HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » New Rule

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:06 AM

New Rule

82 replies, 9945 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 82 replies Author Time Post
Reply New Rule (Original post)
FourScore Apr 2013 OP
pipoman Apr 2013 #1
bahrbearian Apr 2013 #2
pipoman Apr 2013 #5
bahrbearian Apr 2013 #8
pipoman Apr 2013 #9
bahrbearian Apr 2013 #13
pipoman Apr 2013 #17
NewYorkTaxPayer Apr 2013 #19
pipoman Apr 2013 #21
baldguy Apr 2013 #41
pipoman Apr 2013 #42
baldguy Apr 2013 #44
pipoman Apr 2013 #50
baldguy Apr 2013 #51
pipoman Apr 2013 #52
Progressive dog Apr 2013 #62
pipoman Apr 2013 #63
Progressive dog Apr 2013 #67
pipoman Apr 2013 #68
bluedigger Apr 2013 #43
pipoman Apr 2013 #49
sweetapogee Apr 2013 #47
veganlush Apr 2013 #27
pipoman Apr 2013 #30
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #45
pipoman Apr 2013 #48
rhett o rick Apr 2013 #53
pipoman Apr 2013 #54
AlbertCat Apr 2013 #64
Recursion Apr 2013 #61
bahrbearian Apr 2013 #69
Recursion Apr 2013 #70
robinlynne Apr 2013 #28
pipoman Apr 2013 #31
KM0201 Apr 2013 #58
bahrbearian Apr 2013 #78
veganlush Apr 2013 #4
pipoman Apr 2013 #7
FourScore Apr 2013 #12
EC Apr 2013 #15
pipoman Apr 2013 #18
robinlynne Apr 2013 #29
pipoman Apr 2013 #32
robinlynne Apr 2013 #55
pipoman Apr 2013 #56
AlbertCat Apr 2013 #65
pipoman Apr 2013 #66
robinlynne Apr 2013 #71
pipoman Apr 2013 #72
robinlynne Apr 2013 #73
pipoman Apr 2013 #75
robinlynne Apr 2013 #74
pipoman Apr 2013 #76
AlbertCat Apr 2013 #77
pipoman Apr 2013 #80
AlbertCat Apr 2013 #81
pipoman Apr 2013 #82
tosh Apr 2013 #16
pipoman Apr 2013 #20
Squinch Apr 2013 #22
CokeMachine Apr 2013 #24
pipoman Apr 2013 #25
abelenkpe Apr 2013 #33
pipoman Apr 2013 #34
abelenkpe Apr 2013 #36
pipoman Apr 2013 #38
Mojorabbit Apr 2013 #40
Recursion Apr 2013 #59
morningfog Apr 2013 #35
pipoman Apr 2013 #39
NoPasaran Apr 2013 #3
veganlush Apr 2013 #6
pipoman Apr 2013 #10
Wednesdays Apr 2013 #11
gejohnston Apr 2013 #46
Recursion Apr 2013 #60
PA Democrat Apr 2013 #14
Crabby Appleton Apr 2013 #79
malaise Apr 2013 #23
TxDemChem Apr 2013 #26
Initech Apr 2013 #37
Cha Apr 2013 #57

Response to FourScore (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:13 AM

1. There already is a requirement

 

for background checks on all gun purchases except those between two people who live in the same state which the seller isn't a licensed firearms dealer or "in the business of selling firearms"...every other gun sale requires a background check...just to be clear..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:18 AM

2. So only 60% of gun buyers are checked,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:22 AM

5. Link?

 

Every new gun sold, every used gun sold by a dealer, every gun sold across state lines must, by federal law, have a background check. The only sales not required by federal law are, as I said above, private party sales between two residents of the same state...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #5)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:31 AM

8. Every gun I've bought AR15, AK47s, Mini 14s, I've never had a background check.

I think every gun should have a background check,, and Find your own link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #8)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:40 AM

9. Then either you purchased them

 

through private parties in your own state, or the law was broken. There are a few states which do not require people with concealed carry permits or LEOs to do checks because the ccw/LEO background check is more thorough than NICS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:54 AM

13. 40% of all guns sales do not go through back ground checks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:08 AM

17. So wheres the stat?

 

And did you buy yours illegally or from a private individual in your own state?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #17)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:12 AM

19. How are dealers at gunshows private individuals,

 

since that is where I bought my AR without a background check, and further more, why is ok for their to be any transfer of guns without a background check?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewYorkTaxPayer (Reply #19)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:17 AM

21. I didn't say it was

 

and Every single FFL dealer at every single gun show is required to do a background check...every one..

