- Jun 26, 2015
- 26,642
- 15,693
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Agree.We already know the government is not responsible for any individual's protection. The courts have already ruled on that. Given that neither the government nor anyone else is willing to guarantee the personal safety of me or my family, it is patently immoral of them to deprive me of what I consider the best means of protection.
Oh yeah, big time. One might even argue that with the removal of the conservative Republicans from the leadership positions in the party during George Bushes tenure 15 years ago. That the party is being controlled by the lawless element. Why else would 50 or so Republicans, (the leadership) vote with all the Democrats the last 8 years to give us trillion dollar deficits per year. The base of the party has not though. They still retain their knowledge of and desire to run our affairs according to Biblical principle. Its a flipping war.OTOH, I do know some Republicans who have completely rejected Biblical morality and principle.
Oh Yeah, the lawless element in our culture clearly leans Democrat. Always has. Its not exclusively Democrat and perhaps it may be true that most Democrat voters are not lawless people. But it is what it is.
The more you give the more they want .....second a right don't need permission or a reason we were warned if we trade freedom for security we will have neither just my 2 centsAll gun sales by licensed dealers including at gun shows are background checked. There are no loopholes. That is a Democrat party lie. When they talk about "universal " background checks. They are talking about an individual not being allowed to sell his gun to another individual without a background check. I have an idea for a workable compromise. Tell me what you think.
There are major constitutional and dangers associated with background checks for an individual to sell a firearm to another individual. Aside from the whole idea that the government should have any say in this at all. The danger is there is really no way to accomplish this without the government being able to compile a defacto firearms registration. Which is what the NRA and almost all gun owners are 100% against. Right now licensed Gun dealers are required to keep the paper copies of sales, serial numbers and background check documents. That way if a crime is committed with a firearm. Law enforcement can get a warrant for that paper record to see who the original purchaser was so they might track the fire arm to the perp. Those records at gun stores are not in government hands because that would create a defato gun registration data base. But how can a private seller sell a firearm to another individual if they have conduct a back ground check? The government has no power, nor will it be given the power for an individual keep a paper record forever. They cannot be required to notify the government of their location so that paper record can be accessed by law enforcement if that gun is ever used in a crime. The only way, on practical level is for the government to keep a data base on firearm arm sales from and to individuals which is inherently dangerous.
.
So here is my compromise. Individuals who want to purchase firearms purchase a yearly background check ID card from the government. Like $50 per year. Now this would have to be voluntary to be constitutional. So there would have to be incentive to get people to voluntarily get an ID and private sellers to only sell their firearms to a person who has the ID. The incentive would be sellers, by law, would receive greatly decreased civil liabilities, if the person they sell a gun to commits a crime with the gun. Right now as it stands. Private sellers can be subjected to all kinds of civil liabilities if the gun they sold to an individual is used in the commission of a crime. If sued they basically have to prove they are not guilty of knowingly selling a firearm to an individual who was going to use it in the commission of a crime. This is wrong and unconstitutional but it is the way it is now. Changing the civil law to: Now the one filing the lawsuit against the seller has to prove the seller is guilty of selling the gun to someone they know would use it to commit a crime if that person who committed the crime had the background check ID. That would kill to birds with one stone. It would bring civil law back under constitutional guidelines of innocent until proven guilty and it would be the defacto enactment of much needed tort reform. Criminal liabilities would remain about the same.
So that would be a great incentive for legal, private gun sales from one individual to another to use a background check system. The government would have no knowledge of the private transfer of a firearm from one individual to another. Which is the way it should be. There would be and could not be a data base compiled by the government with this system. Persons selling a firearm could not be held civilly liable for a crime committed by the buyer who used the gun unless the government or greedy lawyer could prove to a jury from a criminal law standard that they are guilty of knowingly selling the firearm to an individual who would commit a crime with it. Civil law would remain the same for individuals who sold the firearm to a non-card carrying individuals. If dragged into court they would have to basically prove they are innocent. Wrong but that is the standard for civil law.
Why not just make individuals do the same background check as a licensed gun dealer and put within the law that the government cannot keep a record of the transaction? Are you freaking kidding me? Trusting government to keep a law like that? Basically giving it the power to create a national gun registration data base and trusting them to not do it? When the NRA created sponsored background checks that we currently have on the books was signed into law by the Clinton's. That law specifically states no federal, state or local government agency is allowed to keep records of the background checks and sales. Those records are only allowed to be kept by the licensed gun dealer. The very first thing the Clinton justice dept. did was to commission software that could be distributed to local and state authorities that would collect the records of sales through the background check system and then forward the records to a national database. They planned on blackmailing local and state authorities by cutting of federal aid unless they complied. Luckily the conservative led Republican congress got wind of the scheme and stopped them. The wicked will always seek to create a national firearm registration whether the law forbids them from doing it or not. A long those lines. Do you think for a single minute that the Democrat party or the lawyers would vote for something like this that will do a little bit of good but won't stop 90% of the firearm related crime we are seeing? I say heck no they will not. They want a national firearm registration, that is their goal. They could care less about background checking people. And the lawyers want to be able to sue people and force them to prove they are nor guilty. That way they are guaranteed a huge income from these bogus law suits.
So tell me what you think about this. Since I just thought of it last night. There must be pitfalls I don't see in it.
So you say, but you belong to a group whose morality is doubted by many, whose patriotism is doubted by many. It's not a very big step from "Criminals are Democrats" to Democrat are criminals."Well, I'm a Democrat who owns guns, but I'm not a criminal.
Do you think we're only getting this on the internet?It's pretty typical for people on the Internet to ignore the meaning of words like "most" and "likely," I've noted.
So you say, but you belong to a group whose morality is doubted by many, whose patriotism is doubted by many.
Lol. No, you don't.I look forward to your citations backing up your claims.
No, because if I give him the list two things will happen. One is I’ll be accused of gaslighting him. Two is judgement in the form of natural consequences come with the refusal of light. He will have to accept the light or make up a bunch of lies and excuses to justify belonging to the political party of the criminal class in America.Why? Because you can't so there's nothing to look forward to?
Well, if you won't cite sources with actual statistics perhaps you could give some hint as to methodology. For instance, I certainly have only a layman's understanding of criminology at best, but some criminals who are described in the media seem entirely apolitical. How do you classify them as to political party?No, because if I give him the list two things will happen. One is I’ll be accused of gaslighting him. Two is judgement in the form of natural consequences come with the refusal of light. He will have to accept the light or make up a bunch of lies and excuses to justify belonging to the political party of the criminal class in America.
Lol. No, you don't.
Tough. $100 Less is cheap if it helps protect society from guns getting into the wrong hands. You gun owners are always claim g to be good citizens, so act like it.You get a lot less for a used gun from a dealer than you do a private sale. And private sale is less than buying a used gun from a dealer. We are talking around a $100 difference. Either way. That is why that idea is bad.
Tough. $100 Less is cheap if it helps protect society from guns getting into the wrong hands. You gun owners are always claim g to be good citizens, so act like it.
The though is that it would do more to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals, not mass shooters.Most guns are bought from dealers anyway. That includes the ones used in the latest shootings. So making people lose money on sales and forcing them to do business with a dealer doesn't do as much good as it would appear.
The though is that it would do more to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals, not mass shooters.
The though is that it would do more to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals, not mass shooters.
OK, so you can split hairs if you want and identify two classes of "criminals." Crazed ideologues and those engaging in violence for financial gain.That's quite a thought! Aren't mass shooters "actual criminals"?
OK, so you can split hairs if you want and identify two classes of "criminals." Crazed ideologues and those engaging in violence for financial gain.
The though is that it would do more to keep guns out of the hands of actual criminals, not mass shooters.
The shooting itself is a crime, but in the case of a mass shooter it is not being carried out in the furtherance of a criminal enterprise. What I meant by "actual criminal" was a person who was a criminal before the shooting took place. A bank robber who shoots a guard during his getaway was already a criminal; a heroin dealer who shoots a rival was already a criminal. The reason for the distinction is, as RDKirk pointed out, that the manner of obtaining the weapon, and indeed, the kind of weapon chosen are likely to be different and in a sense constitutes a different kind of problem with respect to practical gun control.I'm not the one splitting hairs:
What I'm trying to do is figure out why you would classify mass shooters distinguishable from actual criminals. Shooting even 1 person for a reason other than self defense is an actual criminal act.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?