What are you going to do this week to support expanded background checks?

[BainsBane]

Enough hand-wringing. Are you going to call your elected representatives at the state and federal level and tell them you want to see a bill passed that expands background checks to private sales, internet sales, and gun shows? Time to step up. Enough claiming you support background checks. Do something. Surely we can all agree on this?

So this is my challenge: Contact your representatives and when you're done, check in on this thread and tell us who you contacted. If you don't feel comfortable disclosing their names, simply tell us the position of those you contacted. Outline any version of a background check bill you support, but understand that no legislation passed will ever be perfect. Holding out for a perfect bill is an excuse to oppose background check legislation. Whether you consider yourself a strong-defender of the Second Amendment or a proponent of gun control, it's time for us to come together on what we can agree on: Expanded background checks now!

[HappyMe]

1. If I still have them,

I'll dust off and update the emails I sent to Congress and my Senator after Sandy Hook.

[BainsBane]

4. Awesome!

[JustAnotherGen]

2. Harassing

Leonard Lance!

[BainsBane]

3. Way to go!

[NYC_SKP]

5. Bookmarking for later check in.

Piece of cake to write my US senators and I can just call my US Representative's office directly. I have a list of wishes, including closing the loopholes, mandatory training, loss of rights for violent offenses, etc.

In California we have some pending legislation, some good and some bad. So while I write in support of some I'll write to ask the governor NOT to sign the pending law SB 374 that will reclassify and ALL semi-auto rifles with a detachable magazine "assault weapons", and that's crazy.

So, lots to do this week!

SB 374 (Steinberg) Firearms: assault weapons – Would classify any semiautomatic centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept 10 rounds of ammunition or less as an assault weapon (i.e. – any semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine; or any semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a tubular or box magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds). Would require that all such firearms be registered with the state and make their future sale illegal.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/16/california-update-anti-gun-anti-hunting-bills-reach-governor-brown/#ixzz2fHvqxUOq

[BainsBane]

6. Fantastic, thanks!

[mwrguy]

7. I will call my rep

but my senators are douchebags who are owned by the NRA

[BainsBane]

8. Call them anyway. They need to feel constituent pressure

it's important.

[mwrguy]

9. I will

It just won't do any good.

[BainsBane]

10. I posted this in the gungeon

Someone called me a troll. I alerted on it and a juror said the OP was flamebait. Calling for background checks is flame bait.

[Jefferson23]

13. lol, that is pathetic. I did not know the group had safe haven protection and even if it

does, background checks are too invasive..is that what they're claiming?

Anyway, regarding your OP. My state, CT:

Saying he hopes it sets an example for the nation, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy on Thursday signed what advocacy groups call the strongest and most comprehensive gun legislation in the nation.

The new law bans some weapons as well as the sale or purchase of high-capacity magazines like those used in the Newtown shooting in December that left 20 children and six adults dead.

It also requires background checks for all gun purchases.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/04/us/connecticut-gun-law-overhaul/index.html

[BainsBane]

14. Yeah, CT!!!!!!!!

[pipoman]

11. Just so we're all clear...

there isn't 3 or 5 or 9 kinds of gun sales which do not require a background check, there is 1 and only 1. Intrastate sales between two private individuals when the seller is not in the business of selling firearms. That is the only one.

[BainsBane]

12. False

There are no requirements for background checks for private dealers. That creates a huge loophole for gun shows and online sales.
for example.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12624133

[pipoman]

15. LOL

"private dealers", eh? You mean "Intrastate sales between two private individuals when the seller is not in the business of selling firearms"? There is no such thing as a gun dealer who isn't required to do bg checks on every gun they sell. Your link only solidifies that exact definition. What are "online sales"? The only thinhg which could even be remotely defined as "online sales" which doesn't necessarily require a check is a local classified ad, and then the seller can only sell to another resident of the same state.

[BainsBane]

17. Did you read the article?

Why must you people deny reality? I could go to a gun show right now and buy a gun without ID. In my state, in my town, crossing no state lines. Read the fucking study. I fail to see why you cling to being misinformed. How does that help you?

[X_Digger]

19. From another person, who is not in the business of selling firearms.

Unless you think that selling your car to your neighbor makes you a 'car dealer' or selling your sofa on craigslist makes you a 'furniture dealer', then the point stands.

[BainsBane]

22. If all gun sales are already subject to background checks

Why does the NRA spend so much money on defeating legislation devoted to expand them. Wouldn't those bills be moot, redundant, and therefore inconsequential? Why would the President, VP, and NRA A rated Joe Manchin promote bills designed to expand background checks?

[X_Digger]

28. Did you respond to the right person? Your reply does not match my post..

Gun sales between individuals in the same state are not always required to be accompanied by a background check (depends on state.)

However, any time a dealer (someone 'engaged in the business') sells a firearm to a member of the public, a 4473 is recorded, and a background check (or alternate proof of background check in some states) is performed.

A dealer ('engaged in the business') performs background checks regardless of venue- retail store, gun show, kitchen table, etc). There is no rule that says a dealer doesn't have to perform a background check at gun shows.

Pipoman is correct. There is only one kind of transaction that is not always required to be accompanied by a background check- in some states, between private residents of the same state.

[BainsBane]

29. Answer the question

[X_Digger]

32. Answer what question, the one that includes incorrect assertion?

I just told you that the only time a background check is not performed is in some states, between private individuals not engaged in the business.

How can I answer a question that isn't a correct statement about the current laws, or the position of anyone that I know?!?

That'd be like asking, "The sky tastes chartreuse. What flavor is wind?"

[BainsBane]

34. If private gun sales are so rare and the vast majority of sales already subject to background checks

Why does the NRA devote so much money to defeating bills, like Tooney-Manchin, that would expand background checks?

[X_Digger]

38. You'd have to ask the NRA. I was generally okay with it once it was amended to preclude..

a registry of who owns what, and another amendment that provided for transfers among family members.

[BainsBane]

49. So will you call now?

[X_Digger]

51. When I see the bill, I will decide. If it's just that, and not DiFi's AWB 3.0, I'll support it.

[BainsBane]

52. You are missing the point

We need to demand a bill. We need to light a fire under them. Tell them what you want in the bill.

[X_Digger]

56. What I'd really like is outlined in post #45. n/t

[BainsBane]

59. So call and tell them that

Email it to them. Telling us here does no good.

[X_Digger]

64. Wendy Davis already knows how I feel. (And psst.. she agrees with me.)

My federal legislators? Not going to budge.

[Lee-Lee]

50. The prohibition on a registry was bogus

It only prohibited a "central" registry.

It still created one, just a distributed one. If the government has access to records of all guns you own, does it matter if they have it all in one server or have it spread out in many files that they still have unfettered access to?

[X_Digger]

53. Hence my 'generally'. It was still a niggling doubt in my mind.

They could have assuaged that by placing the same retention / destruction policy on them that already exist for current BG checks.

[BainsBane]

55. It created no registry

That's complete bullshit. Not that any law abiding person should fear a registry, but the gun lobby and it's lackeys are expert at whipping up hysteria. For that reason, there was no registry.

[Lee-Lee]

61. Yes it did

It required every sale to go through dealers who would record in their records the make, model and serial number of every gun they did checks for and who it went to.

Those records are available to law enforcement by request with no warrant.

That clearly is a registry, just a distributed one.

[Sheepshank]

225. FBI also agrees with the Gun show Loophole

I get to license expo events as part of my jobs duties......private persons renting a booth and selling off their excess guns are not required to do any background checks. Many, many booths in the gun shows are run by people claiming to be individuals, when in fact they are not. Even when they are, sting after sting shows that back round checks and selling to out of state person goes on all the time.

[pipoman]

21. I know the law

and if someone at a gun show or anywhere else sells a gun to someone who lives in another state without sending the gun to the buyers state of domicile, that seller has committed a felony. If someone sells a gun online and mails it to anyone other than a FFL dealer it must have a background check or the seller committed a felony. The reality is there is 1 and only 1 type of firearm sale which is not required by federal law to have a NICS check or equivalent, and that is..." Intrastate sales between two private individuals when the seller is not in the business of selling firearms.". Any and all other types of firearms sales require a bg check. Do I need to post actual regulations?

[BainsBane]

23. Laws are meaningless if not enforced

If all gun sales were already subject to background checks, why does the NRA devote so much money into defeating legislation designed to expand them?

[pipoman]

25. Because for the federal government to regulate

" Intrastate sales between two private individuals when the seller is not in the business of selling firearms.", it would be a violation of the "commerce clause". The feds have no authority to regulate private sales of legal personal property it there is no interstate aspect to the sale...as it should be..

[BainsBane]

27. So you want to make sure criminals have unfettered access to weapons

and all this talk about gunner supporting background checks is one huge colossal lie. You are with the 8% of the country, the far right, who opposes expanded background checks.

You haven't answered the question. If all guns are already subject to background checks, why does the NRA spend so much money defeating legislation?

[pipoman]

36. FFS..it violates the constitution..

do you wish to open the door to the feds regulating selling your car to your neighbor, or can your state do just fine. I'm not interested in giving the feds the power to diminish state soverignty.

If you really wish to make positive headway you would encourage lawmakers (frankly, the President could do this through executive order)the Licensing requirements for FFL dealers to require them to conduct background checks on private sales for a low statutory fee. Then do what the NRA does, go state to state campaigning for a requirement. But alas, you are quite content demanding the same constitutionally impossible regulations as if there are no other alternatives..what is it they say about 'doing the same thing over and over expecting different results'?

[Jenoch]

238. All gun sales are not subject to background checks.

I am surprised you are not aware of this.

In some states, such as Minnesota, if a resident sells a gun to another resident of Minnesota, no background check is required. That's the 'loophole' although I do not see how it can be a 'loophole' if the law was intentionally written the way it was.

[rdharma]

54. Of course, I live in your state......

Where would you like to meet for the transfer?

It's so easy to get around that requirement.

[pipoman]

63. It doesn't change the fact that the seller commits a felony if they sell to an alien of their state.

If you do as you say, you haven't "get around that requirement", you have violated a federal law and are subject to arrest and prosecution.

[rdharma]

66. There is no requirement that a seller is required to obtain proof of the buyer's state of residence

Gee! He told me he was from here!

[Lee-Lee]

71. Don't ask, sell out of state=felony

So yeah, there pretty much is implicit in the law. "I didn't ask" isn't a viable defense.

[rdharma]

76. I did ask...... and he said he was from here!

How was I to know?

[Lee-Lee]

79. Still a felony

[rdharma]

81. Prove it! I acted in good faith!

[pipoman]

90. But did you perform due diligence?..what a reasonable person would do..

Did you ask for ID?

[rdharma]

95. There is no "due dilignce requirement" in the law. No requirement to obtain ID of the buyer.

Can you prove "mens rea" ..... a required element of the crime? Bet you can't!

[pipoman]

97. You are talking about knowingly breaking the law..

tell it to a jury and they will decide if you should have known or not..

[rdharma]

105. Riiiight, Perry Mason!

All elements of the crime must be proved.

[pipoman]

114. Let your ficticious buyer kill someone with your ficticious gun and see

what happens..seen it..also seen criminals laughing about their crime 1 minute before they are arrested..

[rdharma]

124. It was stolen.......

...... most states do not have any sort of requirement to report stolen firearms.

[pipoman]

138. So now you're a liar too...lol

btw, I don't oppose a theft reporting requirement..

[rdharma]

151. No. I'm not lying...... I'm just illustrating how easy it is to skirt the existing laws.

You know....... the "existing" ones that the NRA demands be enforced...... without the legal tools to do it. Like UBCs!

[pipoman]

185. "skirt the existing laws" = Criminal Offense..

maybe you won't be caught, maybe you wouldn't be caught robbing a bank..

[Lee-Lee]

116. It is illegal to provide alcohol to a minor

And "I thought she was 21" won't get you out of it if you get caught.

"I thought she was 18" isn't a viable defense to statutory rape either.

Same principle.

[rdharma]

161. I thought we were talking about guns.......

.... which apparently are easier for a minor to get than alcohol.

And no..... it's not the same principal. Did you sleep through the "Elements of Crime" class?

[sweetapogee]

108. you have to make it

your business to know. In real life, this isn't a game.

[rdharma]

190. I think you should read my posts.....

... I wasn't recommending breaking the law....... I was just giving examples on how easy it is to skirt the weak laws currently in place.

[GalaxyHunter]

219. You can really buy a gun without an ID?

You don't need a permit or anything?

I find that hard to believe...

[petronius]

16. No, Pipoman is correct: the only sales* that don't require a background check

are those where a private party is selling, to a buyer within the same state, in a state that doesn't require BGCs for private sales.

Sales across state lines require a licensed dealer (and BGC) in the buyer's state. All licensed dealers must do BGCs wherever they sell (store front, gun show, parking lot, wherever).

There's no such thing as a "private dealer" - there are people who are dealers (as defined by law) and there are people who are not.

That article you linked to is inaccurate and misleading in several ways - you may want to dig up the thread on it in GC & RKBA...

(* of modern handguns)

[BainsBane]

18. There are private people who sell guns at gun shows

and a hell of a lot of them. I'm talking about a federal law. Sure, some states have requirements for extensive background checks on most if not all sales, but most do not.

[petronius]

20. Private parties can sell to other private parties - at a gun show or

anywhere else - if the state allows it. Those are not "dealers", and federal law does not require private parties to do background checks (although I think it should).

Licensed firearms dealers - people "engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail" are required to do background checks wherever they are.

People who make occasional sales of their own property are not dealers, and are not federally required to conduct background checks. They are private parties.

You should not rely on that article you linked to; it is inaccurate and/or misleading in several respects.

The actual federal law is here:

18 USC 922

27 CFR 478

[Robb]

39. Oh for crying out loud. What's the test for "non dealer" status?

Oh, that's right, there isn't one. Anyone can sell as many firearms as they want to as long as they call it a hobby, not a business, and fly low enough.

[petronius]

65. Yes, people do break the law. And the exact interpretation

of "engaged in the business" is subjective, and probably somewhat difficult for ATF to make a case in marginal circumstances. If it was up to me, every sale would require a BGC, but the current law is as I've described it...

[Robb]

67. Not in this case. What law are they breaking if they say they are selling as a hobby?

None. That's rather the point.

[Lee-Lee]

74. ATF watches this pretty close

I know one agent told me they enter the phone # for every classified add for guns in a database and investigate anyone who shows up more than X times in a period.

Same for seeing the same faces with tables at gun shows every month.

[Robb]

80. Yeah, like dozens of arrests every single year.

It's a regular crackdown out there.

[Lee-Lee]

84. The problem there is the mentality of the BATF and US Attorneys

I have seen it first hand.

They are glory hounds. They only want cases that draw big attention, make great press releases, and build careers.

I handed them more than one easy case about a straw purchase or illegal possession, they never even followed up. Unless it tied into something they could build a big case on, they didn't care.

They see themselves as super secret agents only worthy of major cases, and need to act more like street cops going after the small ones that comprise the bulk of offenders.

[Robb]

91. Didn't help that the GOP dragged ATF leadership in front of a House Judiciary committee in 2006

...and accused them of harassing gun show patrons while investigating straw purchases. They got their asses chewed, it's amazing they investigated anything after that.

ATF were exonerated. But let's not forget it was the NRA that led the witch hunt after that agency -- and over a paltry 200-odd gun show investigations over three years nationwide, e.g. 3% of the number of gun shows taking place.

[petronius]

110. A thorough and consistent enforcement of the laws we already have

would be, I think, a positive step...

[Duckhunter935]

118. thank you

A great measure

[petronius]

75. People can "say" whatever they want - that doesn't mean ATF, juries,

and judges are obligated to believe them. And reciting some mantra about "selling as a hobby" doesn't magically mean they aren't dealing. (Cf. the principle of "I was standing my ground.&quot If prosecutors can make a case (or even if they can't make the case but it's still true) that a person is

... a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

and they are doing so without a license, then they are breaking the law, regardless of what they say they're doing. (18 USC 921.a.21.C)

But as I've said, I'd rather clear up the confusion and just require a BGC for all sales (as my state does)...

[pipoman]

77. There isn't one? LOL, you'se guyz..

Dealer. Any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail; any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms; or any person who is a pawnbroker. The term shall include any person who engages in such business or occupation on a part-time basis.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=c640525a75a8871a748344b8de662871&ty=HTML&h=L&n=27y3.0.1.2.3&r=PART#27:3.0.1.2.3.2.1.1

Oh, and this:

Engaged in the business —(a) Manufacturer of firearms. A person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms manufactured;

(b) Manufacturer of ammunition. A person who devotes time, attention, and labor to manufacturing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition manufactured;

(c) Dealer in firearms other than a gunsmith or a pawnbroker. A person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such a term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

(d) Gunsmith. A person who devotes time, attention, and labor to engaging in such activity as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit, but such a term shall not include a person who makes occasional repairs of firearms or who occasionally fits special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms;

(e) Importer of firearms. A person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the firearms imported; and,

(f) Importer of ammunition. A person who devotes time, attention, and labor to importing ammunition as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the sale or distribution of the ammunition imported.

Executed under penalties of perjury. Signed with the prescribed declaration under the penalties of perjury as provided on or with respect to the return form, or other document or, where no form of declaration is prescribed, with the declaration:

“I declare under the penalties of perjury that this—(insert type of document, such as, statement, application, request, certificate), including the documents submitted in support thereof, has been examined by me and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is true, correct, and complete.”

[Robb]

83. In most states, if you sell more than 4 cars every year, you need a license.

What's the limit on guns are you allowed to sell before you are a dealer?

[pipoman]

86. The key word there is "states".

oh, and my state is 8 cars..

[Robb]

92. With FTC oversight. Do you know what the "F" stands for?

[pipoman]

94. The FTC didn't oversee the sale of my 91 toyota last month..

of coarse I haven't a clue what your post means or what you think it means, just answering with similar ambiguity...ambiguity unlike the lack of ambiguity in the above posted code which you have yet to acknowledge as proving your post number 39 false.

[BainsBane]

162. The answer is federal

But Vanna can spin the wheel a few more times for you.

[pipoman]

184. The question was/is irrelevant..

[BainsBane]

160. States rights

Where have I heard that before?

[pipoman]

183. The 10th Amendment? Colorado and Washington recently?

[BainsBane]

193. Slavery

The fight against Civil Rights.

[BainsBane]

214. Then there is the voting rights act and Obamacare, more big government plots

Democrats see government as necessary and capable of achieving public good. That's what distinguishes us from Republicans and Libertarians. I had assumed I was speaking to a fellow Democrat and didn't have to defend a core principal of Democratic ideology.

Slavery, segregation, and voter disenfranchisement are bad. So is allowing people to die from lack of medical care, or from gun violence because the state isn't interested in keeping weapons out of the hands of felons. States Rights are an excuse to keep certain groups of people segregated, poor, and in misery. I assumed all Democrats agreed on that. So I guess I don't know who I am talking to. The key denominator in all of those is a war on people of color. Gun violence disproportionately targets African Americans. So there is very much a common thread.

[Lee-Lee]

26. If they do so for profit

That is already illegal.

[BainsBane]

31. So if no or very few guns are sold without background checks

Why does the NRA devote so much money to defeating legislation to expand background checks?

[Lee-Lee]

42. Most gun owners I know care less about the checks and more about how they are implemented

And more about the fact that the proposed method creates records of every gun a person owns, and while not in a central database, they exist and are open to warrantless, without cause search by LE at any time.

I am in favor of UBC. I am not in favor of any UBC system that records the serial number of every gun I own and leaves that open for warrantless review at any time. I am not in favor of a UBC system that creates too many extra steps.

As an example if the proposed law was passed now I would still be exempt from the checks, as I have a NC CCW. But instead of a common sense implementation- where I simply show that CCW to the private party I am buying from, the law would require us both to go to a gun dealer during business hours, so likely missing some work, fill out the form with all the info an ID thief needs, show that CCW to the dealer, pay him whatever his transfer fee is ($20-40 in these parts), let him log the gun in as if he actually had it in inventory, then log it out to me, and retain all that info.

All that extra work, but in fact nothing more was accomplished that would not be had I just shown that CCW to the seller. Well, nothing productive- my privacy was compromised and my info now is subject to warrantless review, and I had to pay a fee that one could argue is akin to a poll tax for exercise of a right that went into that dealers wallet, and I wasted time.

[Decaffeinated]

129. Well said...

[BainsBane]

163. It only need include felons and those adjudicated a danger to themselves and others

I believe Tooney Manchin required that records be destroyed 48 hours after the check.

[Lee-Lee]

164. Records at the NICS center, yes

Records at the dealer who did the check were retained 20 years under that bill, as they are now for purchases at dealers.

[BainsBane]

165. Why? To prove they did the check?

Gun dealers aren't even required to keep the same inventories convenience stores do.

[Lee-Lee]

167. You really should research, and quit repeating blatant lies.

Yes, all guns sold or transferred via an FFL are required to have the records maintained at that dealer for 20 years, always open to law enforcement inspection.

And every dealer is required to keep a log of every gun that comes in, where it came from, and when sold annotate when and to whom it was sold, AKA the "bound book". ATF can and does audit them, some more often than others.

The old "not required to keep inventory" line is sheer bullshit put out by the ignorant hoping that their audience is just as ignorant. Read the regulations, the requirement to maintain the inventory, or "bound book", is clear.

(E5) How much time does a dealer
have to record acquisitions and
dispositions of firearms in his or
her "bound book?"
Generally, licensees have to enter
the acquisition or purchase of a firearm by the close of the next business
day after the acquisition or purchase
and shall record sales or other dispositions within 7 days.
However, if commercial records
containing the required information
are available for inspection and are
separate from other commercial
documents, dealers have 7 days from
the time of receipt to record the receipt in the "bound book."
If a disposition is made before the
acquisition has been entered in the
"bound book," the acquisition entry
must be made at the same time as
the disposition entry

If you want to read it all:

http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

The statement no inventory is required is a bald faced lie. The bound records required by the BATFE are a very strict inventory record of every gun that comes in and is sold.

[BainsBane]

168. I asked a question

and you insulted me. I no longer care what you say.

[Lee-Lee]

169. You also told a blatant lie

And I provided the evidence of such, a link to the government document proving the lie and answering your question.

[BainsBane]

171. A lie means a willful misrepresnetation

And unless you're a mind reader, you have no basis to make that claim.
I had you pegged right from day one.

[Lee-Lee]

173. Ahh, so its OK if you throw around false statements if you didn't mean to...

But you are insulted that I called you "ignorant"-

ig·no·rant
ˈignərənt/Submit
adjective
1.
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

So when I accuse you of telling a lie, you plead...ignorance, that you didn't know what you were saying is untrue.

OK, so either you were intentionally telling a lie, or were, until I educated you, ignorant on the subject. You are pleading ignorance, yet insulted that I called you such.

[BainsBane]

177. You have educated me on what it means to debate in bad faith

rather than try to establish communication when someone asks you an honest question. I am sorry whatever is going on in you life compels you to dump on perfect strangers. You must be very unhappy.

[Lee-Lee]

170. Of course you no longer care what I say- I provided facts to show you lied

Better to stay in your little world of ignorance than listen to someone who shows you your errors.

[BainsBane]

172. We were having an productive conversation until you started being insulting

You just couldn't resist revealing yourself. A normal human being says "you're mistaken" or "uninformed." To call someone a liar is vindictive and violation of community standards. It also shows you have no interest in communication.

[Lee-Lee]

174. You told a lie. I proved it

I guess to you calling someone who tells lies a liar is a greater sin than actually telling the lie...

[BainsBane]

182. Here's a tip

If you're actually interested in informing someone and having a discussion, don't begin by insulting them. When you do so, you close off all communication. They don't care what you say after that and won't even read it. Now I haven't spent my life practicing to shoot or enforcing the law. if I saw you make a misstatement about something I know a great deal about, like history, it would never occur to me to call you a liar. I would simply point out where you were in error. I would say, "actually, that's not the case. Look at this evidence." Your reaction makes clear that communication is the last thing you're interested in.

[oldhippie]

209. You might try following ...

... your own advice.

[oldhippie]

210. I think you are seeing a perfect example of ...

.. willful ignorance.

[petronius]

186. If you say pharmacy rather than convenience store, it would be arguable

Licensed firearms dealers are required to keep a bound record of every gun they bring in, and every gun that goes out. This data is kept indefinitely, and handed over to ATF when the dealer goes out of business.

Sales Records: FFLs are required to maintain records of the acquisition and sale of firearms indefinitely. The dealer must record, “in bound form,” the purchase or other acquisition of a firearm not later than the close of the next business day following the purchase or acquisition. The dealer must similarly record the sale or other disposition of a firearm not later than seven days following the date of such transaction and retain Form 4473, the Firearms Transaction Record. When a firearms business is discontinued, these records are delivered to the successor or, if none exists, to the Attorney General

http://smartgunlaws.org/retention-of-sales-background-check-records-policy-summary/

ATF does conduct inspections to ensure compliance with this requirement, and can revoke licenses if necessary. However, ATF can only inspect each dealer once a year, and doesn't have the ability to do them all - most dealers will be inspected maybe every 5 years. And ATF does find that non-trivial numbers of firearms drop out of inventory. (This, IMO, is another area where more funding and more thorough enforcement of existing law would be a good thing.)

http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-ffl-compliance.html

The inventory issue I think you're referring to is that, while FFLs are required to keep those bound records and are subject to inspection, ATF can not require FFLs to conduct an annual physical inventory to detect missing firearms. This is one of the Tiahrt Amendments (MAIG links to the 2010 text, the inventory prohibition is at the bottom of the big yellow chunk). So without an actual inspection, it's made more difficult to detect firearms missing from dealer inventory.

FWIW, I don't understand the reason to not require dealers to do an annual inventory and note any absences - it sort of seems that most normal businesses would be doing that anyway...

[BainsBane]

187. I read that they don't have to keep inventory beyond something like 60 days

and that the ATF is prohibited from asking them to produce sales from more than a certain length of time ago.

Your point regarding that last part about inventory is exactly what my reaction was when I read about the situation. It is clear that the NRA has championed such restrictions on the ATF in order to protect illegal gun sales. There is no other explanation. Illegal guns sales generate a great deal of profit, and the NRA represents gun manufacturers. Why so many gun activists have bought into that stuff, however, escapes me. The other poster went completely berserk, evidently because she thought I insulted a sacred gun dealer.

[petronius]

191. I don't think that's the case actually - as dirty as the GOP and NRA may be

there isn't any real reason for them to sit around and come up with ways to protect criminal gun dealers. There isn't really a benefit there to the NRA, and when the GOP sets out to facilitate crime they do it at the Wall Street megabucks level. Illegal sales are perhaps lucrative to a small number of corrupt dealers, but they're not a financial driver in the industry overall.

Rather, I think the objections to inventory and record keeping in general stem firstly from a dislike of anything that might possibly help lead to registration. I think that's why the bound books and other forms that dealers are required to keep (and to turn over to ATF after retirement) are deliberately kept in so archaic a form - when ATF wants to trace a gun they literally have to page through the boxes and books. And that's why the NICS data has to be purged at the federal end within 24 hours (IIRC) of the check.

Secondly, I suspect it has to do with lawsuit protection. The industry would not be keen on any sort of systematic data collection that might support suits against dealers and manufacturers of firearms that ended up in criminal hands.

So protecting illegal sales isn't the point, but if these restrictions make it harder for ATF to identify corrupt dealers, I don't think the NRA or the GOP much cares.

[BainsBane]

192. I see it as straight forward: profit

The NRA represents gun manufacturers. They make billions selling guns, and a not insignificant number go to felons and illegal arms traffickers (to Mexico, for example). They want to keep making as much money as possible, so everything the NRA does is to ensure unfettered profits. It's like the lobby for any big industry, whether Big Pharma or Big Agra. They are all the same. The difference is the gun lobby has a bunch of followers who have bought into their propaganda.

The registration hysteria is all a smokescreen to frighten gun owners into supporting the NRA's agenda that is ultimately about profits for the gun industry.

As for the GOP, they want political power. The NRA funnels them a lot of money. Again, it's like anything else. Only gun profiteering has morphed into a religious-like quality for Second Amendment supporters who see any and everything about guns as a restriction on their constitutional rights. Essentially they've been frightened into supporting a corporate agenda.

It's all about illegal sales. That is the ONLY logical explanation. Even LaPierre admitted it himself when testifying before congress in opposition to background checks: criminals won't submit to background checks. That is exactly what they fear. They don't want to lose the money from sales to criminals who would find it more difficult to obtain weapons.

[Lee-Lee]

198. What percentage of new gun sales do you think are done illegally?

Because here is where your logic fails.

Gun makers only profit from new gun sales. Much like cars, GM won't make a dime if my dad sells his 83 Chevy truck.

ALL new gun sales must go through a dealer with a background check. 100%, the first sale to a private citizen will have a background check.

So only used guns, already purchased by a person who passed a background check, right now can fall under and expanded background checks that are proposed.

Gun makers don't profit from that.

In fact, right now nobody in the gun industry does. But if you pass UBC as written then the gun dealers get to charge a transfer fee for every gun sold. Right now those feed vary region to region and dealer by dealer, but are anywhere from $15-75 per gun.

So sorry, but your conspiracy theory doesn't work. Gun makers new guns, where thy profit, are all already 100% sold with a check or to people exempt like me, who still would be. Under UBC gun dealers would actually make profits on every formerly private sale they did not before from the fees for conducting the checks.

[Lee-Lee]

200. The reason dealers use pen and paper

Is that 20 years is a long time.

How many computer programs that would have been used to keep records like that in 1993 are still viable today? Even the storage media? The dealers are now allowed to use ATF approved programs, but nobody can promise those software providers will provide support and updates to keep them working for 20 years.

If your bound book is wrong or messed up at best you lose your business, at worst go to jail. Pen and paper doesn't crash, isn't incomparable with new upgrades or operating systems, it doesn't corrupt daa randomly, it just sits there safely.

[Lee-Lee]

199. Once again, you are posting bad information

Wherever you read that info, they were flat out wrong.

I posted the PDF of the rule book on the ATF website for you. If you want to go posting what is required of gun dealers, get your info from a reliable source.

Gun dealers are required to keep sales records on guns for 20 years. If they cease operations before that they must send those records to the ATF.

[LittleBlue]

46. Thanks for the info

I don't really follow this, but got the impression that background checks are irregular and have plenty of loopholes. Didn't realize all but one form of transaction requires bg checks.

Sounds like expanded bg checks is feel-good legislation that will accomplish little. Or do you think it would be effective?

[pipoman]

57. It absolutely may reduce access to criminals if

states required bg checks. I support my state adopting bg checks on private sales. But not until the 'background check brick wall' is removed. If my state adopts bg checks on private sales, they must build a whole system to conduct the checks, while the federal government already funds and maintains the NICS system. There is no statutory access to NICS for private sales. This would only require a regulatory change to Federal Firearms Licensee regs..it is maddeningly simple.

[msongs]

24. our government is checking your background this very second. pls do not call it spying tho nt

[BainsBane]

30. Is that your excuse for making sure criminals have unfettered access to guns?

[Lee-Lee]

33. While it won't go anywhere with my rethug rep

I am going to write and propose a sensible solution.

Instead of making it a burdensome system that requires people, even those exempt from the checks, take the time to go to a dealer during business hours, have him do all the paperwork and hold it for 20 years, have to pay that dealer a fee I will say if you want a UBC system that people will use and comply with modernize the system and make it as simple as a smart phone app or a website.

I can do a background check via any of dozens of for profit companies right now on my phone that is much more detailed about a person than the NICS check. There is zero reason why we should not be able to have a system where private parties doing sales can run the checks themselves, with appropriate safeguards for privacy. The technology exists, and since it would not require a bunch more operators answering phones if we just expand the 1980's tech system we have now cheaper in the long run.

Simple solutions will get more compliance. Make it easy to do the checks, people are more likely to not oppose the law and comply once it is passed.

[BainsBane]

35. I'm sure that must be possible

You can check immigration status online. Why not for background checks.

[Lee-Lee]

43. Exactly

Most gun owners oppose the current UBC proposals not because they don't like checks, but because the proposed laws are badly written.

[X_Digger]

45. We've discussed something similar many times..

Like a 1-800# and a code on the back of a driver's license- call the number, enter the code, and get a 'yes' or 'no'. Have it optional to spit out a confirmation number that the seller can record if they so wish, so that if it ever comes up, they can point to the number and prove that they ran the check.

Funny thing is, advocates of more ardent gun control don't usually endorse it- they really really want that registry, apparently.

eta: And yeah, you could make it an app, much like the e-check (e-somthing) that NICS already has.

eta2: And the same destruction of records after passage should apply to this check as exists for current checks.

[Lee-Lee]

58. Bingo

Do this, and you can get it passed.

Demand one that is a backdoor way of registering guns and it won't pass, and requiring me to go through a dealer who records them all when I can already prove I am exempt for the check serves no purpose but to collect that data is clearly just an attempt to gather that data.

[pintobean]

37. These threads are going swimmingly.

[hrmjustin]

40. I called my senators to let them know I support background checks and gun control.

My congressman is a lost cause.

[aikoaiko]

41. I won't recall my legislators who vote for it.

[BainsBane]

48. That's a start

Will you contact them to let them know you support it, at the federal level if you already have expanded checks at the state level?

[aikoaiko]

68. Yes, but I'll probably ask for something too like eliminating import bans.

[BainsBane]

69. because there just aren't enough guns already

and definitely not enough M16s.

[aikoaiko]

72. the only ones that would be available to civilians are semi-auto firearms.

Anything full auto would still be verbotten due to other rules.

[Duckhunter935]

101. only M16s prior to 1986

and very expensive (10K) with tax-stamp and local and federal background checks

[Robb]

44. I'm a bit of a known quantity, but I'll send a few more notes and report. nt

[BainsBane]

47. Awesome, Robb!

[etherealtruth]

60. Challenge accepted

You are, of course, correct

[BainsBane]

62. Wonderful!

[HolyMoley]

70. What are YOU going to do about preventing any future or potential

"Assault Weapons Ban" and/or "hi-cap" magazine ban?

If anything, at least implore your reps to keep a muzzle on Dianne Feinstein if you expect any chance of UBC's passing in the Senate.

[BainsBane]

73. You want me to stump for the gun industry?

I'm supposed to carry the water for Murder Inc when they devote billions of dollars already? I'm not doing any such thing. If you want criminals to have unfettered access to guns, just admit it, but I'm not the patsy of any big industry. You have a hell of a lot of nerve. I have never in my life seen such a group of self entitled people in my life.

You know very well no such law will be passed. This is all a smokescreen for you to stand with the NRA and the rest of the domestic murder industry in opposing background checks. Just when I think someone can't get any lower, a new one comes alone. Absolutely no sense of decency. You expect us all to sell our souls to the corporate gun lobby. Well I have no intention of becoming a hollow, immoral creature, so no, I will not work to ensure your access to the weapons necessary to take out an entire elementary school. You've got corporate capitalism behind you on that one.

[HolyMoley]

78. And here I thought there were calls from the gun control side for 'compromise'.

Guess I was wrong.

[BainsBane]

82. I suggest the most modest reform

and you insist you won't do a thing unless I sell myself body and soul to corporate America? That's what you call compromise? You came here just to share that ultimatum?
"Give me high powered weapons and 100 round drums or I will make sure criminals get all the weapons they need to kill as many people as possible."

You don't want compromise. You want to shit all over gun control. Background checks are supported by 92% of the nation, yet there you are in the far right 8% opposing them.

[Lee-Lee]

88. So how do you feel about my proposal- background checks done online or via smartphone app

Let the seller do it instead of requiring everyone to go through a dealer, pay money, waste time, and have private info recorded.

It gets what you want, mandated background checks, in a way more people are likely to comply with as it is far easier to comply with.

[BainsBane]

89. I said I thought it was a good idea

I already told you that. You're going to have to pay taxes to fund it though. That doesn't usually go over well with certain political demographics.

