US gun law reforms

everything that is not explicitly illegal is legal. Background checks included.
Click to expand...

Thats right and thats they we have background checks right now....they are just not complete enough to work and be the most effective as they could be.

How would you expect a background check to be super effective when Joe Felon can buy agun out of the newspaper or anywhere other than a FFL and it be legal if the seller doesn't ask if they are a felon?

And you have FFl dealers selling off their personal collections with no checks?

Its flawed just like most goverment programs...its not that it cant work.
 
Plumbnut said:
How would you expect a background check to be super effective when Joe Felon can buy agun out of the newspaper or anywhere other than a FFL and it be legal if the seller doesn't ask if they are a felon?
Click to expand...

Right, so we need more rules and regulations because that works so well for drugs. I mean, who ever heard of anyone getting some oxy that wasn't prescribed by their doctor, or some pot or heroin which aren't even allowed to be prescribed according to the feds?

Joe Felon is going to get a gun no matter what. If he's one of the few felons that tries to get guns through private transfers, and the government passes universal background checks, he'll quit doing that and do what most other criminals do now -- get guns through illegal transactions.


There's a fundamental difference in paradigms. One is that the government is supposed to be minimal, and not interfere unless there's clear cause. There's no clear cause to go to universal background checks, so we shouldn't. Another is that the government should do everything it can unless its actions are patently abusive or stupid. Since background checks for gun purchases are neither, they're A-OK, according to that view.
 
So, you're saying that the political response to Sandy Hook was a tactic to cause an ammo shortage? I'd call that a conspiracy theory.

I work with the general public. I can tell you, the shortage was driven by consumer greed and ignorance. If one wants to attribute it to anything intentional, he should provide some proof.
Click to expand...

The political response to Sandyhook was worked out well in advance of it ever happening. Internal DNC memos spelled it out. They were waiting for the next shooting to lay it out, and they got a real bonus "crisis you shouldn't let go to waste" when it involved so many young children.

The ammo panic was caused by all the subsequent calls for gun bans and ammo taxes and restrictions, which was ratcheted up by the Dept of Homeland Security sucking up huge quantities of ammo causing shortages in certain calibers, which caused real and imaginary shortages in other calibers. That was purtposeful. Even though most of the situation was panic based, the political plan was to fan the flames, drive up costs, and make gun owners seeking ammo look irrational and nutty.
 
Homeland Security DID NOT "suck up huge quantities" of ammo. They have a CONTRACT, not actual immediate purchases. That particular conspiracy has been debunked so many times it'd be funny, if it hadn't gone past funny to just plain irritating.
 
Sure it does they cant go to a FFl dealer and buy one like I can.

But with the current background checks they really dont need to go to a FFL dealer do they.....they can pick up the newspaper and buy a gun within a few minutes. No check rquired ad it is perfectly legal for the owner of that gun to sell it not knowing the buyer is a felon.

Thts kinda like saying theres no need to lock your car because if they really want it they will break into it.......
Click to expand...


If criminals were able to pay fair market value for an arm, they probably wouldn't be criminals. They don't buy them from gun dealers or from newspapers. They buy them out of the trunk of somebody's car for pennies on the dollar.

Incidentally, I don't lock my car, and leave a window partially down simply because it doesn't look worth breaking into, and I won't have to pay a few hundred doallrs to replace a window that slowed them down by 3 seconds to steal the change from the ashtray. Windows are like guns laws, and criminals respect neither and are not deterred by either.
 
Homeland Security DID NOT "suck up huge quantities" of ammo. They have a CONTRACT, not actual immediate purchases. That particular conspiracy has been debunked so many times it'd be funny, if it hadn't gone past funny to just plain irritating.
Click to expand...

Seems odd to begin an investigation over something thats been debunked.


http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...4/29/gao-now-investigating-dhs-ammo-purchases

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...4/29/gao-now-investigating-dhs-ammo-purchases
 
Windows are like guns laws, and criminals respect neither and are not deterred by either.
Click to expand...
Quote:
That doesn't mean you shouldn't use them.
Click to expand...

But it does make it a pointless feel good exercise to create a false sense of security.
Click to expand...

And rolled up windows keep your car seats from getting wet when it rains. Gun laws are the 'teeth' that prosecutors need to prosecute criminals when they are caught. Just because criminals may ignore them doesn't mean we shouldnt have and use them.
 
Last edited:
No one ever answered if backgound checks were so unconctitutional (unconstitutional ??) then why are they in place if is so clear cut and dry to everyone.
Click to expand...

They are in place because the current regime simply does not respect our constitutional rights.

"I don't think anyone should be allowed to own a gun" BHO 2007

"It's not my job to determine if it's constitutional. I just write the bill and let the Supreme Court sort it out." Dianne Feinstein 2013

And yes, they do want to take our guns.

"If I had thought I had the votes, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them in." Dianne Feinstein 1994
 
Plumbnut said:
I say fill the void with the background checks and make that the line in the sand against the 2nd A
Click to expand...

As a matter of political mechanics, if drawing lines in the sand were effective, we would not be having this conversation.

Plumbnut said:
If the 2nd ammendment cant be regulated (background checks) then how can the 1st ammendment be regulated?
Click to expand...

With narrowly tailored and rare regulation? Universal background checks are neither rare, being universal, nor narrowly tailored.

The dicta about yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater seems to be coming up a lot lately.

The federal government does not have the power to exercise prior restraint against someone yelling fire in a crowded theater. That is dicta in a national security case. The reason the example given in that case was so poor is that yelling "Fire!" lacks many of the characteristics of speech; it isn't discourse or conversation. It is the oral version of a fire alarm, the false tripping of which is also criminally prohibited.

Where speech is involved in another act such as inciting an assault or engaging in a conspiracy to commit a crime, it is the inciting or conspiracy that are criminally prosecuted subsequent to the event. That speech is present in the commission of a crime does not give the crime constitutional protection, just as using a firearm, the possession of which is protected by the COTUS, doesn't shield Adam Lanza from prosecution.


It would be a tremendous expansion of the right described in the Second Amendment if it were exercised with only the rare limits allowed on speech.
 
Last edited:
Seems odd to begin an investigation over something thats been debunked.
Click to expand...
It does, but that's what politicians are wasting our time with. That, and the bill floating around to reduce government ammunition purchases, are dog-and-pony shows on the part of one party to antagonize the administration. The investigation won't turn up anything we don't already know: that these are routine purchase requests, in quantities they've ordered before.

Gun laws are the 'teeth' that prosecutors need to prosecute criminals when they are caught. Just because criminals may ignore them doesn't mean we shouldnt have and use them.
Click to expand...
We've already got plenty of laws that aren't being prosecuted. Additional laws only serve to make life harder on those inclined to follow them.
 
Gun laws are the 'teeth' that prosecutors need to prosecute criminals when they are caught. Just because criminals may ignore them doesn't mean we shouldnt have and use them.
Click to expand...



It is a felony for a convicted felon to attempt to obtain a firearm. If he fails a background check, and is reported, he will not be prosecuted. Explain how extending background checks add "teeth" with which to prosecute criminals.
 
Hello everyone, as this is my first post I would like to thank everyone on this forum for the great discussions that I have enjoyed reading.

I would like to reply to PLUMBNUT's statement "Thats not ABSOLUTE and end of story. "At the time that was written" AS YOU SAID......f16 were not built ......and neither was crack,meth,semi auto weapons,hand granades,stinger missles...etc etc."

That is absolutelty wrong. Semiauto weapons goes back to the 4th century BC. Hand grenades were used in the Revolutionary War as were rockets. In fact, I can think of 3 rifles that where made before the ratification of the 2nd Amendment that were shoulder fired weapon that fired multipal seperate rounds. One had a 20 round gravity fed magazine that was designed in 1680, The Girandoni rifle. I could look in my books for the names of the other ones if you like.

Our Forefather "did know" about such things, it was just costly to make, a lack of materials and their limited technology that limited them, not their knowledge. Now they may not have known about crack or meth but they did know about opium, marijuana and alcohol, so again. I think that your point is wrong/moot.

I also beleave that UBC's would be unconstitutional because the Fed has no authority to 1) Infringle on the 2nd Amendment and 2) The fed has no authority to regulate intrastate commerce.
 
We've already got plenty of laws that aren't being prosecuted. Additional laws only serve to make life harder on those inclined to follow them.
Click to expand...

I am not saying to make new laws. I was making the case that the current gun laws are in place to prosecute criminals who commit crimes with a gun.
It is a felony for a convicted felon to attempt to obtain a firearm. If he fails a background check, and is reported, he will not be prosecuted. Explain how extending background checks add "teeth" with which to prosecute criminals.
Click to expand...

Again, I am not making case about criminal who are not being prosecuted. The laws are in place, it it up to the police and the courts to enforce them. My argument is that we have 'car windows' (and by extension, GUN LAWS) in place and that it is just illogical to not use them ...or, as the poster was arguing, to remove them simply because they don't keep criminals out.
 
Last edited:
Hi all, been lurking for a while reading all the great info but a previous comment in this thread pushed my buttons.
Expanding on what bandaid1 one posted; I absolutly reject the absurd notion that our founding fathers, some of the most intelligent men in history, that they were blind to the thought of progressing technology. They experienced plenty of firearm advancements in their own time.

Furthermore, the 2A is in place so we can protect ourselves, not from each other, but the government. Now.... if they can have modern firearms and we are reduced to smooth bore muskets, what is the point of the 2A? It IS ABSOLUTE, thats why they wrote it the way they did. What part of SHALL NOT is open for discussion?!

As for the OP, I'm with the 99% of this thread. Seems pointless to place more BC in place when they can't enforce the ones we have. I'm not against the idea of BC, but what they proposed is so muddy I dont trust it.
 
Looks like 99.999% of TFL posters are against expanding background checks are 0.001% are all for it. I have not observed that after dozens of post both ways that any opinions have been changed.

It has helped clarify for the key points:
- No correlation has ever been established that any gun law has ever reduced violent crime, therefore it is not rational to propose another gun law on the basis it might reduce violent crime

- BC are only an issue at this time because gun grabbers could not get AWB or magazine limits passed do thus was a last gasp effort to get *something* passed. Not that it was very well thought out, just that it was something to claim victory

- the ploy to appeal to some fraction of gun owners on an emotional basis works for only a very small percentage of those actively discussing the issues

- it is ridiculous to believe this is a good faith effort for public safety when the the very politicians who are adamant about it are often the same ones boldly claiming their goal is to ban all guns and they plan to chip away toward that goal whenever possible

- While many pages are written in the bills to detail the penalties and all the possible applications, precious little is written about protection from fee increases, delays, data kept for registry, etc

- Proponents of BC to this day avoid addressing the issue if why we should require a BC on a person who already owns a gun; that is just plumb nuts!
 
Plumbnut said:
How would you expect a background check to be super effective when Joe Felon can buy agun out of the newspaper or anywhere other than a FFL and it be legal if the seller doesn't ask if they are a felon?
Click to expand...
I thought this had already been covered, but we'll do it again.

It is illegal for Joe Felon to buy, sell, possess, or even pick up a firearm. Period. It is illegal for him to buy a firearm from anyone, private seller or FFL. It doesn't get any less illegal if the seller doesn't ask Joe "Are you a convicted felon?"

FFLs run background checks. Before they do so, the prospective buyer has to fill out a Federal Form 4473. One of the questions asked is if the prospective buyer has ever been convicted of a crime that would prohibit him from owning a firearm. If he answers truthfully ("Yes"), the FFL won't even run the check. So in order for an FFL to run the check, Joe Felon has to perjure himself on the Form 4473. That in itself is a Federal crime.

How many people who lied on their 4473s have the Feds arrested and prosecuted in the last year? How about the last five years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top