156 replies to this topic

[Stellar]

Ill answer the rest later when Im back at my laptop, but for now tell me this: you say criminals should not be allowed to have guns, but then disagree that any loopholes permitting them to buy guns should be closed. Are you saying that you, Joc, should have the right to sell a weapon to a criminal?

[joc]

Stellar, on 16 January 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Ill answer the rest later when Im back at my laptop, but for now tell me this: you say criminals should not be allowed to have guns, but then disagree that any loopholes permitting them to buy guns should be closed. Are you saying that you, Joc, should have the right to sell a weapon to a criminal?

No.  I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a background check on people who buy guns.   We already have that in place and it works pretty well.  But it is simply impossible to close every 'loophole' that would allow a criminal to get a gun without infringing on the rights of the people.

[questionmark]

joc, on 16 January 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

No.  I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a background check on people who buy guns.   We already have that in place and it works pretty well.  But it is simply impossible to close every 'loophole' that would allow a criminal to get a gun without infringing on the rights of the people.

There sure is: no more private sells without background check. Would keep about 16,000 handguns from "disappearing" every year.

[joc]

questionmark, on 16 January 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

There sure is: no more private sells without background check. Would keep about 16,000 handguns from "disappearing" every year.

First of all, where did the number 16,000 come from and how is that valid at all?  You could just as easily say 32,000...
Secondly, you are saying that I can't sell my neighbor across the street whom I have known for five years and is a retired marine and well known member of the community, my 357 without first making him fill out all the paper work necessary for the FBI to fully check him out.   That assumes every single one of the 'people' is a criminal.  That is infringement enough right there.  Do I even need to mention Fast and Furious here?  No, I do not.  And so...okay, let's make private individuals do background checks on their neighbors....do you think that is going to stop Fast Freddy from getting a gun when he gets out of prison?  Do you really think all the gang members are going to care about that law?  No.  So again, you are infringing on the rights of the people and the criminals are still out there possessing guns.

[questionmark]

joc, on 16 January 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

First of all, where did the number 16,000 come from and how is that valid at all?  You could just as easily say 32,000...
Secondly, you are saying that I can't sell my neighbor across the street whom I have known for five years and is a retired marine and well known member of the community, my 357 without first making him fill out all the paper work necessary for the FBI to fully check him out.   That assumes every single one of the 'people' is a criminal.  That is infringement enough right there.  Do I even need to mention Fast and Furious here?  No, I do not.  And so...okay, let's make private individuals do background checks on their neighbors....do you think that is going to stop Fast Freddy from getting a gun when he gets out of prison?  Do you really think all the gang members are going to care about that law?  No.  So again, you are infringing on the rights of the people and the criminals are still out there possessing guns.

I thought you followed the discussions here, but if you do not I will be happy to link to the pertinent articles again.

And yes, if the police can follow who gave fast Freddy the gun fast Freddy will have to commit his crimes with a baseball bat in the future because nobody would risk it.

[F3SS]

questionmark, on 16 January 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

I thought you followed the discussions here, but if you do not I will be happy to link to the pertinent articles again.

And yes, if the police can follow who gave fast Freddy the gun fast Freddy will have to commit his crimes with a baseball bat in the future because nobody would risk it.

Sounds ok but you're not dumb enough to believe the black market would ever disappear. That's a market that never crashes. Never has and never will. It's as old as commerce.

[Stellar]

joc, on 16 January 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

No.  I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a background check on people who buy guns.   We already have that in place and it works pretty well.  But it is simply impossible to close every 'loophole' that would allow a criminal to get a gun without infringing on the rights of the people.

You have background checks performed when a dealer sells to a buyer, but not when it involves a private seller.

[questionmark]

-Mr_Fess-, on 16 January 2013 - 08:54 PM, said:

Sounds ok but you're not dumb enough to believe the black market would ever disappear. That's a market that never crashes. Never has and never will. It's as old as commerce.

It seems to me that if guns are abundant (because with a supply as is they are abundant) it is cheap, taking a big portion out of the market would drive prices up, and driving the prices up will make guns scarce making a $100 dollar liquor store holdup unproductive. No, the black market will not disappear, but if it gets like in certain very restrictive countries where a illegal Makarov would cost 1500-2000 bucks ( store value about $300) it would at least take it out of the hands of petty criminals. And yes, in those countries there are also plenty legal guns. Just that you are held responsible for them.

[Stellar]

joc, on 16 January 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

First of all, where did the number 16,000 come from and how is that valid at all?  You could just as easily say 32,000...
Secondly, you are saying that I can't sell my neighbor across the street whom I have known for five years and is a retired marine and well known member of the community, my 357 without first making him fill out all the paper work necessary for the FBI to fully check him out.   That assumes every single one of the 'people' is a criminal.  That is infringement enough right there.  Do I even need to mention Fast and Furious here?  No, I do not.  And so...okay, let's make private individuals do background checks on their neighbors....do you think that is going to stop Fast Freddy from getting a gun when he gets out of prison?  Do you really think all the gang members are going to care about that law?  No.  So again, you are infringing on the rights of the people and the criminals are still out there possessing guns.

Why does it assume that everyone is criminal? When you buy from a store they do a background check, and you have no problem with that.

You may know your neighbor quite well and you could be right that he is not a criminal. What of the next guy though? The next private buyer who wants to buy from a private seller?

[green_dude777]

For whatever it's worth, I'm all about private sales needing to perform a background check, but I am still against a registry. With that said, the FBI or ATF would need a centralized database of felons, and I would say they need to provide a free way for someone to run a background check. Problem is, that won't happen, they will charge for it.

[F3SS]

Neighbor to neighbor background checks don't seem so bad except it shouldn't be the sellers responsibility to perform the check. The buyer should have it done himself and present legal notarized papers to be copied and signed by both parties. That way the seller is covered and any fraudulent actions will lye on the buyer. Anyways, there is a process when privately selling guns to people. In PA I believe a registered gun can only be transferred or gifted to immediate family members and private sales are to take place at an authorized gun store where proper registration can take place. So there are already many laws on the books. Enforcement may be an issue and criminals will always be negligent of any law. So how again does adding more law solve those two issues?

[ninjadude]

joc, on 16 January 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

This has nothing to do with guns.  It has to do with the Constitution which guarantees Americans the right to possess and bear arms.

No problem. You can have all the flint-locks that you can carry.

[ninjadude]

joc, on 16 January 2013 - 08:37 PM, said:

Secondly, you are saying that I can't sell my neighbor across the street whom I have known for five years and is a retired marine and well known member of the community, my 357 without first making him fill out all the paper work necessary

yep pretty much the same thing if you sell a car. You have to fill out paper - by law.

[F3SS]

ninjadude, on 17 January 2013 - 02:34 AM, said:

No problem. You can have all the flint-locks that you can carry.

You start this thread as flame bait. It worked and I accept that. But really man, all these posts and all this conversation and you pick the smallest things to make the smallest quip. How about some adding substance to this subject you're so passionate about.

[ninjadude]

joc, on 16 January 2013 - 03:43 PM, said:

the right shall not be infringed.
Telling people what arms they can and cannot bear infringes that right.  Passing laws restricting in anyway the arms that people may bear is an infringement.

possibly but it does not matter. Those amendments are not unlimited. Nearly all of them have been "infringed". And for good reasons.