[HolyMoley]

96. Where did I insist on anything?

Forget all about that selling yourself "body and soul" to "corporate America" rubbish.

Profits and profiteering isn't a part of the gun control debate that most Americans focus on or debate about, and you know it. All the "Murder Inc" enablers combined (and I'm not talking about defense contractors), wouldn't make the Fortune 500.

For the record, I could (and would), support UBC's, but why should I willingly support it without some sort of guarantees (or compromise), that 'well, that didn't work out as we had hoped', maybe we need to expand even more gun control laws?' legislation

[BainsBane]

117. No guarantees exist on anything

and you know full well no ban of assault weapons will take place. I ask you to support a background check bill of your own making. I ask you to tell your congressman what YOU want. So you insist I prostitute myself to the gun lobby to get you to support your own bill. Gun policy is ALL About corporate profits. The gun lobby devotes hundreds of millions, even billions, into buying congress and spreading lies to the American public. You know no assault weapons bill will pass. What you are doing here is working to disrupt activism. Your game is obvious. So to hell with it. I don't care what you support. As Robb said, gun owners already support background checks. Some of the fundie agitators don't. What you want means shyte to me.

[X_Digger]

85. To them, 'compromise' usually means, "I'll only ask for half of what I want right now." n/t

[BainsBane]

87. Are you fucking serious?

The gun side has everything you want. This is a simple measure to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. You expect people to haul your shit to support the most modest legislation designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Anything else I need to do? If I want to get rape kits tested to I need to offer sex in return? If I want Wall Street reform do I need to turn over my bank account to them? If I want to work to end the death penalty, do I need to offer my first born child in sacrifice?

You are unbelievable. I have never seen such absolute immorality in my entire life.

[X_Digger]

93. Give a little, get a little- that's compromise in politics.

If you're really not interested in compromise, then just say so.

I'll support a system like I proposed in post #45, but I will oppose things like a registry, or another 'assault weapons' ban.

[BainsBane]

98. This is compromise

The sense of self entitlement is incredible. You don't want compromise. You want everything. I have never seen anything like it in my entire life. How about this. . Go way. I don't want you or your comrade in WMD anywhere near me.


Enjoy your assault rifles and 100 round drums. They obviously mean more to you than anything else in life.

[X_Digger]

99. Compromise entails 'giving a little'-- what are you 'giving'?!?

[BainsBane]

102. Comrpomise the Wall Street way

I ask for 1%, and you say okay, we'll allow you to keep 1% as long as you devote your life to making sure no one ever asks for our 99% again. So what if you're starving. What about compromise.

I want nothing from you or anyone like you. I have learned an important lesson here. There is no compromise with gun nuts. They are beneath contempt. You convinced me. Background checks are not enough. Your gun rights need not be respected because you respect no one else. I am done trying to work with disruptors like you. This is exactly why we created the gun control activism group because gunners do everything possible, including spreading lies and deception, to disrupt activism. I'm done with you.

[HolyMoley]

111. So, IOW, you're part of the problem and not the solution.

Just as I thought.

[BainsBane]

125. Look, you want criminals to have access to guns, there is nothing I can do about that

Either you want a safer society or you don't. Either you care about your fellow citizens or you don't. You have made your choice. You place more importance on felons accessing guns that children being able to live. That's your choice. We have nothing else to say to each other. Peace.

[professor5000]

120. i might be new here but oh my

"Your gun rights need not be respected because you respect no one else. I am done trying to work with disruptors like you"

is this a board for progressives? serious question. until affected by a plurality, shouldn't all rights be respected?

i mean, where would say, the rights of women be if you replaced just few nouns in the above statement.my goodness this seems very angry and bitter.

[BainsBane]

122. the right for criminals to access guns?

So they can kill? Is that what you think needs to be respected? The right to have assault rifles and 100 round clips to shoot up schools with maximum efficiency? Did you see where he insisted he wouldn't support background checks unless I laid down with the gun lobby in support of assault rifles and 100 round drums? What about the rights of our children not to be killed by felons who get guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows? What about the rights of people to go to work without being massacred? Why does the right to have the capacity to inflict maximum casualties always trump the right to live?

[professor5000]

140. wellet me try and make sense of all this you asked by parsing it. not a gun owner btw.

The right to have assault rifles and 100 round clips to shoot up schools with maximum efficiency?

is this behavior being actively advocated or are you implying it?

Did you see where he insisted he wouldn't support background checks unless I laid down with the gun lobby in support of assault rifles and 100 round drums?

"laid down" with the gun lobby is an interesting choice of words where something like "agree" would have had a much more neutral connotation

What about the rights of our children not to be killed by felons who get guns from unlicensed dealers at gun shows?

as has been stated, and I recently researched, there are private sellers and not "unlicensed dealers" but you keep saying it. your language style is very strange. without a proper definition, how can there be a cogent discussion?

What about the rights of people to go to work without being massacred?

is that being advocated? i may be in the wrong place

Why does the right to have the capacity to inflict maximum casualties always trump the right to live?

is this being advocated as well? at 97 guns per 100 people per wikipedia and what, 30k total firearm deaths per year in a country with a population of 313 million, that statement seems very emotional and doesnt really make sense

you seem like you are very upset in this thread (i picked it because it seemed like it was getting alot of activity and replies) and it worries me. i don't think it's healthy for anyone to obsess at this level. have you everread the Tao?

[BainsBane]

142. That is the status quo

that is the current state of the affairs. Most of what you note has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread.

Look, do what you want. Either you want a safer society or you don't. Either you care about children's lives or you want to make sure criminals have access to guns. That is your choice.

[HolyMoley]

146. Okay, let's go there

You, myself and everyone else here knows that possession by criminals is a problem, and UBC's may or may not prevent that.

However, most of the horrific mass shootings involved people with mental health issues (cue up NRA talking points ), and there's no denying that those individuals should have been prohibited from owning firearms.

So, the question is; how do we prevent those individuals from obtaining firearms?

Unless you (or others here), are willing to accept involuntary (and voluntary), mental health records entered into the NICS system, of what use are UBC's in preventing these type of incidents?

Passing a half assed law is just as ineffective as passing no law.

[BainsBane]

149. All we need do is extend existing laws to private sales

as Tooney-Manchin did. Only those adjudicated a danger to themselves and others should be prevented access. That will not stop every killer and wouldn't have done anything to stop many of the recent mass shooters, but it will put a dent in the approx. 2Ok suicides by gun every year. Those are likely the people most likely deterred by background check legislation, and since guns have by far the highest lethality rate for suicide (90-95%), it will save lives.
UBC will make it more difficult for felons to access guns, which hurts no law abiding citizen. The only reason to oppose access to expanded background checks is if one wants felons and those adjudicated dangerous to have access to guns. The NRA wants that because they represent the gun manufacturers. Why people here oppose it, I can only speculate. Tooney-Manchin made exceptions for personal transfers of weapons between family members, etc. . .as any successful bill would. Law abiding gun owners have nothing to fear. That many carry guns for self protection should mean they would want criminals to have lesser access to guns because that would make them safer as well.

[stevenleser]

221. This is why gun nuts should not be allowed on DU and at the very least their posts should not be

allowed in GD.

[gopiscrap]

147. Welcome to DU

[stevenleser]

224. Welcome... and goodbye!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=306569&sub=trans

Another one who has disrupted... poorly

[X_Digger]

128. Mad that your definition of 'compromise' was exposed as a fraud?

Like I said, I'll support what I outlined upthread, but not with all kinds of crap tacked on.

I don't need a compromise to support what I outlined.

But don't go asking for compromise if you're not giving anything in return.

[BainsBane]

143. It's okay, I don't want anything from you, ever.

Request repealed. It wasn't for me anyway. It was for all of us, for society, for the nation's children, and public safety. You don't want to see that improved, your choice entirely.

Now why isn't this damn ignore function working.

[X_Digger]

145. I know, it stings when someone catches you out like that.

Just don't call it 'compromise' without putting something on the table next time.

Easy-peasy-bob's-yer-uncle.

[HolyMoley]

148. "Ignore function"?

Is that how you roll? (assuming you're even reading this).

[BainsBane]

150. Yes, that's how I roll

He made it clear his role here was to disrupt. I see no reason to indulge that.

I haven't added you because you're a new member and I'm on MIRT. Also your last post was somewhat promising.

[HolyMoley]

154. Also your last post was somewhat promising.

While we might not agree, at least it's some sort of "compromise'.

[BainsBane]

155. Did you even read the OP?

It suggested you call about a background check bill with the provisions YOU like.
You know, I'm not male, so I don't see everything as a battle. I naively thought this is something we all agree on, let's get together and act on it. Obviously I don't know game theory or other cynical machinations that drive folks such as yourselves. I just thought this was an opportunity for everyone to get together on one thing. But now I have learned all the people who have been saying they supported background checks all this time were not being truthful. Cest la vie. Live and learn. People lie.

[BainsBane]

166. Me thinks

the MIRT disclosure may have scared you off.

[HolyMoley]

176. How will I ever sleep tonight.

Dude, dudette.

If that's the way you think, you have no business being here, let alone being on MIRT.

[BainsBane]

178. I have no business being here?

on DU or on this earth? And the last post you said you were interested in exploring compromise. Evidently not.

