• 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
Dammitboy! said:
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Cheap guns at gun shows, that's some funny stuff right there!
Click to expand...

Cheap is a relative thing. Straw purchasers buy guns at gun shows and sell them for twice that much on the street. Unless you think illegal gun traffickers sell guns at a loss! :cool:
 
Catawba said:
Cheap is a relative thing. Straw purchasers buy guns at gun shows and sell them for twice that much on the street. Unless you think illegal gun traffickers sell guns at a loss! :cool:
Click to expand...

you again demonstrate how little you know of the subject
 
TurtleDude said:
you again demonstrate how little you know of the subject
Click to expand...

So you constantly claim, yet you thought background checks involve AR's.
 
Catawba said:
Unless you think illegal gun traffickers sell guns at a loss! :cool:
Click to expand...

Stolen guns cost zero, so any sale involves a profit.

Straw purchasers use the criminals money to make a purchase as a favor to their associate - no profit involved.

Why buy an overpriced gun at a gun show, if your intent is to make a profit? You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of how the real world works.
 
Dammitboy! said:
Stolen guns cost zero, so any sale involves a profit.

Straw purchasers use the criminals money to make a purchase as a favor to their associate - no profit involved.

Why buy an overpriced gun at a gun show, if your intent is to make a profit? You seem to have a complete lack of understanding of how the real world works.
Click to expand...



"An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,"

Is the ATF lying when they say most guns used in crimes are bought legally? - Yahoo! Answers
 
Catawba said:
"An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,"

Is the ATF lying when they say most guns used in crimes are bought legally? - Yahoo! Answers
Click to expand...

Of course they are lying - it's a government agency.

About 50% are stolen guns or illegal smuggled guns. The other 50% are a criminal/felon getting a friend or spouse to buy a gun for them because they cannot. No sale involved.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
They need a warrant in order to confiscate the guns. And it seems that only the mentally ill and convicted felons that are targeted by this program.
Click to expand...

So you agree that a BGC is performed, warrant issues and guns are confiscated...? If so this is the proof that you requested in #113 is it not?
 
Dickieboy said:
So you agree that a BGC is performed, warrant issues and guns are confiscated...? If so this is the proof that you requested in #113 is it not?
Click to expand...

Is confiscating a criminals guns a problem? Or is the very fact that confescation happened a problem?

To be fair i was too vague in my answer in post 113.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Is confiscating a criminals guns a problem? Or is the very fact that confescation happened a problem?

To be fair i was too vague in my answer in post 113.
Click to expand...

The mentally ill are criminals?

Look, I'm not sure what my position is here but merely posted this in response to your self admitted 'vague' answer. Criminals, yes take their guns as them having them IS a crime. Mentally ill? This is too broad to decide. What is the 'depth' of their illness? Do they ever get them back? Are they compensated for the loss of property? Can they be 'transferred' to someone else like a family member?
 
Dickieboy said:
The mentally ill are criminals?

Look, I'm not sure what my position is here but merely posted this in response to your self admitted 'vague' answer. Criminals, yes take their guns as them having them IS a crime. Mentally ill? This is too broad to decide. What is the 'depth' of their illness? Do they ever get them back? Are they compensated for the loss of property? Can they be 'transferred' to someone else like a family member?
Click to expand...

If a persons guns were wrongfully confescated they can sue the police for violating the law.

And no I was not implying that the mentally ill are criminals. It is huge responsibility to own a firearm and depending on the severity of the mental illness, such a person may not be able to handle that responsibility.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If a persons guns were wrongfully confescated they can sue the police for violating the law.
\
Click to expand...

Not really. It would cost many, many times for the lawyer than the value of the firearm. Police have learned they can just take anything of value not more than a few thousands dollars and realistically the person can't do anything about it that is worth the person's efforts.
 