Some shows allow people to set up and sell their collections, but LEOs watch them closely to be sure they are not buying and selling guns without a FFL.

Further, there is no mechanism to allow me as a private citizen not engaged in the gun business to do a background check, even if I wish to...maybe allowing that and enacting a mechanism to do it would be a start?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #21)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:33 PM

41. Have you found a spot for those goalposts yet?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #41)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:38 PM

42. Have you anything helpful to add to the discussion?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #42)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:52 PM

44. Do you?

 

All you've done here is disingenuously insist that background checks are required for all gun purchases, in spite of enormous amounts of evidence to the contrary - as if there's a qualitative difference between a private sale and a sale from a dealer.

30,000 gun deaths a year is a problem. Rational people in this country want to reduce that number. Why don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #44)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:40 PM

50. LOL

 

Nobody who has read this thread could possibly come out with any of those ridiculous conclusions..FFS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #50)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:53 PM

51. It's good to see that your deceit brings you such joy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #51)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:58 PM

52. ~snick~

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #50)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 08:18 AM

62. LOL

Every rational person who has read this thread did come to all those "ridiculous" conclusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #62)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 08:51 AM

63. Nah, only people who don't know how to read and comprehend

 

could possibly come to any of those deceitful conclusions...

You can easily post examples I'm sure of me stating in this thread (or any thread on DU during my 8 years here),

"disingenuously insist that background checks are required for all gun purchases"

Hint: read post #1 very carefully...here, I'll help you out..

"pipoman (10,022 posts)
1. There already is a requirement

for background checks on all gun purchases except those between two people who live in the same state which the seller isn't a licensed firearms dealer or "in the business of selling firearms"...every other gun sale requires a background check...just to be clear..


So, the first statement made by baldguy is false.

Then there's this:

" as if there's a qualitative difference between a private sale and a sale from a dealer. "

There is a vast difference in the law..."private sales" are not federally required to have a background check, while "sale from a dealer" is federally required to have a background check with the penalty for a dealer not being licensed or a licensed dealer not doing a check on every sale to a non-FFL buyer are both punishable by fines and prison time.

So, the second statement made by baldguy is false[/b

"Rational people in this country want to reduce that number. Why don't you?"

This one is the most irrational of all...LOL...Read my post #25...

I have been advocating for years right here on DU for background checks on private sales to be enabled. My plan for doing this has not changed and would work, and would be in place today if anyone really wanted to have private sale checks..baldguy has spent those same years advocating the same idea over and over and over, failure after failure...that idea being what just failed again, for the 5th or 6th time and will continue to fail..doing the same thing over and over expecting different results and all..

No, people who read this and understand English know that everything stated in post #44 is a laughable lie or the ramblings of someone who doesn't understand English all that well...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #63)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 10:32 AM

67. There is an unenforcable requirement for a background check--so what

See the problem is not reading and comprehending English. Your English is fine, the problem is truthfulness. If I took what you have said about background checks as Gospel, I would agree with you.
Unfortunately, most people have seen how self enforcement works out in practice. The privatization people are mostly Republicans.
The sellers in gun shows are already responsible for AT LEAST checking I.D., but many don't do it. Now we are supposed to trust them to have super secret background checks done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Progressive dog (Reply #67)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 10:55 AM

68. Again. The Federal mandate route is a failure.

 

As it is if a state wishes to require checks, they have to re-invent the wheel with a duplication of an already existing process (NICS) because NICS isn't open for private transfers. This requirement for them to make a new process is time consuming, costly and counter productive..counter productive in that now the state is making sure their own, new system is accurate and still not submitting to NICS so if the prohibited person moves to another state, NICS will not have the info. OTOH, if the system was enabled for private sales, states would merely have to pass a law requiring private sellers to use the existing system, and the state would be more inclined to submit to NICS so their law is accurately applied helping every other state. Is it a perfect solution? No. But it exceedes what we have now. What do you think we should do? Wait for the next tragedy and repeat the last several months with the exact same results?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #21)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:42 PM

43. "LEOs watch them closely"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #43)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:38 PM

49. Yeah, that goes to the other elephant in the corner...

 

the unbelievable negligence in enforcement of existing laws. How many lives could be saved by not allowing tens of thousands of felons to walk free after illegally trying to buy a gun?

I have heard of several people busted by the BATFE for being engaged in the firearms business without a license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewYorkTaxPayer (Reply #19)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:20 PM

47. in NY?

I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:55 PM

27. the point is that unless

checks are universal, they are useless. Those with iffy backgrounds simply go to craigslist or the gun show or whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to veganlush (Reply #27)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:22 PM

30. It failed..

 

I think it failed for constitutional reasons, others think other reasons..it failed. Now what? How about enabling private sales through NICS...they are not currently..do targeted public service messages explaining the liability for selling a gun to a prohibited buyer and the risk which can be avoided by using a cheap background check. Once enabled I believe many states would enact requirements..but I'm not disillusioned..I doubt anything will happen until the next tragedy and we will repeat this again..really bewildering it is..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #30)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:08 PM

45. You cant be series. "I think it failed for constitutional reasons," Really, REALLY!!

 

you think the Senators decided that the law was unconstitutional?? Really????? Bullcrap. They were thinking about the dollars the NRA would give them and the votes the NRA would give them.

This is an issue of normal families that want their children to be safe verses the cold-blooded gun nut cases that not give a shit how many children. May they all rot in hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #45)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:26 PM

48. Yep

 

See post 25 for an explanation. I believe that the judiciary committee determined that the law wouldn't pass judicial review, just as they have every single other time it has come to them in a bill, just as was determined in 1994 which is why this one very specific type of sale was exempted in the first place. The pressure was on Reed was to take it to a vote. In light of it's near certain failure in the courts, it wasn't worth risking the seats of Democrats in 2014. It failed for constitutional reasons, IM(experienced)O

The answer is at the state level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #48)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:11 AM

53. Bills do not get "judicial review" as a matter of course. That only happens if

 

someone makes a case and runs it thru the judicial system. Some times it takes many years. I do not believe that Congress worries about that. If they pass a law they believe in and the courts strike it down, then they did as much as they can. You are suggesting that they give the bill a "judicial review" themselves. No way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #53)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:26 AM

54. And everyone knows someone would

 

make a case and run it through the judicial system...and the law would receive judicial review, and would likely put the government in the position of having to appeal from the first decision..they may not worry about it as a matter of coarse, this issue is a big deal issue in many districts in the US.

Oh, they do give judicial review in a way, that is what the Senate Judiciary Committee does..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #30)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:02 AM

64. I think it failed for constitutional reasons,

 

What.... letting the legislation just come to the floor for debate failed because of "constitutional reasons"????

Well, if it HAD actually COME TO THE FLOOR TO BE DEBATED, you wouldn't have to "think" of why it might have failed.... you'd know.... because they debated the law.

You're not very thorough in your thought process, are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #8)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:51 AM

61. You've broken the law that often? Interesting (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #61)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 11:16 AM

69. Follow the discussion fool, it not illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bahrbearian (Reply #69)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 11:21 AM

70. it almost always is

I don't buy these conspiracies where you "happen" to be in the right place at the right time to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #5)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:17 PM

28. gun shows are dealers. no background checks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #28)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:23 PM

31. Complete and totallly false..

 

couldn't be more mislead...simply no truth at all..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #28)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:56 AM

58. Obviously...

 

You have never been to a gun show. I know you guys don't want to hear it, but Pipo has been dead on with his comments on the background check system. I've bought numerous guns at gun shows (from FFL's and private sellers). FFL sales, as a requirement of them having an FFL, MUST do a background check. They cannot get around this(if they don't want to go to prison anyway).

Private sellers, the only ones I've bought from, were guys walking around w/ signs, etc.. saying they had something for sale. I find it very interesting bahrbearian claims he has bought all these guns without background checks, but will not discuss whether he legally did so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KM0201 (Reply #58)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:06 PM

78. Listen Fool, private sales do not require Background checks, you just admitted to that ..

then you accuse me of buying them illegally do you read what you write?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:21 AM

4. when background checks aren't universal,

then there really are no background checks at all, at least not meaningful ones. It's like saying that in the case of minors who want to drink alcohol, we have a rule whereby bars and restaurants have to check i.d., but stores do not. Minors simply then go to store for their booze and anyone getting drinks at the bar are adults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to veganlush (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:26 AM

7. It is a violation of Federal law

 

to sell a gun to a minor, or to sell a gun to someone known to be a felon or domestic abuser. Private party intrastate sales are the only exemption from federal requirement for background checks. They are not federally required because the "commerce clause" does not allow Feds to regulate intrastate commerce..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #7)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:50 AM

12. Again, you're words are meaningless without links. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #7)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:02 AM

15. "known to be a felon or domestic abuser"

Right....everyone just "knows" the person buying is okay...right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EC (Reply #15)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:09 AM

18. I didn't say it was right, that's the law..

 

and if a felon or domestic abuser buys a gun they have committed a federal crime..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #7)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:17 PM

29. so amke it illegal to sell guns across state lines. simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #29)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:25 PM

32. It is without a background check in the buyers home state..

 

I believe there is an exemption for long guns which allows the sale to a buyer from any state but the buyer still has to have an NICS check.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #32)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:04 AM

55. what we have aint working.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #55)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:21 AM

56. What we have isn't making people not want to kill each other? Nope.

 

Unfortunately. Of coarse background checks on all sales can be done, just nobody who matters really wants to do it..too much work..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #56)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:07 AM

65. What we have isn't making people not want to kill each other? Nope.

 

That's because this is not what this type of legislation is for. No one is legislating the laws concerning murder.


What IS it about gun worshippers that you simply cannot "get it"? and always bring in straw men, red herrings and things that have nothing to do with the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #65)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:21 AM

66. No you don't seem to understand the issue or the problem...

 

facts by definition aren't "strawmen" and lies, deceit, and untruths are usually strawmen. You may not wish to understand the issue as it really is in favor of believing completely false nonsense, others here may not understand the issue and wish to know the truth....the truth, unadulterated, is posted in my post #1 in this thread...post #1 is the point so many have been mislead into believing such silliness as 'there are no background checks on firearms sales at gun shows' which is a complete lie perpetuated by the completely disingenuous moniker placed on it with intent to deceive, "gun show loophole", others believe the lie that 'internet sales don't require a backgound check' which is another lie perpetuated by the same culprits as the 'gun show loophole' lie. This is really very, very simple...intentionally made complex by those who really don't want to change because without the fabled 'gun show loophole', they wouldn't have intentionally misguided people sending them money to fix the problem...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #66)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 11:39 AM

71. The issue and the problem is guns are easily available to anyone. We need to license them in the ex

exact same way we license cars. Why are cars registered and licensed? because they can kill people, when used improperly or by the wrong people.
Guns can kill many more and faster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #71)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:44 PM

72. So we should keep pushing for the completely impossible to

 

the exclusion of all else? Dreams vs. reality is where we are here..

BTW...Even the ACLU recently stated that they would oppose and fight any attempt to build a database of owners or registration...impossibility in our lifetimes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #72)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:26 PM

73. impossible? it's happening all over the world with good results. (Australia)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #73)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:31 PM

75. You do know that

 

Australia doesn't share our Bill of Rights or Constitution, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #72)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:27 PM

74. Hey it was once a dream that blacks and whites could sit together and have lunch.

not so long ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to robinlynne (Reply #74)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:35 PM

76. Yeah...so?

 

You think we can pass a constitutional amendment when we can't pass a simple law? You do realize it took 100 years to get any semblance of equality, no? Do you wish to just hold off on any attempt to reduce guns getting in the hands of criminals for a century or so? This really is simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #72)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 12:42 PM

77. they would oppose and fight any attempt to build a database of owners

 

Well, la-dee-da....

But the legislation that never was allowed to come to the floor specifically bans such a thing.

Or did you fall for the RW lies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #77)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:21 PM

80. Apparently you have difficulty following along with everyone else, eh?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #80)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 04:58 PM

81. Apparently you have difficulty following along with everyone else, eh?

 

No... I get your hysterical (in both senses of the word) argument that there is nothing wrong with gun laws now and no need to "fix" anything (which is impossible anyway) but politicians pretend there is so they can get money.

Meh....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlbertCat (Reply #81)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:52 PM

82. Also with reading comprehension clearly..

 

I have very clearly stated in this thread the law and the facts as they are now, and my opinion of a plan which differs from the ridiculous redundant failure which has been attempted at least 6 times with the same results..when the failure occurs the gun controllers cry and whine about the NRA refusing to understand that the real impediment to the one and only type of sale which isn't federally required for the transfer of firearms, is constitutional..Go ahead an remain in the NRA, gun nut blamer, inactive complainer on the issue; or understand the issue and proactively seek a solution..your choice..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to tosh (Reply #16)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:14 AM

20. Hmmm what?

 

People not in the business of selling firearms can sell to a resident of their state. Unless of coarse the state requires a check, some states do..more could, but alas big gun control isn't really interested in going to the states...if this problem went away so would their donors..

BTW, I have advocated for several years right here on DU for making background checks available to private sellers which still has not happened...it is a no brainer..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:46 PM

22. So what's the big deal about extending it to all gun sales? To be clear...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #22)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:59 PM

24. I have no problem with that.

 

It's already the law in California. We also have a 10-day waiting perion. I'm not fond of the waiting period but that's the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #22)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:51 PM

25. There really is no big deal with it

 

and it would meet with people's approval. I believe strongly that the issue with a federally mandated requirement for background checks cannot pass constitutional review. The commerce clause does not allow federal jurisdiction over intrastate sales of legal to own (in this case, arguably even enumerated right) private property between residents. This is why this has been the only exemption since 1994 when the Brady Bill became law. It wasn't exempted because of some big money push...because there isn't any centralized money behind private shotgun sales between neighbors, or even some guy who bought a AR-15 and needs food worse than he needs a gun, selling it in a classified ad. What money there is, is in new guns and accessories. Accessories doesn't care. Why wouldn't gun manufacturers want used gun sales to require the same scrutiny as the sales they are making? No, it is a constitutional fight they know they can't win.

This will have to be a state issue. To improve the numbers of states requiring private sale checks the NICS has...must..be opened to private sales transfers through FFL dealers...this must happen..it is such a complete no-brainer...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:28 PM

33. shilling for the NRA on DU

how good of you. They need all the lapdogs they can get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #33)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:31 PM

34. No rebuttal?

 

No the truth is the truth and you don't like it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #34)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:38 PM

36. It isn't the truth

and delusional gun nut losers like yourself bore me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #36)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:57 PM

38. Do tell what is untrue..

 

or is this just a hissy fit? Now what is it called when we deny the truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #36)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:30 PM

40. The poster is presenting facts.

It is easily googled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #36)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:48 AM

59. He isn't factually wrong about anything.

I know that's irritating to you, but he is describing current law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:33 PM

35. And there you are, first post! Wow, and do you ever miss the point. The RW/NRA thanks you!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #35)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:01 PM

39. We wouldn't want to say in simple terms

 

what we are talking about in favor of lie (gun show loophole), lie (internet sales), lie...distort, but never make it as simple as it is..No, the OP is silly and more of the same..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:20 AM

3. Who is talking about background checks for voting?

A photo ID (which I oppose as a requirement for voting, by the way) is not a background check.

This should be banished to the Island of Strawman Memes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoPasaran (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:23 AM

6. can felons or not-citizens vote?

they can sure buy guns though...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to veganlush (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:41 AM

10. Just not legally...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoPasaran (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:41 AM

11. Is a driver's license required for all gun purchases?

If so, I agree with your reply.
If not, the OP has a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wednesdays (Reply #11)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:17 PM

46. if buying from a licensed dealer, yes

a photo ID and to prove your state of residence and provide information that goes on ATF 4473.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/atf-f-4473.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wednesdays (Reply #11)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:51 AM

60. Generally yes

Or if you're buying from someone who is not a professional gun dealer, some way of proving you're a resident of the same state as him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoPasaran (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:58 AM

14. Map of State Felony Voter Disfranchisement Laws

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NoPasaran (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 20, 2013, 01:10 PM

79. No one

just some strawman bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:47 PM

23. Great post

Rec

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:51 PM

26. Agreed!

I thought that same thing this morning

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:53 PM

37. +10000000000000000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:26 AM

57. PRECISELY.

thanks FourScore

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread