i managed to say "if"... go read it.. it's at the beginning, you can't miss it.
you, on the other hand, took what i said and added whatever you wanted to it.

it's not easier to stab someone with a pen than it is to shoot them with a gun. that's just asinine.

1/14/2014 4:19:12 PM

yes, you are correct. it wouldn't have even be discussed in the gun control thread, or possibly even on tww if he had stabbed him with a pen. that's a good point that needed to be made here.

1/14/2014 4:25:19 PM

If the cop shot himself with the gun, it wouldn't be discussed here either.

1/14/2014 4:37:21 PM

Quote :

"Which would have solved what in this case?"

in this specific case, no amount of gun control would stop it

but it would certainly make a difference in regards to the trend of gun violence in general

1/14/2014 4:48:58 PM

Quote :

" The type of person that would concealed carry to a movie theater would jump through any and all hoops to get that gun."

What makes you think that people are going to register guns even if it somehow becomes the law. There is no chance in hell.

1/14/2014 8:53:26 PM

^ The point was that it doesn't matter how many prerequisites you require for someone like that to buy a gun. That type will do whatever it takes. Obviously if you already have the gun, it doesn't matter.

As far as getting people to follow a hypothetical registration law, I guess it just depends on how tough the consequences are.

1/14/2014 9:01:30 PM

If registration was mandatory, most would register their guns.

1/14/2014 10:30:45 PM

register guns they already own or register guns purchased from that day forward?

1/14/2014 10:58:35 PM

The pro gun crowd is pretty nutty, I can see them choosing to collectively break the law. Ironic this same demographic argues that CC holders are they can be trusted to have guns in bars and playgrounds, because they always follow the law.

1/14/2014 11:05:17 PM

do you let shoot proofread your posts?

i think you should 'add another note'

1/14/2014 11:32:08 PM

Typed from the iPad.

"CC holders are they can"
Should just be
"CC holders can"

1/15/2014 12:22:40 AM

Quote :

"If registration was mandatory, most would register their guns."

O RLY?? You seem quite sure of yourself.

1/15/2014 7:45:58 AM

Most people are not criminals, most people are law abiding people who do not want to be arrested for gun charges

1/15/2014 7:59:10 AM

But even ignoring mandatory registration, every gun purchase should require a background check. And the majority of Americans support that, and by a wide margin.

1/15/2014 8:01:03 AM

The majority of Americans don't understand the implications of that and why it isn't as simple as it sounds. I think things change once that is explained.

Quote :

" The pro gun crowd is pretty nutty, I can see them choosing to collectively break the law. Ironic this same demographic argues that CC holders are they can be trusted to have guns in bars and playgrounds, because they always follow the law."

There is a difference between violent criminal behavior and committing a victimless crime because they rightfully don't trust that compliance won't come back to be to their detriment.

1/15/2014 8:53:18 AM

I'd play ball and register a bolt-action rimfire or a pump-action shotgun. I'd be a little wary about a long-range match rifle or a handgun (I'd probably register one or two handguns, then keep a couple more off the books). Not a snowball's chance in hell that I'd register an AR-anything or the like.

1/15/2014 8:57:16 AM

then you would be a criminal, and it says a lot about you that you would jeopardize your career and family because of your fear of the government.


In regards to background checks:
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/most-support-background-checks-for-gun-purchases/

Quote :

"While the issue of gun control remains divisive, there are clear areas of agreement when it comes to a number of gun policy proposals. Fully 85% of Americans favor making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks, with comparable support from Republicans, Democrats and independents. Similarly, 80% support laws to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing guns, with broad support across party lines. The bipartisan consensus breaks down when it comes to other proposals. Two-thirds of Americans (67%) favor creating a federal database to track gun sales, but there is a wide partisan divide between Democrats (84%) and Republicans (49%). A smaller majority (55%) favors a ban on assault-style weapons; Democrats (69%) also are far more likely than Republicans (44%) to support this. Similar partisan divides exist when it comes to banning high-capacity ammunition clips or the sale of ammunition online. On proposals dealing with school safety, 64% overall favor putting armed security guards and police in more schools. On the other hand, 57% oppose more teachers and school officials having guns. That option is particularly divisive across party lines: 56% of Republicans would like to see more teachers and school officials armed, compared with just 23% of Democrats. Read more"

85%
85% favor background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx



and even from the national journal
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/coverage/poll-majority-of-republican-men-support-universal-background-checks-on-gun-sales-20131206


i can't think of any other single issue or item that Americans agree about as much as requiring universal background checks for all gun purchases. its probably the most-agreed upon thing in this country.

1/15/2014 10:04:03 AM

Quote :

"then you would be a criminal, and it says a lot about you that you would jeopardize your career and family because of your fear of the government"

it's almost like those of us who wouldn't comply would mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

1/15/2014 10:26:27 AM

wat

1/15/2014 10:35:55 AM

list of men who also jeopardized their careers and families due to fear of the gubment

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

1/15/2014 10:38:08 AM

its absolutely hilarious when you gun nuts start talking about an armed revolution

so, NeuseRvrRat, what federal target are you planning on attacking first when gun registration is required? how many people do you plan on killing?

1/15/2014 10:40:41 AM

this house of cards will fall without a single shot being fired

1/15/2014 10:45:58 AM

so, Chris from Goldsboro who lives in Wilmington, who are you going to assassinate?


[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 10:49 AM. Reason : because it would definitely not result in a drastic loss of civil liberties and more of a clamp down]

1/15/2014 10:47:09 AM

not a single shot

1/15/2014 10:47:57 AM

maybe you should let the adults talk about this

1/15/2014 10:49:00 AM

will do

1/15/2014 10:49:37 AM

In regards to background checks:
http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/most-support-background-checks-for-gun-purchases/

Quote :

"While the issue of gun control remains divisive, there are clear areas of agreement when it comes to a number of gun policy proposals. Fully 85% of Americans favor making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks, with comparable support from Republicans, Democrats and independents. Similarly, 80% support laws to prevent mentally ill people from purchasing guns, with broad support across party lines. The bipartisan consensus breaks down when it comes to other proposals. Two-thirds of Americans (67%) favor creating a federal database to track gun sales, but there is a wide partisan divide between Democrats (84%) and Republicans (49%). A smaller majority (55%) favors a ban on assault-style weapons; Democrats (69%) also are far more likely than Republicans (44%) to support this. Similar partisan divides exist when it comes to banning high-capacity ammunition clips or the sale of ammunition online. On proposals dealing with school safety, 64% overall favor putting armed security guards and police in more schools. On the other hand, 57% oppose more teachers and school officials having guns. That option is particularly divisive across party lines: 56% of Republicans would like to see more teachers and school officials armed, compared with just 23% of Democrats. Read more"

85%
85% favor background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162083/americans-wanted-gun-background-checks-pass-senate.aspx



and even from the national journal
http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/coverage/poll-majority-of-republican-men-support-universal-background-checks-on-gun-sales-20131206


i can't think of any other single issue or item that Americans agree about as much as requiring universal background checks for all gun purchases. its probably the most-agreed upon thing in this country.

1/15/2014 10:51:06 AM

do the majority of americans know that the current Form 4473 and associated background check process result in a de facto registration, which is illegal per US law?

1/15/2014 10:53:15 AM

It requires licensed dealers (private sellers are exempt) to keep the records in their own books for 20 years; the only time any records end up in the hands of the ATF is when the dealers retire from the business.

This doesn't quite rise to the level of making a clandestine gun registry.

1/15/2014 11:04:41 AM

its not a de facto registration

but here is my question:
why are you nuts so afraid of registrations? if that information was protected from disclosure (like it is in regards to information from that form), then why do you care?

but i have no problem clarifying the laws regarding records if it means that background checks would pass. in particular, i would clarify that "to seize" includes photographs or scans.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 11:31 AM. Reason : tl;dr these are all things that we can work out, they are not set in stone]

1/15/2014 11:28:24 AM

Because in their minds, the 2nd amendment, more than any other, is the best protection we have against a corrupt government.

1/15/2014 12:47:53 PM

Those polls/quotes alone show how deceptive these polls and politicians are being about the expanded background checks issue.

Where the sale occurs isn't important. This gunshow loophole is nothing but political mongering. These questions make it seem like there are no BG checks at gunshows or for private sales, which is just not the case.

And none of the recently proposed legislation as been just "require BG checks on all purchases". These bills have gone much further.

And don't get me started on banning scary looking guns.

It's all full of shit and anyone who quotes it is as well.

I'm in favor of expanded BG checks. But don't kid yourself when comparing these numbers, based on leading questions and uninformed participants, and asking why things haven't changed in this country.

1/15/2014 1:11:22 PM

Quote :

"the only time any records end up in the hands of the ATF is when the dealers retire from the business"

not true

recently, the ATF has begun hitting FFLs and scanning all their 4473s. i can google you up some links if you want.

if it's not a registration, then why won't they take the firearm information (make, model, serial) off the form?

1/15/2014 1:33:35 PM

if they'll eavesdrop on your phone calls and emails without a warrant, i have no idea what would stop them from keeping a form you filled out.

1/15/2014 1:41:46 PM

Quote :

"why are you ... so afraid of registrations? if that information was protected from disclosure (like it is in regards to information from that form), then why do you care? "

Because registration leads to confiscation at the whims of the politicians. For evidence of this, just look at NY which since the passage of their new gun control laws have started confiscating and destroying legally owned property because some law makers decided certain arbitrary features are now illegal, like for example, the Marlin 60 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlin_Model_60) a simple .22 rifle that doesn't fall into the scary assault weapon category, has likely never been used in any mass murders anywhere in the world, and would be the sort of rifle you would give to a bunch of kids at summer camp. But because this rifle holds more than 5 rounds, it's now illegal and must be destroyed or sold. And the state only know and can send out letters (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/robert-farago/begins-new-york-sending-gun-confiscation-notices/), and later officers, because the state required and has a registry of who owns these guns.

Let's put it this way. Imagine you live in Bible Belt, Texas, where everyone in the town votes for the local clergy for office. Bible Belt, Texas decides that certain books (like the Anarchist Cookbook) are dangerous to the peace, and so all book sales in Bible Belt, Texas must be registered. What happens when the next city legislators in Bible Belt, Texas decide that "The God Delusion" is also dangerous to the peace, and all existing copies must be sold out of state or destroyed? Even if you eventually win that court battle, you've still had your legally owned property taken and destroyed by the government because they knew you had it.

Or imagine that North Carolina decides to start registering the sales of sex toys. What happens when the people of NC suddenly decide non vanilla man + women sex acts are once again "crimes against nature"?

The fact is, my ownership of a particular gun has no more impact on the safety of anyone else than would my ownership of the Anarchist Cookbook or a pair of fuzzy handcuffs, no matter how many maladjusted fucks out there shoot people, blow them up with molotov cocktails or chain innocent women in their sex dungeons, that has nothing to do with me owning the tools that those people use, and you have no right to know or care that I own those tools any more than I have a right to know or care what you own.

1/15/2014 1:57:54 PM

so if the definition of seizure was expanded to include photos or scanning (which would then make it illegal for them to do so), then you guys would be okay with mandatory background checks?

because part of the problem is that you guys are not willing to move an inch, even though the evidence is clear that we have a problem. I'm fine with additional requirements for privacy of info on 4473's, are you guys okay with moving a bit to allow background checks?

if not, then at what point are you okay with background checks for every purchase?

tl;dr- try to compromise and propose a plan where you are okay with background checks

Quote :

"Where the sale occurs isn't important. This gunshow loophole is nothing but political mongering."

private sales don't require background checks, you are getting tripped up by a phrase. it doesn't matter where it happens. it does matter that its private party with no background checks.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 3:14 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2014 3:12:21 PM

Quote :

"tl;dr- try to compromise and propose a plan where you are okay with background checks"

The problem is, we've already compromised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System), and now we're being asked to give more. It's not compromising if one side doesn't get anything out of the deal (http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html)

Quote :

"private sales don't require background checks"

Private sales that take place entirely between two residents of the same state, the recipient of which must be legally capable of possessing the firearm and that state which must not have any requirements to the contrary (such as NC which requires the pistol permit even for private party sales) do not require background checks. Any sale which crosses state lines or which is done by an FFL must by law involve a NICS check.

1/15/2014 3:22:04 PM

Quote :

"Private sales that take place entirely between two residents of the same state, the recipient of which must be legally capable of possessing the firearm and that state which must not have any requirements to the contrary (such as NC which requires the pistol permit even for private party sales) do not require background checks."

duh

so your compromise was an instant system that removed the waiting period? at its best that's not moving very much, and really that's moving in the other direction.

the polling is clear that the vast majority of americans want background checks for every purchase. so how do we compromise and make that happen? an FFL is already required across state lines, so lets extend that to intrastate and to long guns. Then, to capitulate to NRA, let's revise the rules for ATF visits to clarify that the definition of seizure of the bound book (which is illegal) shall included photo copies and scans.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2014 3:28:06 PM

Or we could just leave the system as it is because the problem isn't sales without background checks. Hell, the ATF doesn't even follow up on the current number of NICS sales that fail because the purchaser lied on the form about their felony status (a felony itself), what in the world is adding more background checks to that going to do to solve anything?

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 3:40 PM. Reason : sdh]

1/15/2014 3:39:42 PM

but the huge majority of americans don't want it left as is, the huge majority wants background checks for all purchases.

so what do we do do satisfy the few of you to make that happen?

Quote :

"what in the world is adding more background checks to that going to do to solve anything?"

a solution doesn't need to solve every situation, it just needs to reduce them. it would reduce them. you can always have people lie on affidavits, but it would still reduce the number if illegal purchases and make it more difficult.

and, in regards to this, i support additional reporting requirements for courts to report items to NICS in a timely fashion. It's one of the reasons I supported the new NC gun laws.

tl;dr these are all solvable disagreements

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 3:45 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2014 3:44:28 PM

Quote :

"so if the definition of seizure was expanded to include photos or scanning (which would then make it illegal for them to do so), then you guys would be okay with mandatory background checks? "

i've said it itt many times

remove the make/model/serial off the form and i'll run my private transfers through an FFL. that's compromise. they get their feel-good "universal" background check and i get rid of de facto registration. i don't like it, but if it'll shut the antis up, then i'll submit.

the problem is they won't stop there. it won't do a damn thing. the next time a shooting is sensationalized on the news, they'll be demanding another "compromise".

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM. Reason : i would also like to see a max price set for transfer fee. $15 is reasonable.]

1/15/2014 3:47:04 PM

part of the purpose of the form though is for criminal traces, how would they do that without a make/model/serial?

what if there was a time expiration on the data, or maybe if the record was destroyed when the gun was sold?

1/15/2014 3:52:02 PM

so you admit that it is de facto registration?

the people want background checks!!!!!*



*and registration**





**which is illegal per FOPA

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 3:54 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/15/2014 3:53:30 PM

Quote :

"but the huge majority of americans don't want it left as is"

And just 20 years ago, a huge majority of americans wanted gay marriage to be illegal. A huge majority of americans wanted pot to be illegal. Hell, we got an entire ammendment passed once because a majority wanted alcohol to be illegal too. Before that, a huge majority of americans wanted owning other human beings to be legal. We had a supreme court decision that said we couldn't consider black people real people because that would mean allowing them to own guns. Just because the majority (no matter how huge) wants something doesn't make it legal or right, even if they have the support of the supreme court, nor does it mean it's something we should do.

Quote :

"a solution doesn't need to solve every situation, it just needs to reduce them."

A solution to what? What is the problem that private party background checks is going to solve? That sales happen without a background check? Why is this a problem. The last bunch of news making gun shootings all involved people who either got their guns legally with a background check or obtained them illegally in the first place, not via a private sale. So what problem are we making a solution for and why is it a problem worth spending time on compared to other problems?

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 3:55 PM. Reason : sdgh]

1/15/2014 3:54:16 PM

Quote :

"so you admit that it is de facto registration?"

no, but if you scroll back through the thread you'll see that I've been opposed to efforts that don't include mandatory data destruction and clear privacy rules

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2014 3:55:13 PM

under no circumstances whatsoever am i ok with the govt having any documentation whatsoever of who owns what guns

such documentation has absolutely nothing to do with background checks. they are two separate things.

1/15/2014 3:57:35 PM

How is the government knowing that you own a gun with serial number 46632455 worse than the government knowing that you own a gun? You just said you were okay if they took the make/model/serial off the form, but why?

and I'd be fine with removing that information from private sales form, as long as you require private sellers to retain a record of who they sold the gun to.

[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2014 4:04:48 PM

because as soon as some folks decide that any gun with a serial number ending in 5, or any other arbitrary cosmetic feature that my gun happens to exhibit, is too dangerous for me to own, it will be confiscated. it has happened in every country that instituted a registration. it will be no different here.

1/15/2014 4:09:17 PM

i edited and added this after your post:

Quote :

"and I'd be fine with removing that information from private sales form, as long as you require private sellers to retain a record of who they sold the gun to"

however, realize that when you say

Quote :

"because as soon as some folks decide that any gun with a serial number ending in 5, or any other arbitrary cosmetic feature that my gun happens to exhibit, is too dangerous for me to own, it will be confiscated."

what you are saying is:
i don't want the government to know what kind of gun i own, because if it becomes illegal i will refuse to turn it in and will own it illegally as a criminal.

because whether or not a gun is illegal has nothing to do with if its registered, the only difference is that in one case you would be able to own it illegally.


[Edited on January 15, 2014 at 4:15 PM. Reason : .]

1/15/2014 4:13:50 PM

your point?

1/15/2014 4:15:45 PM