Interesting article. Now all they need to do is move the line that describes what "mentally ill" means. Could it be interpreted as anyone who seeks counseling? Soooo, a veteran who has issues with PTSD, take them away. How about marriage counseling? I bring this one up because I have done it and found it extremely beneficial. This is exactly why gun control was intended to have access to medical records (before Reid made his deal with the NRA). If the government makes the rules, then changes the rules any of our rights can be removed by way of semantics. This is exactly why we are opposed to a federal registry. We simply don't trust the government or those who say "Oh come on, who will it hurt? Let's do it for the children as a bipartisan gesture of good faith." Liberal tactics and intents are well documented and can not be allowed to erode rights described by our founders as absolute. These guys had seen this kind of government before. Against all odds they overthrew it, and then provided methods in great detail to prevent it from happening again. What they didn't count on was the generational dumbing down of citizens. It puts those of us who can see what is happening in a difficult position. We either have to educate the ignorant or throw them overboard. Guess what direction we're leaning?
 
joko104 said:
Not really. It would cost many, many times for the lawyer than the value of the firearm. Police have learned they can just take anything of value not more than a few thousands dollars and realistically the person can't do anything about it that is worth the person's efforts.
Click to expand...

But the people still have the right to sue, that has not been taken from them.
 
If my wife willingly gave my guns to the police without my consent I would divorce her immediately and make an extremely public case against the police department. She said the guns were his, not hers. If they had probable cause to remove guns from her home because of mental illness the rightful owner should have had the opportunity to remove them as he wished, whether that would be selling them or simply relocating them to where she couldn't access them. Or take the guns and leave her. What happened here is that a man was deprived of his property without just cause.
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
But the people still have the right to sue, that has not been taken from them.
Click to expand...

It would be cheaper for him to just go buy more guns. Again, semantics. A common tactic by the left to take things away from others. Considering that he was robbed by the police and the state that employs them write the rules the right to sue is an empty promise at best. Someone who steals your guns at gun point is a dangerous criminal who needs to be handled with extreme prejudice. Whether or not they are wearing a badge is irrelevant. That guy who shot a bunch of cops in LA? He had a badge. That didn't make him innocent.
 
Just to be clear, this issue has been brought up here (where I live). Basically the consensus was that if agents show up at your home to collect your guns, give them the guns. Make a couple of phone calls and in short order the hunting party will get them back. Accepting an order to disarm citizens is a suicide mission, and the military and police in our area that I've talked to completely understand this.
 
Last edited:
tech30528 said:
It would be cheaper for him to just go buy more guns. Again, semantics. A common tactic by the left to take things away from others. Considering that he was robbed by the police and the state that employs them write the rules the right to sue is an empty promise at best. Someone who steals your guns at gun point is a dangerous criminal who needs to be handled with extreme prejudice. Whether or not they are wearing a badge is irrelevant. That guy who shot a bunch of cops in LA? He had a badge. That didn't make him innocent.
Click to expand...

Justice is blind, it has to be in order to be fair.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
It is better than having none at all.
Click to expand...

Arguable. When the court system stops protecting the people in favor of protecting government it is certainly not better than nothing. A court system is supposed to be unbiased. When their bias is manipulated by those on one side of the argument they might as well not exist.
 
joko104 said:
Not really. It would cost many, many times for the lawyer than the value of the firearm. Police have learned they can just take anything of value not more than a few thousands dollars and realistically the person can't do anything about it that is worth the person's efforts.
Click to expand...

Unitedwestand13 said:
But the people still have the right to sue, that has not been taken from them.
Click to expand...

When the cost of exercising a right is prohibitive, then, yes, that right has, for all intents and purposes, been taken away.
 
Update on Universal Background Check Bill -

"The Senate Judiciary Committee--which is considering a host of new gun legislation--voted 10 to 8 Tuesday to pass a universal background check bill out of committee. The bill would close the so-called gun show loophole, which allows unlicensed individuals to sell their wares at gun shows without running a background check on buyers.

The bill provides limited exemptions for immediate family members who may pass on a weapons as a family heirloom or gift and for individuals who are using a gun temporarily for a sporting event."

Senate Judiciary Committee Passes Background Checks, Not Without Controversy - US News and World Report
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom