A question and a challenge.

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by themystic

The 2nd Amendment has been altered multiple times since its inception. This was done to reflect changes in society evolving. Not many out there who say totally ban guns. RWL go ahead and list the handful of politicians who want to totally ban guns

The amendment has not been altered. Maybe you mean it's interpretation.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

In layman's terms: I would make it law that everyone register all firearms -- past, present and future ownership. Make it law that all firearms sold at gunshows be registered to the new owner before sale is complete.


that is already the case. show me a state where a dealer at a gun show doesn't have to do the federal check? only between private citizens is your so-called loophole an issue. what you are really trying to say is that sales between private citizens must be subject to federal background checks. at present, a private citizen can't do that, only a dealer can. would you ban sales on Craigslist? ban ad's in newsprint? setup a hotline for private citizens to use? make it law that they must verify private sales?


I beleive this would eliminate infringement of property rights. Anyone found with stolen firearms would face Federal incarceration. Not a fine. Firearms "found" anywhere are to be reported to authorities.


it's already illegal for felons to own firearms. if a private citizen buys a gun from another private citizen and the gun is stolen, who is at fault? the buyer? does the buyer know it was stolen? does the seller? a background check doesn't show that. only that the buyer can legally own a firearm. how many people report guns that are stolen? do local police report that to the FBI? far as i know they aren't required to. so the FBI has no database of serial numbers of stolen guns. not many owners record the serial numbers anyway. some do mainly for insurance purposes. yes you can declare guns as insured property, above and beyond the basic terms of home owner's policies that reimburse for property loss due to fire or burglary.


Contrary to what may be popular beleif on this board about my views, gun control is one I can compromise on. This is a basic first response to the fantasy proposition posed by the OP.



Good thread.

Voted it up one star.

since this is such a concern to you, valued poster, what would you say if i agreed that at gun shows any private citizens must do the background check? there are dozens of dealers on premise. any one could do so. for free if they wanted or a small fee. when you buy a gun at a gun shop or at a gun show the dealer doesn't charge anything. it's done because the law requires it and it's not good business to tack on a fee for it. they are already getting a sale.


the real issue is sales between private citizens. forcing private citizens to do a background check i don't think will pass constitutional muster based on the 2nd amendment and the constitution itself. you seem to want to ban sales between private citizens or if not require background checks.

in case you didn't know, all dealers pay a fee to setup at gun shows and private citizens are charged admission. since this is a paid event, you could force private sellers using this event to sell guns to other privates citizens to use the dealers on site to do a background check.


i don't advertise to sell guns on Craigslist or any other method. i don't want to take the risk of someone trying to rob me over it or knowing where i live and that i likely have other firearms along with other valuables that they will come back later and rob my house.

there is also the possibility you are selling to a person who is not legally allowed to own a gun. there is no way to verify that at present. could you insist the buyer meet you at or go to a gun dealer and have them verify the buyer? yeah, and they would likely do it for a small fee. some dealers might even do it for free as a courtesy. but a buyer can refuse that. and it doesn't mean they can't own a firearm.


when i want to sell a gun i own, i value it online and then take it to a gun shop. they'll give you a reasonable price. even pawn shops will buy guns but you'll get a better price from a gun shop. several times i have wanted to replace one gun for another. i find a gun shop that has what i want new or used and i take my current gun there and trade it out. sometimes i even make a few bucks. or pay the difference.

[themystic]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

The amendment has not been altered. Maybe you mean it's interpretation.

Your right Barley. It’s been modified. No felons no mentally ill etc

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

In layman's terms: I would make it law that everyone register all firearms -- past, present and future ownership.

Three things.

1. Registration of all firearms is and has always been the precursor to confiscation.
2. This registration would be "free" correct? You wouldn't want to disenfranchise low income folks.
3. How do you register future gun ownership. You either register something you own(past) or something you are buying(present).

[Austin Ellen]

Wrong. Its's been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest but not altered. Please use google in the future so you won't look like a fucking retard. Thank you.

Originally Posted by themystic

The 2nd Amendment has been altered multiple times since its inception. This was done to reflect changes in society evolving. Not many out there who say totally ban guns. RWL go ahead and list the handful of politicians who want to totally ban guns

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Wrong. Its's been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest but not altered. Please use google in the future so you won't look like a fucking retard. Thank you.

