even mean? Just a useless "gotcha" phrase that doesn't mean anything.

    And you're ignoring the fact that 117 gun sales a day is less than .01% of all gun sales. Let's keep pissing in the ocean, shall we?
    I wonder how many criminals attempt to purchase a weapon through an FFL every day. It probably averages out to 117...Wow, that ocean just got a lot smaller! Kinda looks like a puddle now. So I guess were stopping 99.9% of criminals through FFLs then.

    Damn, passing all these feel good laws makes me feel good.
    Do you believe background checks are a good thing?
    Last edited by Deadvolcanoes; 2013-04-23 at 11:55 PM.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  13. #16653
    Brewmaster jahasafrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,314
    I had to vote no on the poll because of the wording. I don't believe automatic assault rifles should be available to the general public. Assault weapons, on the other hand, is a very ambiguous and potentially far-reaching phrase. For example, here in Oregon legislators recently endorsed a bill that would ban all "assault weapons" and provided definitions for the term. They essentially lumped any semiautomatic pistol, shotgun, or rifle into the same category as full-auto ARs and AKs.

    I believe background checks, waiting periods, and education should be required for gun purchases, but I also believe our lawmakers should know what the fuck they're talking about. I don't want the jackasses that comprise the population to have access to machine guns, but I don't want to be criminalized for owning a Winchester model 100.

  14. #16654
    Quote Originally Posted by Decklan View Post
    You're ignoring the fact that current background checks stop 117 gun sales a day. But if those people who get denied go to a private seller, they can buy a gun anyway.

    This "The current laws aren't properly enforced" thing is BS since they obviously work, just not optimally because there are holes in them that need closing and that's the entire point.
    All of that is addressed in my other post, but I've posted all that information previously as well.

    Complying with the law is not a loophole, a loophole is an unintended consequence.

    That guy that "goes to a private seller" is the guy that is NOT BEING INVESTIGATED. That's one of the laws not properly enforced.

  15. #16655
    Interesting, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...le+Feedfetcher

    The fact that people will leave loaded guns in places easily accessible by their kids is just sickening to me.

    And also:
    "People tend to only pay attention to gun safety issues after these mass killings but this is happening all the time to our children and it's totally preventable," Sauaia said. "Are we as a society willing to accept that 2 percent of our children shot each year is an acceptable number?"
    I'm pro-gun, but I realise we need to better prevent the accessibility of guns to minors.
    "But the point we can all agree upon is that, no matter what side of the gun divide you fall on, we need to store these weapons safely to protect our children from death or serious injury."
    Only question is, how to do that?

    Subsidise gun safes?

  16. #16656
    Quote Originally Posted by Svifnymr View Post
    All of that is addressed in my other post, but I've posted all that information previously as well.

    Complying with the law is not a loophole, a loophole is an unintended consequence.

    That guy that "goes to a private seller" is the guy that is NOT BEING INVESTIGATED. That's one of the laws not properly enforced.
    Those private sellers cannot be investigated or charged if they do not perform background checks on their "clients". They are under no obligation to. That is the law as it is. Thus it is a loophole. Under new legislation background checks would be required for sale and transfer of all firearms, and prosecution could be pursued for private sellers that did not attain a background check clearance.
    Quote Originally Posted by supertony51 View Post
    I'm probably the nicest person on this whole damned forum, and you can make a sig from that.
    Quote Originally Posted by TZK203 View Post
    Just have a sig that says "I'm Batman."

  17. #16657
    You thought I was being serious with that statement? lol...

    I guess obvious sarcasm isn't obvious to everyone.
    Because serious people who only ever make serious points are known for being sarcastic...

    This is also a text based forum. Sarcasm doesn't carry well.

    You keep saying "Newton." It's "Newtown."
    Nowai, it's Pig Newtons.

    You mean the evermore anti gun agenda that decided to not extend the AWB? Or maybe how Obama increased gun ownership rights during his first term, instead of decreasing them? Gosh guys stop being so anti gun!

