• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%

  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%

  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%
  • Total voters
    148
TurtleDude said:
If there were no illegal drug dealing in the USA I can guarantee we'd have far less crime
Click to expand...

A lot of law enforcement agencies, judicial professionals, as well as the prison industry is making a lot of money and creating a lot of jobs keeping drugs illegal. What's a few dead bodies here and there?
 
Captain America said:
A lot of law enforcement agencies, judicial professionals, as well as the prison industry is making a lot of money and creating a lot of jobs keeping drugs illegal. What's a few dead bodies here and there?
Click to expand...

you'd be surprised how many prosecutors and high level cops agree with you

I do
 
TurtleDude said:
you'd be surprised how many prosecutors and high level cops agree with you

I do
Click to expand...

And you sir might be surprised how many prosecutors I work with on a daily basis and how many high level cops I fish, drink beer and sit in lodge with. <wink>

I only party with the best. I got friends in low places.... LOL!
 
haymarket said:
While you are betting, what are the odds that I can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check?
Click to expand...

Do you see that as a problem that you would like the federal government to address?
 
haymarket said:
It is first important to establish what MAY happen before one can consider what SHOULD happen. It is an important part of the process.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. So now that you have established what the federal government MAY do, what do you think the federal government SHOULD do?
 
Background checks are an excellent opportunity for both sides to come together.

They should be required, but the database needs to be simple and easy for everyone
to use. A small fee can be applied for checking it, and checking it should be a requirement.
Once an instant check is over a gun owner should be able to immediately enjoy their
purchase - why make an existing gun owner "wait" 10 days for a second, third or tenth
gun? I can see making someone wait on their first gun purchase, but not on any added
purchases.

Sadly we don't have a quality database. We don't have public access to it for all sellers,
and we have people far more bent on "control" then on trying to keep guns out of the
hands of criminals.


Federalist said:
Do you support background checks for all private purchases?
Click to expand...
 
TurtleDude said:
that is false. the laws are the same under federal law for gun shows as they are for those sellers in any other venue

for most of our history no one had to undergo a background check. congress decided to change that only for licensed dealers

you operate under the false premise that background checks are the norm

they were not of over 200 years and never have been for private sellers
Click to expand...

Turtle - I am willing to wager $1,000.00 that this statement is factually true: a person can purchase a firearm at a gun show without a background check.
I am willing to wager and additional $1,000.00 that this reality is commonly referred to as a gun show loophole.

Ready to take the wager?
 
Federalist said:
Do you support background checks for all private purchases?
Click to expand...

If we could do it so that there is no violation of the Second Amendment, I would support that idea.

It is discriminatory and unfair that some individuals have to go through a background check while others do not when purchasing a firearm. The law should apply equally to everyone. Perhaps some would favor this be achieved by a removal of the background check for all. However, that leaves us at a disadvantage in trying to prevent felons, the identified mentally ill and others who by law are prevented from firearms ownership to obtain them. The only alternative in the interest of equal application of the law is to handle firearm transactions the same way that most state - perhaps all states - handle automobile transactions are handled. Even when done within family members, one must fill out the proper papers and change ownership. In firearms purchases, the background check would then be a part of that.

The loop hole is then closed.
 
haymarket said:
If we could do it so that there is no violation of the Second Amendment, I would support that idea.

It is discriminatory and unfair that some individuals have to go through a background check while others do not when purchasing a firearm. The law should apply equally to everyone. Perhaps some would favor this be achieved by a removal of the background check for all. However, that leaves us at a disadvantage in trying to prevent felons, the identified mentally ill and others who by law are prevented from firearms ownership to obtain them. The only alternative in the interest of equal application of the law is to handle firearm transactions the same way that most state - perhaps all states - handle automobile transactions are handled. Even when done within family members, one must fill out the proper papers and change ownership. In firearms purchases, the background check would then be a part of that.

The loop hole is then closed.
Click to expand...

So you would support the idea of background checks for transfers between family members. Who would know whether or not a check was actually done if someone sells a firearm to his brother?
 
Federalist said:
So you would support the idea of background checks for transfers between family members. Who would know whether or not a check was actually done if someone sells a firearm to his brother?
Click to expand...

We could use the way that automobile transactions are handled between family members as a guide. This is NOT reinventing the wheel.
 
haymarket said:
We could use the way that automobile transactions are handled between family members as a guide. This is NOT reinventing the wheel.
Click to expand...