The only retards I know are Trumps kids. Must be a hereditary trait. Then of course there is you

[Austin Ellen]

Look in the mirror, you dumb fuck.

Originally Posted by themystic

The only retards I know are Trumps kids. Must be a hereditary trait. Then of course there is you

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Look in the mirror, you dumb fuck.

Yes, he should, "mental retardation", which is no longer a PC terminology has always revolved around the lack of growth of one's mind putting them oftentimes in an almost childlike life.

Sounds vaguely familiar to someone who resorts to "yo momma" or other family insults and self-admits to living in his mother's basement and is nothing but a "poser".

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

I like Beto O'Rourke's idea, all assault rifles must be sold back to the government.

since no one owns an assault rifle, problem solved! when will you libtards understand that only full-auto weapons are assault rifles? only police forces and the military have them.

until the liberals back off this false claim gun owners will resist any attempt to regulate "assault-like" rifles.

Originally Posted by themystic

The 2nd Amendment has been altered multiple times since its inception. This was done to reflect changes in society evolving. Not many out there who say totally ban guns. RWL go ahead and list the handful of politicians who want to totally ban guns

the language of the 2nd amendment has never been altered. not one word. in case you didn't know that requires a constitutional amendment. in fact, no amendment has been altered, only new amendments ratified.

Originally Posted by eccielover

Three things.

1. Registration of all firearms is and has always been the precursor to confiscation.
2. This registration would be "free" correct? You wouldn't want to disenfranchise low income folks.
3. How do you register future gun ownership. You either register something you own(past) or something you are buying(present).

i think he meant future sales.

exactly. how convenient would it be for the Government to have a list of every gun owner if they suddenly wanted to confiscate guns? quite convenient!

this is exactly how a police state operates. the US is not a police state .. yet. and i for one want to prevent such a state from ever existing.

as part of the law, the FBI cannot retain prior data of background checks. and the NICS system is not mandatory. some pesky little thing called the 10th amendment so State participation is voluntary. only 30 states contribute to the NICS data now.

[instfixer]

The Sante Fe shooter did it with...
A shotgun and a revolver

[themystic]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Yes, he should, "mental retardation", which is no longer a PC terminology has always revolved around the lack of growth of one's mind putting them oftentimes in an almost childlike life.

Sounds vaguely familiar to someone who resorts to "yo momma" or other family insults and self-admits to living in his mother's basement and is nothing but a "poser".

Yo Momma is a poser. Moscow Ellen can’t get an appointment. She’s an unwashed up hooker

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by themystic

Your right Barley. It’s been modified. No felons no mentally ill etc

That is an interpretation and not the amendment. A court of crazy leftists could interpret it to mean all crazy leftists get guns. The words are still same after 230 years.

[Austin Ellen]

You are such a fucking moron. I've been wanting to say that since the first time you posted. And now I can!

Originally Posted by themystic

The only retards I know are Trumps kids. Must be a hereditary trait. Then of course there is you

[themystic]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

You are such a fucking moron. I've been wanting to say that since the first time you posted. And now I can!

I hope you feel better. I know that's got to be tough on you Grandma. Not being able to get an appointment. That is a good strategy to go after Trump supporters. Liberals don't pay for washed up hookers. Good luck sweetheart. Bless Your Heart Moscow Ellen. Im praying for You. In the Name of The Father, Son & Holy Ghost

[Whisky_1]

As firearms become more lethal the dynamic of what constitutes "effective regulation" changes as with most things. A national blanket prohibition is not effective from an empirical standpoint nor is it probable to occur because changes to the US Constitution require ratification by the states which is highly unlikely.

Laws, policies and enforcement methodologies that are emotionally devised are rarely efficient, cost-effective and produce undesirable consequences. Enforcing laws on the books or implimenting more ineffective gun laws will probably not produce a better societal outcome.

I suggest what is needed is empirical study (needs, outcome, cost-benefit, etc) as a compliment to policy making to arrive at "effective regulation" rather than more thoughts and prayers as well politically expedient but empirically unsound laws. Which raises the question in my mind's eye as to why prohibition as well as thoughts and prayers are being bandied about as a societal solution instead of funding for empirical studies of gun violence and metadata analysis. Just my two cents.