In blow to gun control backers, background check compromise falls 6 votes short

Define.

 

Yes I am fine but I generally share that only with those special women in my life.

 

I see, you resort to more nonsense. Typical.

 

What no opinion here dado alex? Please try to respond with an intelligent answer since my post is directly related to how the blow dealt to the antigunners desire to enhance background checks is a violation of constitutional rights of law abiding citizens wanting to protect my children. Why do you promote the deaths of school children alex?

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/298215-background-checks-3.html#post1062587418

Posts #23 - 25

 

By PK you mean yourself?

As i said, in general self regulation is a non-starter without real regulations to provide the incentives.

 

That's right. PK as in Pregnar Kraps.

The self regulation would be in the same way the NFL and MLB and NBA and NHL are self regulating. They have a vested interest in making sure the program would work. Or else the government would have no other choice but to come in and do what the NRA, the gun industry and 2nd Amendment patriots have been fighting against so ardently.

If the government was given a chance to seriously enforce the current laws and crazies and bad guys still bought guns legally only then would PKP kick in.

Then if PKP failed due to lax administration the gun industry, the NRA and law abiding gun owners would all know their worst fear would be realized.

The government would get what they want.

The only danger might be that the current administration would try to sabotage the program so they could get what they've been trying to get all along.

Unfettered access to info on all the legal gun owners in America which would make confiscation the next step and from an administering point of view, a relatively simple one.

Logistically, well that's another story.

But that's where the millions of ammo rounds recently purchased by the govt. along with the refurbished MRAPS comes into play.

 

Because I am unsure...what is the law regarding storage of a firearm in one's domicile?

 

Not really. Straw buyers are bad guys and they pass background checks. Background checks don't catch bad guys who haven't been arrested for one of the listed crimes, even if they have already committed some of those crimes.

Background checks do catch most prohibited persons, but unfortunately they don't and can't do anything to obstruct the criminals' biggest source of firearms - straw buyers.

 

DadoAlex, It ain't High Noon yet but I'm callin' you out!

You sashay through the thread spouting and pouting your myopic focus on "design" and charging the rest of us with aiding/abetting/forcing criminals to carry firearms.

Below is a program "designed" to "function" as a method to ensure that firearms are purchased by only those who meet the minimum standard recently designed to restrict access to arms.

Would this (below), if adopted, as a law/regulation keep firearms from those who you truly want to keep arms from? Now, put-up or shut-up Hoss (props and apologies to Dan Blocker for using the reference but trying to keep the challenge in the Western vernacular )


How about we have a national background check on the People (everyone) who are of age to exercise their Second Amendment right? Issue a card or note on their driver's license that the holder of this card has no firearms disability and is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Put the names/info of those who cannot purchase a firearm on the www accessible by all citizens. You present your card as proof you're one of the good guys, no record is kept nor phone calls made and you are on your way. The firearm is possessed by the good guy and the government has no record that can be used later...win/win baby!!!!!

 

The NFL and MLB? Setting aside the concussion issue now rocking the NFL's world and drug issues that caused congress to threaten MLBs anti-trust exemption plus the labor issues that was only resolved when Curt Flood took MLB to court, image is an important commodity in selling tickets and advertising.

Not true in the gun world.

Kill a few people with this company's gun and it won't hurt sales. Might, in fact, help them.

With a prohibition on gathering any data, how are we to determine whether or not "self-regulation" is working.

and finally,

The gun industry could be doing this now if they thought it was in the interest of generating sales and creating profit.

Sorry. I do not see it as a viable solution.

 

did I say anything about legal storage?

Can't stay on topic?

 

Actually, they can.

The "straw buyer's" actions are only illegal because he knows the person for whom he is buying is illegal. Buying a gun then selling it, even the next day, to your "friend" is not illegal even if your friend is a criminal as long as you don't know he's a criminal. The legislation would take away his "I didn't know" defense and make prosecution much easier increasing the risk to the "straw buyer" and increasing the price he will demand for his services.

 

What's the prob Bob? Can't answer a direct question? I'll be the proxy and answer truthfully, honestly and directly for you "No...you are unable to answer...many direct questions your posts inspire." I believe if you were able to answer honestly your political position would suffer.

Because I do not know and you have proven to be such an obstinate hard-left-liner but a plethora of information I'll ask another question (or two) that your previously quoted post inspired...how exactly were the firearms in Adam Lanza's place of residence stored? And exactly how did he access these firearms?

 

I'm sorry you seem unable to see this issue, and specifically this compromise proposal, from the point of view of the gun industry. They may be selling all the guns and ammo they can produce but I'd bet a dollar to a donut they do not like having the Obama administration, and less than half the politicians in Washington 'gunning' for our 2nd Amendment. They are gun loving, freedom loving Americans first and businessmen second in this fight. So they have a HUGE incentive to reach a successful compromise.

For you to make a statement like that ("With a prohibition on gathering any data, how are we to determine whether or not "self-regulation" is working.") suggests you aren't really concerned with the results, i.e. actually reducing incidents of mass shootings. It looks like you are more interested in bureaucratic measures. Well, to satisfy your bean counter brain you can rest assured there would be more than enough results for you to tally with an NRA administered system of background checks simply because the NRA can't afford not to do a thorough job of it.

Our 2nd Amendment would be at stake.

And in my humble opinion they should be doing this and with knowledge of the PK Proposal maybe they will begin doing it.

But keep in mind I suggested that the PKP not be tried until the government first begins seriously enforcing the current background checks system regs (that were instituted in the 1990's because of the Brady Bill) and only then after that was found to be unsuccessful in reducing mass shootings.

And finally, this proposal wouldn't be a profit making venture. But, you seem to have some issues with businesses and how businessmen think. What's that all about?

 

Is it illegal for a convicted criminal to possess a firearm? Of course. Perhaps you might consider prosecuting the criminal under that law or better still have only a few gun laws, have one that states NO ONE shall possess/keep/carry/produce a firearm (or weapon/criminal tool, etc.) with the intent to commit a crime using aforementioned firearm (perhaps you might add long knives, baseball bats. screwdrivers, hammers, hands, feet etc.) What do you think Dado, work for you, pass your muster? Having just one or two laws would probably allow a higher percentage of prosecutions to gun law(s) crimes committed unlike what takes place now.

How about this for a new bill...How about we have a national background check on the People (everyone) who are of age to exercise their Second Amendment right? Issue a card or note on their driver's license that the holder of this card has no firearms disability and is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm. Put the names/info of those who cannot purchase a firearm on the www accessible by all citizens. You present your card as proof you're one of the good guys, no record is kept nor phone calls made and you are on your way. The firearm is possessed by the good guy and the government has no record that can be used later...win/win baby!!!!!

Would Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Dado and other Mao worshippers be on-board? Will this reduce mass shootings...or has that excuse already sailed off the politically expedient horizon?

I'll tell you why it doesn't work for you...the good guys would have firearms with no way to know who had what. Ching, Chang, Pow Babeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Dado perhaps you and the others with the anti-American sentiment behind these many assaults on personal liberty will eventually carry the day but you are still such a nice person to take the weakest position in this argument. Most of the time you can't respond on points but you do make an attempt to acknowledge your inability to spar. On effort-fair to middlin', Well Done on showing up some of the time. Hey, everybody loves the underdog.

 

Your inability to focus is not my issue.

How the guns Lanza acquired were stored is not an issue here. The fact is that he could not get the arms he wanted legally because the background checks stopped him. If the "law abiding" gun owner from whom he acquired those weapons had been as diligent .....

 

What, exactly, is stopping the gun industry from regulating itself right now?

 

Went a little over the edge did we?

The reference was to the actions of the seller not the buyer.

For prosecution of the seller to go forth now law enforcement must prove that the seller "knew" the buyer to be unqualified. A near impossible legal requirement.

Under the legislation it is only necessary to demonstrate that the seller failed to get a background check on the buyer.

 

So they still will not be prosecuted like the are not now. Brilliant!

 

You really shouldn't pretend to be so dumb. People may not know you're pretending. Me? I know.

 

So, show us all those prosecutions that failed.

 

What?

Prosecutions under a law that's not been passed?

I warned you about pretending.

 

No silly, show us the prosecutions under the current laws, you know the background check laws and strawman purchase laws.

 

LOL nothings sticking yet dado alex. Keep flinging