Insurance companies know their business

Steelplate said:
No....air's NOT your right as a human being....
Click to expand...
No, it most certainly is a human right to defend myself and my property and to have the tools to do so. We may be the only government that recognizes it as a right at current, but that doesn't make it any less of a human right.
It's your right as an American Citizen.....forged 230 some years ago when there was no difference between a musket that a member of the Continental Army carried and a musket that a private citizen carried.....and we were ALL untied in a Common Cause....to maintain our independence from a Monarchy 3,000 miles away that taxed us incessantly.....(and here's the DIFFERENCE)....WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
Click to expand...
Oh how often have I heard from so many (you among them I might add) that Congress no longer 'represents' us? Of course I'd disagree with such a statement anyways, at least at current. But just because they (somewhat) represent us now, does not mean such things will always be the same. Tyranny isn't like leap year; it doesn't occur on a set schedule or last for a certain amount of time.

History? How about recent history? Where madmen come.I to.movie theaters and Elementary schools and college campuses and shoot the fuck out of them?
Click to expand...
Appeal to emotion, and utterly meaningless. No law proposed would have had any impact on those events, and despite what you've been told, that was never the intent behind any laws proposed.
How about where Criminals on the street are better armed than the police?
Click to expand...
The CDC, in study commissioned by the WH no less, certainly wouldn't agree with you there. Nor would anyone else who isn't a cop begging for more money.

Furthermore .....IT'S NOT your right as an American Citizen to NOT be subject to background checks for criminal and mental disqualifications.
Click to expand...
If such a process is unnecessarily burdensome or invasive, yes it is. The current system works absolutely fine. Either of my two proposed solutions (which you've agreed to in the past) would also meet the qualification of being uninvasive.
 
Steelplate said:
Any way, shape or form? You got proof on that, Or are you just reading from the NRA talking points?
Click to expand...
Well, it being unenforceable can't be proven since it didn't pass. However, it wouldn't work without a registry which is explicitly said couldn't happen (though that provision would almost certainly be removed had it passed)

Right now....if I chose to do so....as a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN.....could go buy....say, $50k of assorted firearms
Click to expand...
Yes, in theory you could
....and then turn around and sell them to whoever I want via private sale....and it would be perfectly legal
Click to expand...
No you can not. Buying a firearm with the express intent of selling it later is a felony. You need an FFL (like me) to do such a thing. And if you are an FFL you must perform a NICS check with every sale (sort of)
Even if those arms would end up in the hands of street gangs or psychopaths.....
Click to expand...
Also wrong and also a felony. If you have a reasonable suspicion or knowledge that a person you selling to is prohibited from firearms ownership, it's still a felony.
all I would have to say is...."hey...he looked alright to me"
Click to expand...
And when it's proven that you knew otherwise, you'll be in jail.

Universal background checks make the SELLER as well as the BUYER accountable
Click to expand...
Seller is already accountable, as previously stated above.
.....THAT'S what you don't like.
Click to expand...
No, as I've stated oh so many times, I don't like it because it would accomplish nothing but punishing law abiding people.

That would drive a hell of a lot of people out of doing that kind of shit
Click to expand...
How?
Sure, there would be some that would take the risk....bit you gotta be shitting me that it wouldn't reduce the numbers.
Click to expand...
Again, how? How would they even know you sold it to them? "Nope, never seen that gun in my life officer. Lost all my guns in boating accident years ago in fact"

THAT'S why I say...the people that are most vehemently opposed to this are people with something to lose.......CRIMINALS......
Click to expand...
Felons can't vote so....
THE.MENTALLY ILL.....
Click to expand...
Neither can those who are currently committed....
and most importantly....GUN MANUFACTURERS.
Click to expand...
Why would gun makers be opposed? That's the only way they make money; people buying guns from DEALERS. They want to get rid of private sales (from an economic stand point, many gun companies are owned by proponents of the 2A and it's their political motivations, not economic ones, that influence their decisions). Seriously, that's like saying Ford wants you to keep buying cars outside of a dealer because.....ummmm......some reason.

EDIT: oh yeah...and I forgot to add...the Gun Manufacturer's lobbying group....The NRA.
Click to expand...
The JPFO and many other groups are against it as well. What are their motivations? Oh yeah, how about freedom.
 
leaningright said:
Or they could be protecting a long standing tradition of gun trades in the field or of the passing down of heirlooms from father to son or grandfather to grandson without the hassle, not to mention the cost. All the while these expanded "background checks" aren't likely to stop squat when it comes to felons acquiring firearms.
Click to expand...

It's pretty cheap to transfer a gun in California using a dealer. If you can't afford the transfer, you're not going to be able to afford bullets anyway.
 
Steelplate said:
Any way, shape or form? You got proof on that, Or are you just reading from the NRA talking points?

Right now....if I chose to do so....as a LAW ABIDING CITIZEN.....could go buy....say, $50k of assorted firearms....and then turn around and sell them to whoever I want via private sale....and it would be perfectly legal. Even if those arms would end up in the hands of street gangs or psychopaths.....all I would have to say is...."hey...he looked alright to me"

Universal background checks make the SELLER as well as the BUYER accountable.....THAT'S what you don't like.

That would drive a hell of a lot of people out of doing that kind of shit. Sure, there would be some that would take the risk....bit you gotta be shitting me that it wouldn't reduce the numbers.

THAT'S why I say...the people that are most vehemently opposed to this are people with something to lose.......CRIMINALS......THE.MENTALLY ILL.....and most importantly....GUN MANUFACTURERS.

EDIT: oh yeah...and I forgot to add...the Gun Manufacturer's lobbying group....The NRA.
Click to expand...

Exactly. In Arizona, I can buy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of guns - assuming I pass the background check - and walk across the parking lot and give them to someone. anyone. No problem

I heard about in Colorado, a guy was buying a bunch of guns, then shipping them to California to be sold on the street. In California, we limit how many guns you can buy within a time period. They don't in Colorado. If Colorado said "hey, you can't buy more than one a month" - that guy would have been shipping a lot fewer guns to California.

One of the guns was used to kill a kid, is how I heard about it.
 
tekkychick said:
Exactly. In Arizona, I can buy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of guns - assuming I pass the background check - and walk across the parking lot and give them to someone. anyone. No problem

I heard about in Colorado, a guy was buying a bunch of guns, then shipping them to California to be sold on the street. In California, we limit how many guns you can buy within a time period. They don't in Colorado. If Colorado said "hey, you can't buy more than one a month" - that guy would have been shipping a lot fewer guns to California.

One of the guns was used to kill a kid, is how I heard about it.
Click to expand...

Don't tell that to Mr. FFL.
 
leaningright said:
Proposed poll taxes were pretty cheap too.
Click to expand...

while that's totally off-topic: the equivalent to a poll tax in this case is what you pay to buy a gun. Should guns be free since they are a "constitutional right"?

A fee to handle the paperwork to transfer a gun - there's nothing in the constitution saying you have a right to transfer a gun. So yes, fee is fine. And as I pointed out, it's pretty small, and anyone who can afford to buy ammo can pay the fee.

If the govt charged thousands of dollars to transfer a gun, I might be with you on saying "that's not right".

In California:
The State's DROS fee is $19.00 which covers the costs of the background checks and transfer registry. There is also a required $1.00 Firearms Safety Testing fee and a $5.00 Safety and Enforcement fee. If the transaction being processed is a dealer sale, consignment return, or return from pawn, the dealer may impose other charges as long as this amount is clearly shown as a "dealer fee" and not misrepresented as a state fee. In the event of a private party transfer, the firearms dealer may additionally charge a fee of $10 per firearm transferred.
Click to expand...

$25. not much.

Also:

Yes, as long as the person receiving the firearm is not in a prohibited category and the firearm is not an assault weapon .... the transfer of a firearm between a parent and child or a grandparent and grandchild is exempt from the dealer transfer requirement. the transfer of a firearm between a husband and wife or registered domestic partners is exempt from the requirement to use a licensed dealer to perform the transfer
Click to expand...

So we don't even charge within the family.

Is this draconian? I don't think so.

quotes from here: http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#5
Quotes slightly edited for clarity on this forum.
 
tekkychick said:
while that's totally off-topic: the equivalent to a poll tax in this case is what you pay to buy a gun. Should guns be free since they are a "constitutional right"?

A fee to handle the paperwork to transfer a gun - there's nothing in the constitution saying you have a right to transfer a gun. So yes, fee is fine. And as I pointed out, it's pretty small, and anyone who can afford to buy ammo can pay the fee.

If the govt charged thousands of dollars to transfer a gun, I might be with you on saying "that's not right".

In California:


$25. not much.

Also:



So we don't even charge within the family.

Is this draconian? I don't think so.

quotes from here: http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#5
Quotes slightly edited for clarity on this forum.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer a marking on a driver's license.....so that all one would have to do is go to an FFL and show their ID....deal done. If the person loses his/her eligibility, that marking goes away by way of a paper punch.
 
tekkychick said:
while that's totally off-topic: the equivalent to a poll tax in this case is what you pay to buy a gun. Should guns be free since they are a "constitutional right"?

A fee to handle the paperwork to transfer a gun - there's nothing in the constitution saying you have a right to transfer a gun. So yes, fee is fine. And as I pointed out, it's pretty small, and anyone who can afford to buy ammo can pay the fee.

If the govt charged thousands of dollars to transfer a gun, I might be with you on saying "that's not right".

In California:


$25. not much.

Also:



So we don't even charge within the family.

Is this draconian? I don't think so.

quotes from here: http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs#5
Quotes slightly edited for clarity on this forum.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't think its draconian. It doesn't affect you and your side supports it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top