[HolyMoley]

180. I mean

why are you, would you, shove this MIRT association of yours in my face unless you were trying to tell me something else? I'm neither intimidated nor impressed if that was your objective.

[BainsBane]

181. It was an observation

You mentioned ignore. I told you why I hadn't placed you on ignore. Then you disappeared. It occurred to me that might have been the reason you abandoned a conversation you were previously very active in. So I was wrong. Wouldn't be the first time. I don't think that means I don't have a right to post online or should relinquish all right to breath air.

[HolyMoley]

188. What made you think I "disappeared"?

I've been here all along (going to bed shortly), but that doesn't mean i can't renew the conversation some other time.


I don't think that means I don't have a right to post online or should relinquish all right to breath air.

I never posted or suggested that, but posting that you have some MIRT involvement is irrelevant and meaningless to me.

I question why you'd even let it be known, or even mention it in the first place if wasn't meant to intimidate.

the MIRT disclosure may have scared you off.

Puhleeze... you thinks wrong...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023692025#post166

Keep your bona fides to yourself or save them for someone who actually gives a fuck.

Chao!

[BainsBane]

189. You said I shouldn't be here

There are only a couple of ways to understand here. It was quite clear from the beginning of this conversation that you didn't give a fuck about public safety at all and your entire purpose here was to disrupt efforts to encourage background checks. Giving a fuck is the last thing I would expect from you.

[badtoworse]

141. The big problem is that gun owners believe that people with your attitude will never be satisfied

If you got universal background checks, it wouldn't be enough. You'd be back in a year or so with the same insults looking for something else. Offering something in return would show some good faith and might actually lead to a positive outcome.

[HolyMoley]

158. Even though I disagree with the OP

I have to give him/her some credit (pity), for being so determined and daunted in a no win situation.

Some people are unreachable or beyond hope. Why I even bother trying to talk to someone like that is beyond me. Just another way to pass and waste time on the Internets, I guess.

[oldhippie]

211. Some people might even call it .....

I have to give him/her some credit (pity), for being so determined and daunted in a no win situation.

...extremism.

[beevul]

215. Well, that poster did say....

"It's time to rewrite the 2nd Amendment- How would YOU rewrite it?"

response:

BainsBane (17,116 posts)

This:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2894402


That poster did try, unsuccessfully, to walk it back and claim it as a joke...


Kinda tracks with the extremism.

[BainsBane]

216. I wondered how you stumbled upon that so long after I posted it

Last edited Fri Sep 20, 2013, 12:50 AM - Edit history (1)

and then I realize your friends down under featured it.
Amazingly, adopting a position supported by 94% of the population is not extremist. Rather, opposing background checks puts you among only 6% of the nation. I was going to say with the Tea Party, but I see below that even a majority of them support expanded background checks. Opponents of background checks are to the right of the Tea Party. Mull that one over.

I don't know how all these months you've managed to avoid reading a single opinion poll, but you have succeeded in maintaining the fiction that opposing background checks is anything but highly reactionary. So here's are two polls for you to pretend don't exist or argue that it's biased because it was sponsored by a labor union and a left-wing blog. (edited to add a new poll from CNN)

1)POLL: Americans overwhelmingly approve of background checks for gun purchases
Do you favor or oppose background checks on potential gun buyers?
Favor 94%
Oppose 6%
Source: CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
Date conducted: 1/14/2011 - 1/16/2011
Sample: 1,014 adults
Margin of error: +/- 3% pts
More About: CNN , Gun Control , Issue , Opinion Research
According to This Poll

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/2451

http://www.dailykos.com/polling/2012/12/18/US/148/DON5k

I realize you likely won't click on it since the bright light of reality is too much to bear, so I'll reproduce the key numbers here. ( I know. Polls are the devil's work. You can't trust them. They are all part of a vast liberal plot to inform the public, along with that horrible research on gun violence. First come education, then knowledge, and then they come for your guns.)

2)

Would you support or oppose requiring a criminal background check before any purchase of a gun?
Support Oppose Not sure
All 92 6 2
Women 92 5 2
Men 91 6 2
Democrat 94 4 2
Republican 94 4 2
Independent/​Other 87 10 3
Liberal 93 6 1
Moderate 91 7 2
Conservative 92 5 3
White 92 5 2
African-American 90 8 2
Asian 100 0 0
Hispanic 89 8 3
Other 89 10 1
Tea Party 93 5 2
Non Tea Party 91 7 2
Not sure 93 4 3
Union household 91 7 2
Non-union household 92 5 2
18 to 29 91 8 2
30 to 45 89 9 2
46 to 65 93 5 2
Older than 65 93 3 4
Northeast 93 5 2
Midwest 91 7 2
South 93 5 2
West 90 6 3
Did not complete high school 89 9 1
High school graduate 93 4 2
Some college/​Associate degree 92 7 2
College graduate 91 6 3
Postgraduate study 93 5 2
Don't care to say 74 17 9
Gun owner 90 7 2
Not gun owner 94 4 2
Hunter 89 7 4
No hunters 93 5 1
Less than $30,000 92 6 2
$30,000 to $50,000 92 5 3
$50,000 to $75,000 89 7 4
$75,000 to $100,000 92 7 0
Over $100,000 94 3 2
Declined to Answer 90 8 2

http://www.dailykos.com/polling/2012/12/18/US/148/DON5k

[beevul]

218. "Stumble"?

"I wondered how you stumbled upon that so long after I posted it and then I realize your friends down under featured it."

Theres this...feature, its called..."bookmark"...

My "friends down under"? Oh, I get it, that was supposed to be a snide burning insult right?

Let me think a minute...Wasn't it you that said earlier that:

"Here's a tip. If you're actually interested in informing someone and having a discussion, don't begin by insulting them. When you do so, you close off all communication. They don't care what you say after that and won't even read it.."

Yep, sure was:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023692025#post182


I guess by your own standards, you're not interested in having a discussion, and in violation of this groups SOP.

How would an SOP violation by a pro-gun poster be handled in your protected group?


To put a finer point on it:

You sure know how to suggest standards for everyone else that you yourself waste no effort in attempting to adhere to, and you sure are quick to point it out when others don't adhere to them.

How efficient of you.

"Amazingly, adopting a position supported by 94% of the population is not extremist. Rather, opposing background checks puts you among only 6% of the nation. I was going to say with the Tea Party, but I see below that even a majority of them support expanded background checks. Opponents of background checks are to the right of the Tea Party. Mull that one over."

Amazingly, the position in question in this subthread was your position on rewriting the second amendment- which to be very specific was an assertion that you'd delete it. That position is contrary to not just 80ish percent of the American People, but contrary to the Democratic Party Platform as well.

Was that position espoused by you? Oh yes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2894402

Is that position an extremist position? Oh yes.


Beyond that, you're assigning a position to me which I do not hold. I have told you before, more than once, that I do not oppose background checks on private sales inside gunshows or outside them, providing that there are certain common sense protections and that the specifics of the legislation itself make sense.

Furthermore, WHY are you assigning a position to me which I do not hold? Oh, because I'm pro-gun. Nevermind...

Mull that one over.

[BainsBane]

217. So sorry, your friend has left the building

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=303511&sub=trans

You are right about one thing. There is no compromise with extremists. It is a lost cause to get the gun brigade to concern themselves with the thousands of lives lost to guns sold to felons without background checks. That their interests are one with a multi-billion dollar corporate lobby does make things difficult. But the fact is they are essentially irrelevant in the process. What matters is that the gun lobby has bought and paid for GOP politicians. That gun evangelists support that corruption of democracy in favor of stockpiles of guns and unfettered profits for the gun industry exposes who they truly are.

The funny thing is that the gun fundies stand with only 6% of the nation in opposing background checks, yet they call me extremist, when I share the position held by 94% of Americans. That shows how diligently they've worked to shelter themselves from reality. I suppose that's the nature of any closed group, whether Scientologists, old men who prey on young girls, professional ball players. They start to see their own skewed view of reality as the norm and lose sight of how far outside the mainstream they really are. So to bring a dose of reality, here is some polling data: http://www.dailykos.com/polling/2012/12/18/US/148/DON5k

Here's a new poll showing 94% approval for background checks.

POLL: Americans overwhelmingly approve of background checks for gun purchases
Do you favor or oppose background checks on potential gun buyers?
Favor 94%
Oppose 6%
Source: CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
Date conducted: 1/14/2011 - 1/16/2011
Sample: 1,014 adults
Margin of error: +/- 3% pts
More About: CNN , Gun Control , Issue , Opinion Research
According to This Poll

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/polls/2451

[oldhippie]

220. Feel better now?

Everybody has to spend their time somehow. I hope you are having fun.

[CTyankee]

222. if it is something you agree with anyway, why would our side HAVE to give something?

I thought once agreement on something is reached, it is an agreement. If you really believe that, why do you demand "something in return"?

[badtoworse]

226. In any negotiation, there are things you'll give on and things you won't

You don't give away the things you'll give on for nothing. If I did that, what bargaining leverage would I have?

[CTyankee]

227. But if you agree with background checks why is that something you "give away"?

Are you saying you didn't agree with it? I thought this was a starting point of what we can agree with. Alluva sudden it was a "bargaining point" all the time...you didn't really mean it?

The way I understand bargaining is if you start out with both parties agreeing on something, you move on from there and bargain on things you don't agree on. You don't get to go back and say, oh, we "gave away" something so now you give away something. That implies that you really didn't agree on background checks AT ALL but led us to believe you did. Which is it?

[badtoworse]

228. I'm posturing...

and I thought what I said was that I was prepared to give on them. Let's say I did that - I just gave up on background checks and gave up on magazine limits. Now I go to the gun control side and say I want "Shall Issue" CCW permits and reciprocity among the states to be the law of the land. What do I do when they tell me to stick it?

[CTyankee]

231. It's not what I understand this conversaton was supposed to be about.

I don't know if you were in on the beginning of it or not. What was the start of the conversation was one pro gun individual saying "Hey, I'm a big 2nd A supporter, but I support background checks, too!" So our side says "Great." Then we have a discussion about the fine print of a UBC bill and have some differences THERE.

[badtoworse]

232. What post was that?

[CTyankee]

233. not sure which exact one but there were a few IIRC.

In this thread there seemed to be a turning point when suddenly a quid pro quo emerged and I was surprised.

Sorry, I've been traveling and picking up on the conversation here and there so I can't remember the exact one. But actually, I recall more than one from RKBA who expressed support for background checks.

[badtoworse]

235. It doesn't matter, I doubt anything will happen without a deal

There's a big difference between "I want" and "I'll accept". Among strongly pro-RKBA posters, I don't recall seeing many that said they actually want UBC's. I have seen indications they'd accept them as part of a larger deal.

I'd like to know what the gun control side would be willing to give on in the context of a deal. As far as I can tell, the answer is nothing.

[CTyankee]

236. Ifyou are correct, then I sense that there was a bit of change of tone by some gun folks. Perhaps a

backing off of previous statements or perhaps "second thoughts" for whatever reason.

[hack89]

100. Look at the bright side

you have a lifetime hobby. Because you will get nothing without the support of gun owners. Let us know when you tire of the cultural wars and are ready to get down to business.

[Robb]

103. "We" already have the support of gun owners.

We do not need the support of "gun rights" zealots. The NRA and their inhuman supporters can go straight to hell.

And Wayne LaPierre called, he wants his "culture war" schtick back.

[hack89]

106. Sure. As demonstrated by your unbroken string of success .... oh wait. nt

[BainsBane]

109. I thought this was about compromise

but no, it appears to be you relishing the "culture wars." We are asking to get together to do something, and you are the one opposing it.

[hack89]

115. Robb certainly doesn't appear to be in a compromising mood

explain to me why I should cooperate with people that never miss an opportunity to abuse me? And that include you.

[BainsBane]

119. It is your choice to act in the interest of society

but if you choose to make it all about yourself, no one can stop you. You simply need to decide if human lives and society at large matter more than your own ego. You have claimed repeatedly to support background checks, but when presented with the opportunity you oppose them. That is your choice. A persons worth is determined by what he does, not what he says. Only you can decide what you will be.

I do have to wonder why you answer any of our posts--and you do so daily--when you despise us so? You accuse us of engaging in culture wars, but you seem to relish the fight. When it comes time to act, you resent it. Only you know what causes you to do that. At any rate, I made the proposal. Either you choose to act or not. That's entirely on you. I'm done discussing it. If you want to come back after you've called your federal reps, that's wonderful. If not, I wish you well in your life.

[hack89]

123. I don't despise you. I don't take you that seriously

I enjoy the give and take of a discussion board. You are just an easy target with your earnest sense of moral superiority and your complete inability to take disagreement. You amuse me.

This is DU - not the real world. When I want to impact the real world I turn off my computer.

[BainsBane]

131. I'm not interested in being your entertainment.

It's been real. Well, no it hasn't. but tiao.

[hack89]

135. You cannot deny your true self. Sorry. nt

[BainsBane]

107. I cannot believe these people

I propose they support a background check bill OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING. and they say what are you going to do to get us to support our own bill? We want you to lay down with murder inc and sell your soul to make sure we have unfettered access to WMD. They know no assault weapons ban will ever pass. This is simply an effort to shit all over efforts to get something done. This is the result of DU's Gungeon loophole. It's amazing that while polling data show only 8% of Americans oppose background checks, all of them congregate to DU.

[HolyMoley]

126. Stop it... just stop it right there

You're grasping at straws here trying to defend your position on a very simple question, and failing miserably at it.

I'll try to put this as simply theoretically as possible.

I'm the NRA (or whatever pro 2nd amendment group).

You're the Brady Campaign (or whatever anti 2nd amendment group).

We both sit down at the table to discuss our differences and goals regarding gun control legislation.

Putting aside any 'corporate murder inc' bullshit, there are two cards on the table: Universal Background Checks, and an "Assault Weapons Ban/Hi-Cap" magazine ban.

I offer to lend my support for Universal Background Checks.

In return, you will oppose and lend your support towards defeating any AWB and/or magazine ban.

Think about it. It's not hard or trick question.

[BainsBane]

127. the problem was I started by conceeding everything to you

and now you want more. After Sandyhook, the president proposed a range of measures (the Democratic president we are going to theoretically imagine you support since you're on a Democratic site). Gunners were furious. They even blamed the failure of an entirely distinct amendment on background checks, the most modest of measures, on the fact that Americans had the audacity to voice their desire for limits on the type of guns. So I start with what everyone says they support, only it turns out they've been lying all along. They don't really support it. So I have learned that it is impossible to compromise with extremists.

There is nothing more I can do. Either you privilege criminals or public safety. If you want to choose the former, that's who you are. I cannot make you care about other human beings, the children killed from felons who acquire weapons. If you don't care, you don't care. That's your choice. If you don't support something this modest, we are on the same side of nothing. So be well with your assault rifles and 100 round drums that mean so much to you.

[Mojorabbit]

132. It is a lovely evening. The stars are out. Nothing we say on this board

tonight will change anything. I am going to take a stroll around the yard and listen to the cicadas.

[BainsBane]

152. true, but calling your reps can make a difference

[BainsBane]

104. What is the OP about?

It's an effort to get the most modest proposal through, a background check bill of your own design. But that's not enough. You all have to shit all over any effort to bring about change. I've learned my lesson. There is no compromising with gun nuts. Lesson learned.

[hack89]

112. I support the background checks. My state has UBCs already.

no - it is your attitude that gun owners have to totally capitulate and not ask for anything in return.

We don't trust you.

[BainsBane]

134. It has nothing to do with me

The decision is purely a reflection of who you are. So now we know.

[hack89]

136. What decision? I support UBCs

all my reps voted for UBCs. I live in a state with UBCs.

[bobclark86]

113. I'm good.

I live in New York. We've had background checks at gun shows for more than a decade, and we now have background checks for everything except a gift to my mother.

Also, my elected officials include Chuck Schumer in the Senate, and a teabagging douche in the House who wouldn't support background checks if he found a way to make money off of it. One is already pushing it, the other is part of the problem. My letters will honestly mean nothing to anyone.

[BainsBane]

130. You need to put pressure regardless

They register how many calls they get on both sides of an issue. If you don't call, you cede the fight to the NRA.

[LWolf]

121. Let's see...

11 hours on Monday, Tuesday, and today. I was at work before the "business day" began, and there long after it ended. I had a working 30 minute lunch, was on duty the rest of the time, or in meetings, and the only breaks I had were when I ran to the bathroom.

Tomorrow? 12 hours. Friday? Hopefully only 9, since I have an appointment that will force me out earlier, bringing work home for the weekend to finish.

Meanwhile, 3 entities involved with my personal, not professional, business are waiting impatiently for me to call them during "business hours."

What am I going to do? Check to see what position my reps are taking; I suspect my two senators already support expanded background checks, and my House rep wouldn't support them if the world were ending and the only way to save all life forms was to agree to background checks.

My dinner is burning. I'm going to go eat, and then fall into bed. If I remember in the morning, I'll check in with them.

What are YOU doing?

[BainsBane]

139. I'm calling my reps and trying to encourage others to do so

I'm sorry to trouble you with something as inconsequential as promoting to save people's lives by making it more difficult for felons to obtain guns. Carry on.

[LWolf]

205. You're no trouble.

You're assumption that I'm not doing anything, or that I'm free to drop what I am doing, because it's not important, either, or that I wouldn't be paying attention or doing anything without your rather antogistic prod is a bit asinine, but it's not "trouble."

Carry on? I am. I've been up for 35 minutes here on the left coast. I've cleaned the barn, fed all the critters, showered, and am about to make breakfast. I'll be out of here in an hour, and will be back at about 7:30 tonight.

[badtoworse]

133. It would depend on whether there was a quid pro quo in the bill

IOW, I'd be open to a deal. If it's just more gun control with nothing in return, then the answer is nothing.

[BainsBane]

137. Okay,

I understand. You are with the far right of the 8% of the country who oppose background checks. Felons having unfettered access to guns are more important than the nation's children to you. That's your choice. You want a blood drenched American, and you have it.

[badtoworse]

144. See Post No. 141

I'm open to a deal.

[madville]

153. The background check system needs

Access to mental health records and mandatory reporting from mental health professionals to be effective.

It seems most of these shooters had previously exhibited mental illness and could have been in the system in some way.

[BainsBane]

156. There are 88 shootings every day

that result in fatalities. It needs access to those adjudicated dangerous to themselves or others, but there is not n overall link between mental illness and propensity toward violence. The mentally ill, however, are more likely to be victims of violent crime. I think it's a mistake to look at in just in terms of mass shooters, since those are a tiny fraction of the gun deaths every year. We need to do what is feasible, and expanding background checks to private sales, including gun shows and internet sales, is an important stat. It will make it harder for felons and those adjudicated dangerous to have access to weapons. Obama just signed some executive orders to facilitate access between court adjudications and the NCIS system. Making all mental health records accessible in such a system is, IMO, not reasonable and would likely be counterproductive since it would keep people from seeking help. Those with untreated mental illness are more likely to be dangerous than those seeking treatment.

Studies show there is 6% incidence of people with mental illness committing violent crimes. Compare that to 35% for those under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

[marshall]

157. We need a national fingerprint registry

Something that ties together everything from traffic tickets to mental health treatment.

[BainsBane]

159. Well, you could propose it

but I think a lot of people would oppose it, gunners as well as civil libertarians.

[Travis_0004]

175. Picking up my gun tommorow.

I had ordered a double barrel shotgun, and it arrived this week.

I plan on picking it up tomorrow, so that will be one more background check.

[BainsBane]

179. Are you gong to call your representatives?

Or email them to ask for an expanded background check bill?

[pipoman]

207. Why do you suppose there isn't already a federal law requiring

private intrastate sales to have background checks? Background checks are required on the sale of every new gun purchase..it would seem if there is money behind any aspect of firearms sales, it would be behind gun manufacturers and FFL dealers. There is no money behind Joe selling his shotgun to his neighbor, or any non-dealer selling their private collection...Why wouldn't those FFL dealers and gun manufacturers want to even the field so that every sale would undergo the same scrutiny as their sales must undergo?

The answer is simple. There is no precedent for allowing federal regulation of private party sales of used, legal, personal property sold within a given state to another resident of the same state, that's why. It isn't required at the federal level because it can't pass scotus challenge if it were made a requirement.

Your only hope of there ever being a federal law requiring private sale checks is if 2/3 or more of states adopt such a law, then band together to amend the constitution.

Why do you suppose the NRA almost never tries to get new gun laws passed at the federal level? When they began lobbying for concealed carry, they didn't waste 1 minute trying to get concealed carry legalized at the federal level for exactly the same reason your wish for background checks on intrastate sales will never become a federal law...because it is constitutionally impossible..

[BainsBane]

213. See this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-study-finds-vast-online-marketplace-for-guns-without-background-checks/2013/08/05/19809198-fd73-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html

So you evidently assume the President, VP, Democratic Senate were all working to pass a completely unnecessary bill and that the NRA has spent millions, probably hundreds of millions, defeating something that was entirely redundant. Regardless of what you think of Democratic politicians, no one is so irrational as to devote vast amounts of money lobbying against something that accomplishes nothing.

[Lee-Lee]

223. I already explained to you how that bill works

And what about it is idiocy, burdensome, and illogical.

A bill that requires me, already exempt from the check, to go out of my way to travel to a gun dealer, pay a dealer a fee so he can record all my personal info and the exact details of my purchase, while still not doing a check is a badly written bill.

A bill that would require the same if loaning a rifle to a hunting buddy, if loaned even minutes before the season opens or if the person must travel through any cities to the hunting ground, is a bad bill. Ohh, and another trip to the gun dealer, another fee, and more paperwork to return the loaned gun.

It is bad legislation. Badly written, by people trying to get to a good goal (maybe, I take them at their word on this) but who are clearly pretty ignorant about the realities of what implementation would mean.

Pass legislation making felons of two people who already both own guns if they loan a shotgun for hunting the day before the season opens (because everybody gets ready the days before, my dad sure does) or for an out of state hunting trip and you drive the occasional hunter, ok with reasonable gun control person, into the hands of the NRA.

[rl6214]

194. Lets make a deal

Negotiations require give and take, not I give and you take.

I would encourage better reporting of mental illness but at what cost to the privacy of those with mental illness.

I've got severe diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Pretty much the only thing that takes away the pain are drugs that are prescribed for depression. Should the fact that I am taking those drugs, even though not for depression prevent me from buying guns?

Until those questions are addressed I am inclined to do nothing.

[BainsBane]

195. No, of course that should not be reported

The guidelines should be as they are now but with greater accountability and communication, and close the loophole for most private sales. Only the mentally ill legally adjudicated a danger to themselves or others should be prohibited from gun ownership. It also has to include people with certain kinds of restraining orders. That is already the case, but communication between courts and NCIS has to be improved. I believe the President has recently signed a an EO to improve that.

It would be intrusive and counter productive to report anyone taking psychiatric medications. That would discourage treatment. Now psychiatric and psychological associations may work with states to make it easier to report those they fear are dangerous, but that needs to be determined by medical professionals.

I think the key change needs to simply be to close loopholes on private sales at gun shows, on the internet, etc. . . There needs to be clearly determination of what constitutes a dealer according to how many guns they sell. The details about Friends lending a gun to go hunting or family transfers could be hashed out in a way that gun owners feel comfortable with.

[rl6214]

196. Then you run into the enforcement of the private sales reporting

I have said in the past that I would have no issue with having a checkpoint when exiting a gun show to make sure a background check was done. Have one dealer designated as the private sales background check person or opening up the background check system for anyone to use. The problem comes in enforcing the true private sale, the one done at someone's home. How do we make sure that one is done? I think that's just impossible.

[BainsBane]

197. Online sales have to be covered. There is no lawful reason

for someone to sell dozens of weapons without subjecting sales to background checks. If a person sells very few guns, they could get the check down through a gun store, DMV, or perhaps an online system like e-verify for immigration. Or it could be as simple as getting a credit check. The seller could feed info into the computer, and receive a determination of whether the sale can proceed or not. Just yes or no with no details about why. It could be like a blacklist. Your name isn't in there unless you have a felony or are otherwise disqualified. The seller then gets a confirmation number approving or disapproving the sale.

[Lee-Lee]

201. You are progressing

You almost sound lie you would support a common sense method now, instead of that horribly flawed Tommey-Manchin bill that, despite the authors claims, will create a backdoor registry and would be very burdensome to use.

[Duckhunter935]

202. most online sales

require background checks. I have purchased two weapons online and both had to be shipped to an FFL and background check performed. You are just talking about electronic newspaper classified ads. I understand how you like to confuse people but some of us do know the facts.

[Lee-Lee]

204. That seems to be a common tactic with regard to online sales

The gun control groups like to phrase all their statements as if all online sales are unregulated with no background checks, when that isn't the case at all.

The only "online" sales that don't require a check are between residents of the same state where face to face sales are allowed.

So "online sales" amounts to "online classifieds" where people meet in person.

And "fixing" that is simply moving to 100% background checks making every single sale go through a dealer, the same goal they have always had, but they don't want to be honest and say it like that, so they just throw out "online sales" as if gun sales on the internet are not regulated just the same as any other.

[rl6214]

208. I do quite a few online deals

I have a C&R license which allows me to buy curio and relic weapons, weapons older thann50yo that are no longer produced. In order to get this lic I had to go thru the ATF which meant a thorough background check and a sign off by the head local law enforcement official. In my case the sheriff.

I can have these weapons shipped directly to my home since I have already been fully vetted and this lic must be renewed every five years, so I am checked again every five years. If I buy any newer guns I must ave them shipped to a local FFL to be vetted AGAIN. Even if I do a deal thru Gunbroker, which is like an online EBay, I still have to follow these same rules.

So online deals are pretty well covered unless you find another way to ake private contact and make a deal, which is already illegal.

[BainsBane]

212. Actually there are massive loopholes

Since private sellers aren't required to do background checks. It's wonderful you took the extra step to become licensed and require background checks. Not everyone is as responsible as you are, however. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/new-study-finds-vast-online-marketplace-for-guns-without-background-checks/2013/08/05/19809198-fd73-11e2-9711-3708310f6f4d_story.html

[Duckhunter935]

203. That is why the latest shooter

was able to purchase. He was not.

" Only the mentally ill legally adjudicated a danger to themselves or others should be prohibited from gun ownership."

[Recursion]

229. I wrote a check to my (non-voting) Rep, Eleanor-Holmes Norton

She is much more activist on gun control than I am (by quite a bit) but that's part of being in the party, you know?

Also, if anybody wants to support DC voting rights from this, that would be another vote for gun control.

Just saying.

[BainsBane]

230. excellent, and I support DC voting rights regardless

That the district isn't fully represented is a scandal.

[grahamhgreen]

234. Nothing until we re-tax the wealthy, end costly trade agreements and get a public option.

[BainsBane]

237. Sorry to trouble you

with concersn about the lives of urban communities predominated by people of color. I'm not sure why you see benefit in continued, unfettered profits for the gun industry, but I guess you and the rest of the 6% who oppose background checks have your reasons.