But there are no background checks involved when someone sells a car to a family member. How would the system you are proposing actually operate? Let's say I want to give a gun to my brother. What would be required?
 
haymarket said:
We could use the way that automobile transactions are handled between family members as a guide. This is NOT reinventing the wheel.
Click to expand...

Automobile registration controls a state issued privilege, driving on public roadways. Gun registration is a state attempt to control/limit a Constitutional right, imposing fees for keeping rights is, in fact, infringement, as the left constantly points out with its complaints about some state's voter ID laws. ;)
 
Federalist said:
But there are no background checks involved when someone sells a car to a family member.
Click to expand...

Who said there was?

This article will help you.

Gun Shows - The Purported Gun Show Loophole and State-by-State Regulation of Gun SHows

A total of 11 states require background checks for at least some gun purchases at gun shows. Seven of those states require background checks for all gun purchases, while four states require background checks for only handgun purchases.

The seven states requiring background checks for all purchases include:

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Illinois
New York
Oregon
Rhode Island
The four states requiring background checks for only handgun purchases include:

Hawaii
Maryland
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Click to expand...

If you have technical questions about the mechanics of such a procedure, you may want to begin with the states which already require this and currently have a system in place and operating.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Who said there was?
Click to expand...

Nobody, as far as I know. But if you are suggesting that gun transfers be handled similarly to auto transfers, you're going to have to tell us how the system would be modified to include background checks. So, once again, if I want to give my brother a firearm as a present, what process would have to be followed?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Automobile registration controls a state issued privilege, driving on public roadways. Gun registration is a state attempt to control/limit a Constitutional right, imposing fees for keeping rights is, in fact, infringement, as the left constantly points out with its complaints about some state's voter ID laws. ;)
Click to expand...

So a tax on a firearm or bullets is unconstitutional?
 
Federalist said:
Nobody, as far as I know. But if you are suggesting that gun transfers be handled similarly to auto transfers, you're going to have to tell us how the system would be modified to include background checks. So, once again, if I want to give my brother a firearm as a present, what process would have to be followed?
Click to expand...

se my additional info in the post above which answers your queries.

as to gifts, perhaps this will help

http://www.nssfblog.com/giving-a-firearm-as-a-gift-some-reminders-from-nssf/

or this

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-583418.html

and this was answered by a person claiming some impressive credentials

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080617141335AArVJiA
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
se my additional info in the post above which answers your queries.

as to gifts, perhaps this will help

Anything I need to do when given a gun as a gift? - THR
Click to expand...

That post has no answers at all, other than your suggestion that I research various state laws. Thanks for nothing.

If you are proposing universal background checks, you can at least have the decency to explain how your proposed system would work.

I'm just sayin'. The fact that you are being evasive sends up all sorts of red flags about your proposal.
 
Federalist said:
That post has no answers at all, other than your suggestion that I research various state laws. Thanks for nothing.

If you are proposing universal background checks, you can at least have the decency to explain how your proposed system would work.

I'm just sayin'. The fact that you are being evasive sends up all sorts of red flags about your proposal.
Click to expand...

I pointed you in the right direction. Now all you have to do is find out how it works in those states. Asking me is rather silly as I am not the legal authorities in those states and have no working knowledge of the procedures.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes, that is my view. Are you making some point, or just babbling? :doh
Click to expand...

Why are you being insulting? All I was doing is trying to find out if you were stating your own personal opinion based on your own personal belief system supporting your own personal political view or if you were providing an official legal principle that is beyond dispute and is considered as fact.

Thank you for making it crystal clear that it is only your own opinion.
 
haymarket said:
I pointed you in the right direction. Now all you have to do is find out how it works in those states. Asking me is rather silly as I am not the legal authorities in those states and have no working knowledge of the procedures.
Click to expand...

You're the one proposing a federal law requiring background checks on personal transfers. If you can't be bothered to explain how your proposal would actually work, then don't expect to be taken seriously.
 
Federalist said:
You're the one proposing a federal law requiring background checks on personal transfers. If you can't be bothered to explain how your proposal would actually work, then don't expect to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

I am not the one proposing a law. Others are the ones proposing the law. They know the details. It is not my proposal. I merely did what others here have done - endorse the general idea and not a specific piece of legislation. As I have carefully and slowly explained to you in the past, the devil is always in the details and while there are things I may support as a general idea, they have to be later examined for those same details to determine if the support is still there.

There is a difference between the two. Do you understand the difference between expressing general support for an idea and authoring a specific proposal for a piece legislation in which one also authors the details and mechanics of it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom