re: Obama's executive orders on guns

quote:

---

Can I ask...Why

---

because its your right


now I don't believe felons should be able to purchase guns. People on the "no fly list" shouldn't be able to either. But what criteria does it take to be placed on this no fly list. That's the real question

Thanks for the facts, Wick.

quote:

---

Personally using the no-fly list scares the hell out of me. I view that as a way for the government to arbitrarily pick and choose who gets to own a firearm or purchase one. I've seen no requirements for the no-fly list, nor a method to remove oneself from that list.

---

Exactly...

quote:

---

Let me guess, you are a "small government conservative"?

---

Not sure what you're getting at with this but yes, I am conservative leaning and I believe government has its hands in way too much. I'm also as pro-gun as they come.

But getting to civiltiger's point of:

quote:

---

but he isn't a dealer. He can't go to a manufacturer/distributer and buy 20 870's at wholesale pricing and sale them to the public.

---

I see your point in saying he can't buy at wholesale so he's not a dealer but I'm ok with closing the "loophole" of non FFL people being able to sell "in bulk" at gun shows. It's clearly a loophole that some seek to exploit and although I'd wager to say it's not the most common way that criminals get their hands on guns, it's still a way that they can without needing to go through a background check and should be eliminated.

Hell I'm going to get roasted for saying this but I'd be ok with a background check being required on ALL firearm transfers, including private transfers, with an exception of a gun being passed down in the family.

Seriously, if you're not a felon, clinically insane or someone intending on doing harm, what legit reason could you have to not want background checks? (Aside from conspiracy theorists thinking big brother keeps all that info off your background check. News flash: They already have that info anyway.)

It's just going to make the guys at the counter feel more badass and dickish about everything.

quote:

---

Hell I'm going to get roasted for saying this but I'd be ok with a background check being required on ALL firearm transfers, including private transfers, with an exception of a gun being passed down in the family.

---

Lets say my friend wants to borrow a gun to go hunting for a week. How does the background check play into that?

quote:

---

I believe Trey Gowdy grilled the DHS on this recently. His only question, although it had to be asked 18 times, was, "What process is afforded to people on the no fly list before their rights are revoked?"

---

Youtube: Short Version

Youtube: Entire questioning of DHS

quote:

---

Seriously, if you're not a felon, clinically insane or someone intending on doing harm, what legit reason could you have to not want background checks?

---

Because I'm American. Our federal government is not authorized to restrict sale of property. Sure they do, but it doesn't mean they should. They've abused this power for far too long. Remember, the bill of rights was not intended to grant rights. It was intended to restrict the ability of the federal government to restrict those rights.

Plus, what good will it do? It's not like criminals are lining up at gun counters and getting caught by the background check system. Look at prohibition, all that did was increase the demand for booze on the black market. Let's learn from that. If you make all gun sales go through the system, all that will be accomplished is increasing the profitability for those willing to conduct (already) illegal straw purchases.

You want to really hinder gun crime, swift death penalties for those convicted of murder. Not 20-30 years of technical appeals. I'm talking a 1-2 year process where they swing in the town square. No media coverage allowed so their names are no longer recognized, no name on the grave markers (prison ID numbers are sufficient for record keeping), nothing. You commit violent crime, you are erased from out society.

quote:

---

Hell I'm going to get roasted for saying this but I'd be ok with a background check being required on ALL firearm transfers, including private transfers, with an exception of a gun being passed down in the family.

---

Couple problems with your theory of "universal background checks" here:

1. In a survey of inmates who used firearms in violent crimes, 40% got their guns from illegal sources ("on the street"), 37.4% were from friends or family (straw purchse), 11.3% were purchased legally (slipped through the cracks - imagine that), and 11.2% were some other source. So assuming the check works, it still isn't dealing with the gaping 77.4% of guns obtained, aka the largest portion. Plus the background check still may not be 100% effective as you can see with the 11.3% statistic. A million background checks can't predict the future.

2. There is no way to enforce a UBC without national gun registration. With millions of guns already in circulation this would be futile and only track new guns specifically put into this registry, aka it would only be a political gesture and have no effect on the flow of firearms.

3. If someone passes 50 background checks (for guns or employers, TWIC, etc.) why is it necessary if this person never hurts anyone? This gets back to the question of requiring training for firearms - training does not change your intent, neither does a background check. I have taken more background checks than I can count and I've never hurt anyone. Yet, the criminal on the street would never pass one and it doesn't matter since he can just get a cousin or someone to buy a gun for him - aka a straw purchase. There is no way to enforce this short of a time machine.

4. What if you wanted to pass a gun down in your family? Well, what if it's a step brother? Or what if it's a half cousin? Who decides where the line is? Is a blood test required?

5. Ultimately background checks are done by other humans and humans are fallible. It's analogous to people who trust cops will always be truthful and honest. They're human beings just like anyone else and actually are much more likely to be corrupt with the power they possess. The government does not need more responsibilities to abuse. Plus government workers have much lower IQs than people in the private sector. You're dealing with less intelligent, fallible, potentially-corrupt people deciding the criteria for these checks.




If you're going to bring an argument to the table like supporting universal background checks, have some facts to back up your points. When you don't use logic and reason you look quite ignorant and commit fallacies because "feelings."

Gun owners don't just mamby pamby believe anything pro-gun just for the hell of it - there are logical and factual reasons behind each one.

quote:

---

If a more deliberate method was in place to make sure ISIS and other trash could not get their hands on guns so easy, why is that a bad thing?

---

Who is this "other trash" and who gets to decide that?

If they get "universal background checks" meaning no legal unrecorded gun sales, they (or some future tyrannical entity) are one step closer to being able to confiscate guns or prosecute you for not being able to produce them when they come knocking.
And yes, "they" very much want to confiscate your guns, as long as you are not one of their tools.

The idea you are leaning towards in your question ("why wouldn't we do everything we can to prevent gun sales to 'bad' people") is predicated upon a belief and trust in the powers that be. 60 years ago, most people wouldn't have had a problem with such "common sense" regulations (though it depends who you would have asked. Black people, for example, might have had a problem with it). Now? That trust is gone.