What's the argument against background checks for private gun sales?

Nasty ones.

 

Yes I know what I asked. But you didn't answer my question that I asked about 27 CFR § 478.129: so this is for when a transfer has NOT taken place, correct?

 

You're not making any sense whatsoever.

 

Free? I'm sure that you can't speak for all dealers.

 

Including taking the buyers personal details?

 

Yes, for enforcing a FEDERAL private sales background requirement, right?

 

I do not dispute any of that, but there is nothing in there which is about KILLING POWER!

 

How would you define "killing power"?

Are all firearms equal by your definition, or are those that shoot bullets at a higher rate and greater velocity more destructive in the damage they inflict on human beings than ordinary handguns?

I recognize they differ. Most folks do.

November 7, 2017

... In 1981, I published a book called National Defense, which was popular at the time and was excerpted in three installments in the magazine. One of the installments was called “The M-16: A Bureaucratic Horror Story,” and it included the origin story of the AR-15....

Americans who know nothing else about firearms are all too familiar with the name AR-15. It’s the semi-automatic weapon that murderers have used in many of the most notorious and highest-casualty gun killings of recent years: Aurora, Colorado. Newtown, Connecticut. Orlando, Florida. San Bernardino, California. Now, with modified versions, in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Sutherland Springs, Texas. [The carnage persists.]

What is this gun? Why is it the weapon that people who want to kill a lot of other people, in a hurry, mainly choose?...

There is the advantage that a small or light bullet has over a heavy one when it comes to wound ballistics. … When they hit something, they immediately go unstable. … If you are talking about .30-caliber [like a bullet used in the Army’s previous M-14], this might remain stable through a human body. … While a little bullet, being it has a low mass, it senses an instability situation faster and reacts much faster. … this is what makes a little bullet pay off so much in wound ballistics.”

A little bullet pays off so much in wound ballistics. That is what people who choose these weapons know.

... Everyone I interviewed about these weapons at the time—the AR-15, its bastard offspring M-16, the opposing AK-47—assumed as a first premise that they were talking about battlefield equipment. None of them seemed to imagine such killing power in civilian hands.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/why-the-ar-15-is-so-lethal/545162/


​

 

I said LAWs, flamethrowers, claymores, and the like.
Bearable arms, you are for infringement.

 

do you support people being able to own those?

 

yep, its unconstitutional and unenforceable in terms of practicality

 

name, address height weight DOB and if the buyer has any disqualifying features

 

All actual "assault weapons" are military weapons. The AR-15, by contrast, has never been issued to any military in the world.

 

I've answered that to already.

Per the words of 2A, No.

But I know that the constitution is not an absolute document.
And I admit we have many interpretations to it.

How many times do I have to tell you infringement on 2A, is a line in the sand?

Admit it, you also agree with infringements.

 

So?
Claymores, flamethrowers, etc have been issued. Yet they are infringed upon.

 

more dishonesty-you try to pretend that if someone thinks the second doesn't protect SAMs then they are no different than you wanting to ban semi auto rifles

 

I own a semi automatic rifle. Why would I want to ban them?
SAMs? You think a claymore is a SAM?

You can't admit you want infringements, so you always make a stupid personal attack.

Try some honesty.

 

Unconstitutional infringements of the People's rights, that were once accepted as constitutional, are struck down ALL THE TIME. It is fallacy to assume that just by virtue of being passed legislation, that a law is therefore Constitutional. There are many laws that, if seriously challenged, would be struck down as unconstitutional. I imagine that any "flamethrower ban" law that exists, if there is one, would be an example.

 

Don't know if they are illegal or not. But certainly not available.
Like automatic rifles are available but are severely infringed upon.

So there seems to be no problem with infringement.

 

Okay, so do you have any problem with STATE laws requiring background checks for private sale? Is that also unconstitutional?

 

Just because infringements exist, does not mean they are Constitutional. Only that they have not been challenged. If there is little demand for automatic firearms, then there is no challenge to the prohibition. Almost no one wants to own one, and those who do are OK paying for the tax stamp required to do so. So, no challenge, even though the regulation is without a doubt an unconstitutional infringement.

"That which is not prohibited, is allowed." If there is no law against owning a flamethrower, then it is legal to do so. Their unavailability on the marketplace is then determined by lack of demand, and is not an infringement. Like automatic rifles, I doubt if government wanted to regulate flamethrowers, that there would be much opposition. Again, that doesn't make it Constitutional.

 

They have those barriers to ownership to prevent everyday Americans from owning them, automatic rifle that is. That's an infringement.
That's unconstitutional. Per the words of 2a.
It matters little what demand is or isn't.

Here's a link to bearable arms that may be illegal to own or sell.

 

Why? It's a FREE service to them! It also part of the job, like I say literally volumes can be written of the average person and their lack of knowledge of the subject..

Perfect example of what happened to people when they allow themselves to be told when they should be learning it for themselves

 

WTF MAN!

How damn clear does it have to be to you??

Good God man!

 

states have that power/ The only problem I have is that they are worthless and a waste of time