• 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!

Universal background checks

Do you support universal background checks?

  • Total voters
    104
There haven't been any new gun laws so how did you come to this conclusion. If the duty is on me exclusively to offer solutions while you play defense then we aren't actually having a real debate.
 
What solution are you talking about? I didn't mention a solution in your quote. xD
 
TurtleDude said:
he will probably claim that 85% of those polled think it will work

we have never seen any argument that logically explains that yet
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know as evidenced by the last ? pages of repetition. I merely responded to his veiled ad hominem by agreeing to it thus, hopefully to get a thoughtful response. I gave him a specific scenario of a firearm transaction between me and my neighbor to which he claimed could be ‘excluded’. I know little about my neighbor regarding his eligibility to own a firearm but since it will be excluded…Well, we’ll see what specific response is produced.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Not when the “solution” does nothing to address the problem, while needlessly creating new problems. It is better to do nothing than to do something that only makes things worse.
Click to expand...

I asked a rhetorical question why all of those who feel a need for more laws are self labeled socialists, progressives or liberals. Passing laws is to the far wrong as talking is to some women. Its the act of passing a law that brings satisfaction rather than actually accomplishing any objective good.
 
TurtleDude said:
what a silly argument. 8 years ago you would have brayed that DC's ban on handguns was not ruled unconstitutional
Click to expand...

Handguns are not the issue, and that does not negate that in 19 years, even with a conservative court, background checks have not been ruled an infringement.
 
Catawba said:
The same way all laws are enforced. By arresting and prosecuting those that break the law.
Click to expand...

tell us what will be used to prove that a violation took place
 
Catawba said:
Handguns are not the issue, and that does not negate that in 19 years, even with a conservative court, background checks have not been ruled an infringement.
Click to expand...

uh that is because the checks didn't impose registration or additional privacy violations on those of us not engaged in interstate commerce
 
Catawba said:
The same way all laws are enforced. By arresting and prosecuting those that break the law.
Click to expand...

Ok, as to my scenario how will the LEO produce evidence (AND PROSECUTE) that I have broken the law? Remember the accusation was merely heresay...OH that’s right, mine was exempted…
 
Catawba said:
85% of gun owners do not agree with you.

Why should it? In 19 years it has never been ruled to be an infringement of rights.
Click to expand...

You are talking in circles here. Your link indicated that record keeping was not agreeable yet you ignore that as a "minor" point. It is the major point preventing universal BG checks, registration (record keeping) and the associated high fees. CA has that exact system, including a $35 fee for a single gun transfer. I cannot explain why nobody has sued, but that is clearly an infringement to me. One does not see that fee now, if they buy a new gun, as it is simply built into the FFL dealers markup, but if imposed as a separte fee (tax?), for a private transfer, it would be very visible and thus objectionable.
 
TurtleDude said:
tell us what will be used to prove that a violation took place
Click to expand...

Undercover cop at a gun show or buying a gun advertised online without being required to complete a background check.
 
Catawba said:
Undercover cop at a gun show or buying a gun advertised online without being required to complete a background check.
Click to expand...

LOL just like drug busts
 
TurtleDude said:
I am familiar with those figures. counting suicides is bogus IMHO
Click to expand...

Sorry, but t,hey are part of the numbers. Can't only accept facts you want. The complete picture includes all of it.
 
James Dean, James Dean---bought it sight unseen: too fast to live, too young to die---bye bye
we only get our license for cars renewed every 4 years, so the license plate registration has increased in cost
if you get a misdemeanor ticket like going 78 in a 55, you can count on taking the written test

I'm all for your guns, your registration, your concealed-carry, your "grand-fathered" semi-automatics
as much as it pains me to say it, your 30-bullet clips for home-defense and gun-club type activities.
I'm also for normal and qualified gun-owners like you to conduct means/field testing.

I'm not for the lying hype of the fringe NRA and other gunners dividing this Country and scaring them
such as that Obama is coming for their guns like Hitler did using registration.
 
TurtleDude said:
uh that is because the checks didn't impose registration or additional privacy violations on those of us not engaged in interstate commerce
Click to expand...

Registration is not part of the current system and will not be included in any bill that passes this congress. And it is only your opinion their will be privacy violations.
 
sbrettt said:
Catawba, how do I start a new thread?
Click to expand...

Click on the thread category you wish to post your new thread within. Then, near the top left there will be a link to start a new thread.
 
Catawba said:
Registration is not part of the current system and will not be included in any bill that passes this congress. And it is only your opinion their will be privacy violations.
Click to expand...

so tell me catawba. Tyrone has three felony convictions. He has four hot pieces he stole in one of the robberies he didn't do time for. So he gets out of the joint and goes and gets the guns to sell to Leroy. Now if Tyrone is caught with the guns he does 96 to 120 months in a USP under the sentencing guidelines. IF he notifies the NICS he is selling the guns to Leroy he incriminates himself.

SO TELL ME catawba how will the USSC rule when the AUSA indicts Tyrone for both being a felon in POSSESSION and for failing to perform the background check

I know the answer

DO YOU?
 
Dickieboy said:
Ok, as to my scenario how will the LEO produce evidence (AND PROSECUTE) that I have broken the law? Remember the accusation was merely heresay...OH that’s right, mine was exempted…
Click to expand...



Your scenario will not happen because a small number of sales are likely to be exempted if it has any hopes of passing congress. The main thing being targeted are gun shows and online advertising.
 
Catawba said:
Click on the thread category you wish to post your new thread within. Then, near the top left there will be a link to start a new thread.
Click to expand...
Thank you. :] I plan on posting about the suicide epidemic in the US if you wanna join the discussion. I would like to think that's not a partisan issue considering it affects folks of all backgrounds.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You are talking in circles here. Your link indicated that record keeping was not agreeable yet you ignore that as a "minor" point. It is the major point preventing universal BG checks, registration (record keeping) and the associated high fees. CA has that exact system, including a $35 fee for a single gun transfer. I cannot explain why nobody has sued, but that is clearly an infringement to me. One does not see that fee now, if they buy a new gun, as it is simply built into the FFL dealers markup, but if imposed as a separte fee (tax?), for a private transfer, it would be very visible and thus objectionable.
Click to expand...



Keeping a registry of law abiding gun owners is illegal, which is why the current NICS doesn't include registry, and why the expanded background checks will not include registry.

Apparently, only you and few other sellers are worried about the $35 fee..................
 
Catawba said:
Your scenario will not happen because a small number of sales are likely to be exempted if it has any hopes of passing congress. The main thing being targeted are gun shows and online advertising.
Click to expand...

Have you already supplied some source for this or are you merely projecting?
1. My scenerio being exempted
2. Main thing being targeted - gun shows
3. online advertising (which I believe already requires FFL transfer hence BGC)...of course Craigs list/newpaper classifieds transactions would be identical to that which I described...and of course you said was exempted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom