A workable compromise on "universal" firearm background checks.

[Daniel Martinovich]

In the US, over the last several decades, yes.

Well, the USA is armed. The vast amount of murders of innocent civilians by their own governments happened when he people were unarmed. Don't you think there is any correlation in that? That being said. I guess you should fear the armed individuals them if you mean to confiscate firearms from morally responsible and law abiding people. That is the beauty of the 2nd amendment. The teeth behind the bill of rights. The fear it puts in individuals and movements that seek to violate human rights.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

No, you didn't get it from my comment. Contrary to your suggestion, a gun registry does not constitute "unlimited government power".

Yes it does. Because it just supplied the government with the knowledge of where all the legal, law abiding firearms are. That is knowledge and power they did not have previously. You just claim they are trustworthy of that power.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Well, the USA is armed. The vast amount of murders of innocent civilians by their own governments happened when he people were unarmed. Don't you think there is any correlation in that? That being said. I guess you should fear the armed individuals them if you mean to confiscate firearms from morally responsible and law abiding people. That is the beauty of the 2nd amendment. The teeth behind the bill of rights. The fear it puts in individuals and movements that seek to violate human rights.

The governments of most western countries kill even fewer of their citizens despite their citizens not being armed to any significant degree. If the government wants to kill you, they can. If anything, the potential of you being armed makes them more likely to use lethal force against you.

Yes it does. Because it just supplied the government with the knowledge of where all the legal, law abiding firearms are. That is knowledge and power they did not have previously.

More power != unlimited power. Yes, they would have a registry; no, they would not be able to do with it whatever they wanted (just as how they can't seize my car willy-nilly despite it being registered with the government). er go, there is a limit to this power

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

It is much too serious and we all need to work together to do all we can to end so many deaths using guns.

Yeah, that danger is that the checks don't get conducted.

I'm for not changing anything ... we already have processes in place ... it's not perfect but nothing put in place would be perfect.

I don't think anything being proposed by the Democratic contenders is unconstitutional. I don't like it, but I think most of it will pass constitutional muster.

By the way. Are all you guys\gals Christians. Not that it matters here. But if your interested in how the second amendment is straightforward Biblical principle. Along with all kinds of other useful information. I have a great article on the matter.
The Second Amendment

 

[iluvatar5150]

By the way. Are all you guys\gals Christians. Not that it matters here. But if your interested in how the second amendment is straightforward Biblical principle. Along with all kinds of other useful information. I have a great article on the matter.
The Second Amendment
View attachment 260830

Nothing about the 2nd amendment stems from scripture and the entire notion of "god-given rights" is arguably heretical from a Christian perspective. The Bible doesn't guarantee anything to Christians other than a ticket to heaven and a bunch of angst on earth for living out your faith. Theologizing "certain unalienable rights" in that manner constitutes elevating the declaration of independence to the status of scripture.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

The governments of most western countries kill even fewer of their citizens despite their citizens not being armed to any significant degree. If the government wants to kill you, they can.

Ummm, Germany and the USSR were just the last century. Prior to that. Under monarchies. ie dictatorships. You supported the monarch or were dead. All those western nations owe their current freedoms to the USA that has always had a population armed to the teeth.

If anything, the potential of you being armed makes them more likely to use lethal force against you.

That is just a ridiculous emotional statement void of any facts. That is like saying more guns in the general population automatically equal more gun deaths.
United States- 100 guns per 100 people. Murder rate 4.88 per 100,000 people, by gun 3.5. Suicide rate 12.6 per 100,000 people, by gun 6.69.
Brazil- 8 guns per 100 people. Murder rate 26.74 per 100,000 people, by gun 20. Suicide rate 6 per 100,000 people, by gun .45.
Do you think the government of Brazil has more government extra judicial killings of its citizens or the government of the USA?

More power != unlimited power. Yes, they would have a registry; no, they would not be able to do with it whatever they wanted (just as how they can't seize my car willy-nilly despite it being registered with the government). er go, there is a limit to this power

And just what is limiting that power ultimately?

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Nothing about the 2nd amendment stems from scripture and the entire notion of "god-given rights" is arguably heretical from a Christian perspective. The Bible doesn't guarantee anything to Christians other than a ticket to heaven and a bunch of angst on earth for living out your faith. Theologizing "certain unalienable rights" in that manner constitutes elevating the declaration of independence to the status of scripture.

And I say that is totally heretical and you don't know a thing about the Bible. I took the time to prove my point in the article. But your interest is your own opinion. I get it. And yes the declaration of independence is Biblical principle.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, you didn't get it from my comment. Contrary to your suggestion, a gun registry does not constitute "unlimited government power".

You're right. It's just one of the first steps towards it.

 

[Hank77]

Becasue the Dems really on their voters not knowing and the GOP really on their voters knowing.

Gun law info for dummies and those who need a place to start their knowledge.
Gun show loophole - Wikipedia
Very liberal media....
2013 article in the LA Times..
Checks are not required for transactions by private sellers, who do not have federal licenses and are a regular presence at gun shows. In fall 1998, President Clinton urged Congress to require background checks for these sales, to fix what had become known as the gun show loophole.

Less than six months later, Columbine reignited the debate. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were too young to buy the weapons they would use to kill 12 classmates and a teacher in April 1999. So they asked for help from an 18-year-old friend, who later said she chose a private seller at a gun show to avoid a background check.
Attempt to close gun show loophole has failed before

There's been plenty of explanation as to what the gun show loophole is. Anybody that pays attention to gun laws, no matter which side they are on, knows what it is.

 

[hislegacy]

All gun sales by licensed dealers including at gun shows are background checked. There are no loopholes. That is a Democrat party lie.

No, it is not a lie. Individuals who rent tables at gun shows (lots here in OK), are not required to. The dozens of sales in the parking lot are not either.

FYI. I carry and fully support universal background checks. If they can get some things straightedges out on red flag warnings I will support that also.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Gun law info for dummies and those who need a place to start their knowledge.
Gun show loophole - Wikipedia
Very liberal media....
2013 article in the LA Times..
Checks are not required for transactions by private sellers, who do not have federal licenses and are a regular presence at gun shows. In fall 1998, President Clinton urged Congress to require background checks for these sales, to fix what had become known as the gun show loophole.

Less than six months later, Columbine reignited the debate. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were too young to buy the weapons they would use to kill 12 classmates and a teacher in April 1999. So they asked for help from an 18-year-old friend, who later said she chose a private seller at a gun show to avoid a background check.
Attempt to close gun show loophole has failed before

There's been plenty of explanation as to what the gun show loophole is. Anybody that pays attention to gun laws, no matter which side they are on, knows what it is.

If they are engaging in the business of buying and selling firearms. No matter how small the business. They have to have a federal license and conduct background checks. "Regular presence" at a gun show does not mean they are buying and selling firearms. About 25% of the vendors at gun shows are not selling firearms. A "private collector" can not buy firearms and resell them at a gun show on a regular basis. They can however dispose of their firearms at a gun show without a license. So there are grey area's that a few people probably try to operate in.
Care to give me an opinion on my compromise? Do you think it would do any good? It certainly would for me if I were to sell a firearm to a stranger. I have never done that but it would be really great in my opinion to be able to do that.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

No, it is not a lie. Individuals who rent tables at gun shows (lots here in OK), are not required to. The dozens of sales in the parking lot are not either.

FYI. I carry and fully support universal background checks. If they can get some things straightedges out on red flag warnings I will support that also.

We are discussing who can and can not sell firearms at a gun show without conducting background checks. I think it is pretty well understood who can and cannot. Gun dealers cannot period. some individuals can, period.

What do you think of my compromise idea?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What I think is that you ought to drop the ridiculous assertion that this constitutes a lie. Is the term "gunshow loophole" something of a misnomer? Perhaps. But as you point out, there is still a loophole that allows guns to be transferred without background checks, whether or not that has to do with gun shows per se.

A "loophole" is just a vacant space where liberals think there should be a law.

 

[Hank77]

Because it just supplied the government with the knowledge of where all the legal, law abiding firearms are. That is knowledge and power they did not have previously.

Hunters buy hunting licenses without worrying about the government knowing that we own guns. So to say that we are worried about the government knowing we own guns through background checks and gun registrations is illogical. Both are government data bases and both would be used if the government wanted to confiscate all guns. They'd search your house and property to find all guns and ammo., not just the ones that were registered.
It doesn't stop gun owners from being members of the NRA, and other gun and hunting club memberships. If the government wanted to they could hack into every one of these membership lists.
It doesn't stop them from competing in gun and hunting tournaments.
Then there's all the hunting programs on TV, many of them are Christians. They're not worried about the government knowing that they own guns.

 

[Hank77]

A "loophole" is just a vacant space where liberals think there should be a law.

No that's the 'doughnut hole'.

 

[Pommer]

The lie is: What the gun show loophole actually is is never mentioned by the MSM or politicians who use the phrase "gun show loop hole." With the design to get the gullible to think that the gun show itself is one giant loophole with which anyone can buy a firearm without a background check.
So it we call this political "spin" rather than a lie. Would that make you happy?

How’s about getting rid of “gun shows” completely?
Oh, I know, “what a curtailment of our rights”!, but we've reached the point where maybe the firearms industry is “too big” for the functioning of a healthy society!

 

[Hank77]

How’s about getting rid of “gun shows” completely?
Oh, I know, “what a curtailment of our rights”!, but we've reached the point where maybe the firearms industry is “too big” for the functioning of a healthy society!

What reason do you have for suggesting that? What difference does it make if someone buys a gun from a dealer in a gun show booth or at the counter in a dealer's store?

 

[Aldebaran]

How’s about getting rid of “gun shows” completely?
Oh, I know, “what a curtailment of our rights”!, but we've reached the point where maybe the firearms industry is “too big” for the functioning of a healthy society!

Why? The Dayton shooter bought his gun legally through a local dealer where a background check is done. So getting rid of gun shows wouldn't have prevented him from getting it. The El Paso shooter bought his legally as well.

 

[Daniel Martinovich]

Hunters buy hunting licenses without worrying about the government knowing that we own guns. So to say that we are worried about the government knowing we own guns through background checks and gun registrations is illogical. Both are government data bases and both would be used if the government wanted to confiscate all guns. They'd search your house and property to find all guns and ammo., not just the ones that were registered.
It doesn't stop gun owners from being members of the NRA, and other gun and hunting club memberships. If the government wanted to they could hack into every one of these membership lists.
It doesn't stop them from competing in gun and hunting tournaments.
Then there's all the hunting programs on TV, many of them are Christians. They're not worried about the government knowing that they own guns.

The second amendment was not written with hunters in mind. It was written with the entire history of the world being despotic in mind. Again I'll refer you to my article on the second amendment being Biblical principle and how it relates to history.
The Second Amendment

 

[Pommer]

Why? The Dayton shooter bought his gun legally through a local dealer where a background check is done. So getting rid of gun shows wouldn't have prevented him from getting it. The El Paso shooter bought his legally as well.

When I was but a lad anyone with the correct change could purchase cigarettes out of a machine. But we got rid of that, because the public reasoned that it was harder to keep minors from purchasing cigarettes if there were vending machines on every corner doling them out to any purchaser.