    The only anti gun legislation proposed was rejected by both parties.
    Except it wasn't rejected, it had a majority vote, but barely didn't make the minimum needed to actually pass. Perhaps you should read up on current affairs.

    Also, we have the NRA and the republican party to thank for making sure most of the gun legislation hasn't passed. If the liberals haven't passed things, it's not for lack of trying.

    Since background checks have zero effect on legal gun ownership, they aren't anti gun. They promote responsible and legal gun ownership.
    Background checks aren't the only recent legislation that has been defeated. Please be more dishonest.

    "Everything they can" is a bit of hyperbole. Some Democrats wanted to ban modifications, many others didn't. That's hardly "everything they can." It was actually one of the most pathetic attempts to pass a bill that I've seen in a while.
    They've paraded out children and parents from Newton as ammo to push through legislation. They've proposed bills that attempt to define and ban 'assault weapons.' They've proposed legislation to ban modifications to weapons, and they've even tried to ban a huge list of different firearms, most of which are commonly owned and used. The only thing they haven't done is proposed banning pistols and sporting/home defense rifles.

    So yeah, they've certainly been trying to do everything they can.

    The fact that I pointed out that we're trying to limit access to criminals does not mean we currently don't. Like I said, stop putting words in my mouth. If you have a question, just ask.
    Like I pointed out before, you keep using very vague language to argue your points. Every single one of them makes it seem like we just hand guns to everyone regardless of who they are or what they've done. When you say things like 'we are trying to limit criminal access to guns' it comes across (very deliberately, I'm sure) as if we don't currently do anything.

    Language matters, and if you weren't trying to be vague, you would be saying things like 'we are trying to do MORE to limit criminal access to guns.' That's specific language, and I would have no response to that. Hell, I could even agree with it. But you don't want to be specific, cuz that would mean being honest and admitting you don't really have an argument.

    I love how you slipped the word "all" in there. It's basically an admission that you've been wrong this entire time.
    And I love how your vague responses keep implying an all encompassing effect, when the reality is that we are talking about a statistically insignificant difference at best. Less than 0.01% of all background checks have resulted in a denial. You want to increase the number of background checks done (as if we can force non licensed dealers to do them) without admitting that we are already doing them as much as possible.

    What does that even mean? Just a useless "gotcha" phrase that doesn't mean anything.
    You figuratively keep digging yourself into a hole with every post you make on background check numbers and policy ideas you've conjured up to 'thwart' criminal gun sales. You've said nothing new in the last 200 pages and we've kicked your arguments to death, yet here you are. Digging like you're trying to find China.

    I wonder how many criminals attempt to purchase a weapon through an FFL every day. It probably averages out to 117...Wow, that ocean just got a lot smaller! Kinda looks like a puddle now. So I guess were stopping 99.9% of criminals through FFLs then.
    What are you talking about? The vast majority of people who purchase guns through FFLs pass background checks. That either means that only a very small percentage of people don't qualify to buy a handgun, -OR- those people are not attempting to buy them through FFLs because it's a waste of time.

    117 isn't a big enough number to warrant doing background checks, especially when we don't prosecute the vast majority of felons and fugitives who are attempting to buy guns.

    Do you believe background checks are a good thing?
    I believe background checks only give the licensed dealer peace of mind that he's not selling to someone who's not eligible to buy a handgun, in turn helping him avoid losing his license/business. Outside of that, I don't think it matters one bit if we do them. As I've said before, the rate of failures is abysmally low, suggesting that most criminals don't even attempt to get a gun through a means which requires a background check. The prosecution rate of people who DO fail is even more abysmal, suggesting that even having a law against felons/fugitives attempting to buy a firearm, is a complete waste of time.

    It's like making a law against spitting on the sidewalk. Complete waste of time and resources.

    Those private sellers cannot be investigated or charged if they do not perform background checks on their "clients". They are under no obligation to. That is the law as it is. Thus it is a loophole. Under new legislation background checks would be required for sale and transfer of all firearms, and prosecution could be pursued for private sellers that did not attain a background check clearance.
    So how do you determine who sells a gun without a background check? How do you know who to investigate? How do you even begin to go about charging someone with a crime if you can't even determine who's committing one?
    Last edited by Eroginous; 2013-04-24 at 12:35 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jevlin
    Why? Because fuck you, that's why.

    Every time you have a question that begins with "Why?" that is about what other people prefer to do with their own goddamn time, come back here, and reread the first row of this post. That will ALWAYS be the answer to your question. Have a nice day.

  18. #16658
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Except it wasn't rejected
    Senate rejects assault weapon ban on 40-60 vote

    it had a majority vote
    40-60 isn't a majority vote, my friend.

    Perhaps you should read up on current affairs.
    How embarrassing...

    Background checks aren't the only recent legislation that has been defeated. Please be more dishonest.
    I was responding to "he's harshly criticized the most recent failure of gun control legislation," which would be background checks. Please keep up with the conversation.

    Like I pointed out before, you keep using very vague language to argue your points.
    I don't have time to type out long paragraphs so people can understand exactly what I'm saying. Most people have no trouble understanding the points I'm making. You're really the only person I've heard complain, so like I said, if you have a question, all you have to do is ask! I'm more than happy to answer your questions!


    You want to increase the number of background checks done(as if we can force non licensed dealers to do them) without admitting that we are already doing them as much as possible.
    We don't force FFL's to do them, right? And yet they do them anyway. Interesting.

    I believe background checks only give the licensed dealer peace of mind that he's not selling to someone who's not eligible to buy a handgun, in turn helping him avoid losing his license/business.
    Losing his license/business? I thought we didn't enforce background check laws.
    Last edited by Deadvolcanoes; 2013-04-24 at 01:06 AM.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  19. #16659
    Quote Originally Posted by Decklan View Post
    Those private sellers cannot be investigated or charged if they do not perform background checks on their "clients". They are under no obligation to. That is the law as it is. Thus it is a loophole. Under new legislation background checks would be required for sale and transfer of all firearms, and prosecution could be pursued for private sellers that did not attain a background check clearance.
    If a person is repeatedly purchasing and reselling for profit, he is violating the law already in place.


    If he's some guy wandering the aisles at a gun show to sell his personal weapon, he would probably appreciate the ability to run a background check, though paying a dealer to do it and making it mandatory may deter that feeling if the buyer "looks honest".

    If it's a straw purchase, it's intentional breaking the law.

    If the seller doesn't care, he just won't do a background check anyway.

    How will they enforce a new background check for private transactions? Will they investigate and prosecute these people that have never done anything else wrong when they currently don't prosecute FUGITIVES that attempt to buy a gun?

    And no, as I said in my other post, the background check law was specifically crafted and specifically exempted private transactions for various reasons. It is not a loophole to sell a gun privately. It is illegal to buy guns for resale or to circumvent other laws of course, and it IS illegal to sell/transfer to someone you know is prohibited.

    Again, you seem to think they would somehow enforce the new law when they don't enforce the current law.

    There's a law that makes it illegal to leave a gun within easy access of a child, but it's also never enforced. No door-to-door checks, obviously, and when a situation transpires, they "don't want to add to the situation".

    ---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 09:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    I don't have time to type out long paragraphs so people can understand exactly what I'm saying. Most people have no trouble understanding the points I'm making. You're really the only person I've heard complain, so like I said, if you have a question, all you have to do is ask! I'm more than happy to answer your questions!
    Actually plenty of us have asked you to better define some of your stuff, mostly to avoid circular arguments that span pages.


    We don't force FFL's to do them, right? And yet they do them anyway. Interesting.
    FFL's are required to do them, but the penalty for not doing one is nothing unless it's shown as repetitive/ intentional behavior. As I'd mentioned at some point, ATFE wanted to have lesser penalties (fines for example) to leverage minor offenses that don't warrant License Revocation.

    Losing his license/business? I thought we didn't enforce background check laws.
    Technically it's a requirement of the FFL gun transfer process, it IS linked to the background check of course but the system was in place since 68.

    Before the background check it was just the form's questions. It would be interesting if they ran background checks on old forms to see how many would have failed given current systems, but I doubt the task would ever be done.

  20. #16660
    Senate rejects assault weapon ban on 40-60 vote
    That's not the latest piece of gun control legislation to fail. The latest was UBCs and it failed 54-46. They had the MAJORITY and still failed to meet the 60 vote minimum.

    40-60 isn't a majority vote, my friend.
    You're confused. I wasn't referring to anything but the background check bill. Which received a majority vote and didn't pass.

    How embarrassing...
    What's embarrassing is the way you aren't reading my posts carefully enough to understand what I'm saying.

    I was responding to "he's harshly criticized the most recent failure of gun control legislation," which would be background checks. Please keep up with the conversation.
    I'm not the one who thinks I am confused about the difference between gun control legislation and anti gun legislation. The liberal agenda has been pursuing both. This last bill was a gun control measure, while the ones before that were anti gun measures. All of it can be considered 'gun control,' but I like to be specific so there's no confusion.

    I don't have time to type out long paragraphs so people can understand exactly what I'm saying. Most people have no trouble understanding the points I'm making. You're really the only person I've heard complain, so like I said, if you have a question, all you have to do is ask! I'm more than happy to answer your questions!
    You don't need to type out long paragraphs to be more specific in your argument. Being intentionally vague is a form of logical fallacy, and you've employed it repeatedly in nearly every argument you've made.

    We don't force FFL's to do them, right? And yet they do them anyway. Interesting.
    We require them to do them by law. If they don't do them and the ATF does an audit, finding that they haven't done background checks, then they risk losing their license, business, or facing federal prison time. The part you don't seem to understand is that each licensed dealer is a control point for the public sale of guns. Those control points are required to keep records and other information regarding the sales of firearms, of which can all be traced back to said licensed dealer. We have a federal agency who is in charge of overseeing said licensed dealers in all 50 states to make sure they are following the law, penalizing them when they don't.

    Therefore any licensed dealer has a gigantic incentive to follow the law and conduct background checks, because they are risking everything by not doing them.

    By stark contrast, a private citizen is not a control point for the sale of firearms. Any individual can sell a firearm and no one would be aware of said transaction. There would be no audit by a federal agency, no revocation of business license or loss of business. There wouldn't be any federal prison time. There wouldn't even be a red flag alerting the ATF that a gun was sold without a background check.

    That's the difference. There is almost no incentive to do a background check as a private citizen. Requiring them is an exercise in futility.

    Losing his license/business? I thought we didn't enforce background check laws.
    We don't enforce them when it comes to people who fail a background check. You do know it's a federal offense for a felon or fugitive to even submit to a background check, right? A federal offense which carries a sentence of 10 years in prison and/or a fine. You can bet the ATF is going to prosecute a licensed dealer who knowingly sells firearms to people who can't pass a background check.

    But what happens to most felons and fugitives who fail them? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. So the point is we have laws on the books that go largely unenforced, negating the purpose of having them on the books in the first place. If we pass a law that says all private sales must be subjected to a background check, how do we even begin to enforce it?

    The very nature of a private sale keeps it from being public knowledge, and if the police don't have a record of a transaction to work from (because it's a private sale, not a sale through an FFL), how are they going to prosecute individuals who don't submit background checks for private sales?

    The entire situation is a legal nightmare. Literally speaking, you'd be an idiot to try and pass such a law.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jevlin
    Why? Because fuck you, that's why.

    Every time you have a question that begins with "Why?" that is about what other people prefer to do with their own goddamn time, come back here, and reread the first row of this post. That will ALWAYS be the answer to your question. Have a nice day.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •