US Senate rejects universal (expanded) background checks - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;40318948]If the firearm is used in a crime, you charge the last registered owner as an accessory to the crime and make them ineligible to own firearms. Make it clear that if they do it, they'll have to feel the repercussions.[/QUOTE] Do you think crazy people can be deterred by "fear of repercussions"? DO you think the shooters at V Tech, Aurora, Columbine, and Sandy Hook would have decided not to do those things if they were more afraid of the law?

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40318979]also just on a constitutional rights basis: universal background checks would go directly against this[/QUOTE] So? As long as it increases net utility there's no problem.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40318979]Because the only way to enforce it (the "universal background checks" that is) creates a de facto gun registry and would necessarily bar private sales (although I believe family was an exception). Also the fact that it wouldn't cut down on gun violence, because all these spree shooters either got their guns legally through a background check that they will pass anyway or illegally like Lanza killing his mom. Not to mention it has literally no effect on the black market/illegal transactions, which is where the vast majority of criminals get their guns.[/QUOTE] That brings us to the completely other side of this argument which no one seems to be paying any attention too, and that is the fact that people who do these shooting are sick in their own way. Background checks should be just a tiny part of an overall change to how our systems operate. We need begin looking into working on the mental health piece as well. EDIT: I also believe using the whole constitution piece as defense is a little silly, its getting more and more outdated as we as a society progress. Needless to say those values should stay.

Are these mass shootings being done by past criminals? Or was their act the first time they committed a crime/felony?

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40319016]Do you think crazy people can be deterred by "fear of repercussions"? DO you think the shooters at V Tech, Aurora, Columbine, and Sandy Hook would have decided not to do those things if they were more afraid of the law?[/QUOTE]No, its not about them. The question was about stopping private, unchecked firearms sales. Its not targeted at the people that commit the crime, its targeted at the people whose carelessness and stupidity enabled them to commit the crime.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40318082]I find it not stupid so much as pointless. How many deaths and mass shootings have resulted from the lack of a background check? The Sandy Hook shooter stole the guns. edit: I get dumbs for speaking the truth?[/QUOTE] wow wait a minute?? sandy hook was stolen guns? why didnt someone tell me this before fuck background checks what a waste of freaking time

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;40319114]No, its not about them. The question was about stopping private, unchecked firearms sales. Its not targeted at the people that commit the crime, its targeted at the people whose carelessness and stupidity enabled them to commit the crime.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. Sorry.

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;40319016]Do you think crazy people can be deterred by "fear of repercussions"? DO you think the shooters at V Tech, Aurora, Columbine, and Sandy Hook would have decided not to do those things if they were more afraid of the law?[/QUOTE] fp gun people re: background checks um MASS SHOOTERS cant be deterred by these laws dude, they are crazy and they will not be stopped in their quest for bloodshed and destruction. gun control is useless against them fp gun people re: assault weapon ban / high cap mag ban uhh wow guys, just because these mass shooters are using this stuff doesnt mean its an epidemic or something. i mean its tragic but these mass shooters are extremely rare compared to the daily bloodshed let loose by handguns in america. gun control is useless against the average criminal

[QUOTE=Mr. Foster;40318358]Transfers at gun shows do happen with background checks. The only time a background check does not occur is when it is two individuals. There is no effective way to police such transactions, and there is definitely not enough manpower to do it. Gun registries effect these transactions somewhat, but that can still be circumvented.[/QUOTE] Exactly, the bill sounds great, but the only thing it would've done was "Add background checks for online sales." Which is a perfect example of people making laws to govern shit they don't understand. When you buy a gun online, it's shipped to a federally licensed dealer, and in order to pick it up from them you have to fill out paperwork and pass a background check. All this would've added was an additional, redundant background check to click a button before you go to the next background check to get the physical firearm. It's a waste of taxes. EDIT: And after the compromises the amendment no longer pertained to private sales anyways.

[QUOTE=XxPsychoxX;40319161]Exactly, the bill sounds great, but the only thing it would've done was "Add background checks for online sales." Which is a perfect example of people making laws to govern shit they don't understand. When you buy a gun online, it's shipped to a federally licensed dealer, and in order to pick it up from them you have to fill out paperwork and pass a background check. All this would've added was an additional, redundant background check to click a button before you go to the next background check to get the physical firearm. It's a waste of taxes. EDIT: And after the compromises the amendment no longer pertained to private sales anyways.[/QUOTE] you open your post whining about how lawmakers don't understand gun laws, then go on to say that buying from online retailers means having to take a background check when you pick up the weapon lol background checks aren't federally mandated, you can buy from a dealer without a background check and thus even if your weapon is shipped to a dealer for pickup, that doesn't mean you're required to get a background check. that was the point of this bill. mandating that in order to buy a firearm from a dealer, you need a background check

Within the past hour the senate also killed the new AWB, and the mag cap ban. praise liberty.

[QUOTE=smurfy;40318043]I don't get it, how can anyone oppose this The AWB and high capacity magazines sure whatever but universal background checks don't seem like they should even be an issue[/QUOTE] I have similar sentiments; background checks should be an everyday thing in the world of American armaments, since a gun is a cheap tool of death and can spell disaster in the hands of a madman. As for automatic weaponry and high-capacity magazines, however, whilst I'm not against them in concept, they do seem a bit like "overkill" in a civilian environment. Guns fire VERY fast bolts of metal that deal massive physical damage to most targets; surely two or three bullets would be sufficient for home defence, hell you'd technically only need one to deal an incapacitating injury if you knew where to aim (like the kneecaps). Now I don't know much about hostile civilian environments, but I'm sure that potential burglars don't usually wear armour, and even if they did it'd probably just be a kevlar jacket if they're the fancy kind that lives dangerously, in which case just go for the knees or the arms. My point is that whilst I don't oppose automatics or high-cap mags, in the civilian environment of home defence where you're up against unarmoured perpetrators, you probably don't need to fire an automatic at them, since suppressive fire is a tactic that's a level above the average home defence scenario, and then there's the collateral damage to think of when bullets are flying everywhere. If criminals of the future wore bullet-resistant power armour that could take a lot of punishment, then automatics would probably be necessary, but right now they just seem like an unnecessarily powerful weapon for home defence. And besides, by the time burglars start storming banks in power armour, we'd probably have plasma rifles that could melt through that shit and cook the wearer in the man-shaped oven they call an exosuit.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319188]you open your post whining about how lawmakers don't understand gun laws, then go on to say that buying from online retailers means having to take a background check when you pick up the weapon lol background checks aren't federally mandated, you can buy from a dealer without a background check and thus even if your weapon is shipped to a dealer for pickup, that doesn't mean you're required to get a background check. that was the point of this bill. mandating that in order to buy a firearm from a dealer, you need a background check[/QUOTE] But that's wrong. FFL sales require forms and background check. Are you thinking of private sales from citizen to citizen?

[QUOTE=ironman17;40319208]I have similar sentiments; background checks should be an everyday thing in the world of American armaments, since a gun is a cheap tool of death. As for automatic weaponry and high-capacity magazines, however, whilst I'm not against them in concept, they do seem a bit like "overkill" in a civilian environment. [/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act[/url] [quote]Machine Gun Ban As debate for FOPA was in its final stages in the House before moving on to the Senate, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed several amendments including House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332 [4] that would ban a civilian from ownership or transfer rights of any fully automatic weapon which was not registered as of May 19, 1986. The amendment also held that any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff date could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians. In the morning hours of April 10, 1986, the House held recorded votes on three amendments to FOPA in Record Vote No's 72, 73, and 74. Recorded Vote 72 was on H.AMDT. 776, an amendment to H.AMDT 770 involving the interstate sale of handguns; while Recorded Vote 74 was on H.AMDT 770, involving primarily the easing of interstate sales and the safe passage provision. Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rangel ignored a plea to take a recorded vote and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment failed.[5][6] The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit. Despite the controversial amendment, the Senate, in S.B. 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill. The bill was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act.[/quote] [QUOTE=Kopimi;40319188]you open your post whining about how lawmakers don't understand gun laws, then go on to say that buying from online retailers means having to take a background check when you pick up the weapon lol background checks aren't federally mandated, you can buy from a dealer without a background check and thus even if your weapon is shipped to a dealer for pickup, that doesn't mean you're required to get a background check. that was the point of this bill. mandating that in order to buy a firearm from a dealer, you need a background check[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System[/url] [quote]The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is a point-of-sale system for determining eligibility to purchase a firearm in the United States of America. Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders are generally required by law to use the NICS to determine if it is legal to sell a firearm to a prospective purchaser. Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS determines if the buyer is prohibited from buying a firearm under the Gun Control Act of 1968. It is linked to the National Crime Information Center and the Interstate Identification Index among other databases maintained by the FBI.[1][/quote]

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319188]you open your post whining about how lawmakers don't understand gun laws, then go on to say that buying from online retailers means having to take a background check when you pick up the weapon lol background checks aren't federally mandated, you can buy from a dealer without a background check and thus even if your weapon is shipped to a dealer for pickup, that doesn't mean you're required to get a background check. that was the point of this bill. mandating that in order to buy a firearm from a dealer, you need a background check[/QUOTE] You've obviously never bought a firearm. The 4473 is a federal form, NICS is a federal database. You can not buy a firearm from a federally licensed dealer without filling out a 4473. You're thinking of private sales and gun shows. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473[/url]

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;40318948]If the firearm is used in a crime, you charge the last registered owner as an accessory to the crime and make them ineligible to own firearms. Make it clear that if they do it, they'll have to feel the repercussions.[/QUOTE] Then not only you get increased gun theft, you also risk convicting innocent people.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40319214]But that's wrong. FFL sales require forms and background check. Are you thinking of private sales from citizen to citizen?[/QUOTE] ive walked into a phoenix gunshop and bought a gun without them ever requesting a background check. filled out my name and that but i still walked out with a gun and no background check

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319252]ive walked into a phoenix gunshop and bought a gun without them ever requesting a background check. filled out my name and that but i still walked out with a gun and no background check[/QUOTE] Did you fill out a form with your name, address, SSN, and answer a short set of questions about whether or not you are buying this another person, etc?

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319252]ive walked into a phoenix gunshop and bought a gun without them ever requesting a background check. filled out my name and that but i still walked out with a gun and no background check[/QUOTE] Anecdote

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319188]you open your post whining about how lawmakers don't understand gun laws, then go on to say that buying from online retailers means having to take a background check when you pick up the weapon lol background checks aren't federally mandated, you can buy from a dealer without a background check and thus even if your weapon is shipped to a dealer for pickup, that doesn't mean you're required to get a background check. that was the point of this bill. mandating that in order to buy a firearm from a dealer, you need a background check[/QUOTE] Everything you said was completely and utterly wrong. Thanks for letting everyone know you have zero knowledge about firearm transactions. All gun dealers hold an FFL (Federal Firearms License), and all background checks are for the federal level. All FFL holders are REQUIRED to process a background check on a purchaser. There is no FFL holder in the United States that will sell a gun without a background check. Firearms purchased online have to be shipped to an FFL holder, and a background check is processed before the transfer is completed.

Yeah Kopimi let the ball drop in showing he really has no fucking clue what he's talking about when it comes to guns. As if that wasn't already known.

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319252]ive walked into a phoenix gunshop and bought a gun without them ever requesting a background check. filled out my name and that but i still walked out with a gun and no background check[/QUOTE] cool you purchased a weapon illegally and the gunshop owner sold it illegally or they just called it in while you were waiting and you didnt notice lol

[QUOTE=Kopimi;40319252]ive walked into a phoenix gunshop and bought a gun without them ever requesting a background check. filled out my name and that but i still walked out with a gun and no background check[/QUOTE] Lol. You filled out the 4473, they take that into the back, put your info in the National INSTANT Criminal Background check, and then finish the sale. How do you think background checks work.

[QUOTE=ironman17;40319208]I have similar sentiments; background checks should be an everyday thing in the world of American armaments, since a gun is a cheap tool of death. As for automatic weaponry and high-capacity magazines, however, whilst I'm not against them in concept, they do seem a bit like "overkill" in a civilian environment. Guns fire VERY fast bolts of metal that deal massive physical damage to most targets; surely two or three bullets would be sufficient, hell you'd technically only need one to deal an incapacitating injury if you knew where to aim (like the kneecaps). Now I don't know much about hostile civilian environments, but I'm sure that potential burglars don't usually wear armour, and even if they did it'd probably just be a kevlar jacket if they're the fancy kind that lives dangerously, in which case just go for the knees or the arms. My point is that whilst I don't oppose automatics or high-cap mags, in the civilian environment of home defence where you're up against unarmoured perpetrators, you probably don't need to fire an automatic at them, since suppressive fire is a tactic that's a level above the average home defence scenario, and then there's the collateral damage to think of when bullets are flying everywhere. If criminals of the future wore bullet-resistant power armour that could take a lot of punishment, then automatics would probably be necessary, but right now they just seem like an unnecessarily powerful weapon for home defence. And besides, by the time burglars start storming banks in power armour, we'd probably have plasma rifles that could melt through power armour.[/QUOTE] #1: The second amendment doesn't exist for home defense or hunting or whatever. Anyone that says that doesn't know what they're talking about. (not saying you don't know what you're talking about, I mean the people who use that as a way to defend it). Its purpose is to allow the citizens to have a way to fight back against the government if it were to turn oppressive. Do I think that's happening? No, but that is the reason it was created. The founders came from a country where they [B]believed[/B] they were being oppressed. #2: Banning Assault Style weapons and high capacity magazines will not stop mass shootings. The VTech shooting was done with 2 pistols and 15 round mags. People who want to kill other people will do it. You cannot deter them. It's a reality of life. The Boston tragedy shows this. Using a pressure cooker and $100 of explosives and other items, someone was able to kill and maim a lot of people. All the bans would do is punish responsible and law abiding gun owners who enjoy their hobby in a safe and responsible manner.

Bro. Not even 15 round mags. They were capped at 10 I believe.

Does anybody have a video of Obama's speech/responce?

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;40319311]Bro. Not even 15 round mags. They were capped at 10 I believe.[/QUOTE] The wiki page said 15 I thought but maybe it was 10. Point still stands though.

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;40319299]cool you purchased a weapon illegally and the gunshop owner sold it illegally[/QUOTE] He likely did not. He is either or lying, or is completely oblivious to what he did. The background check literally takes less then two minutes on the phone, then you leave the store with the gun right after (assuming you are not put on a hold, or your state has a mandatory wait).

[QUOTE=JerryK;40318224]i love guns as much as the next guy, but i shouldn't be allowed to go on a site like craigslists, find someone in my area selling a gun, meet him in a parking lot, and then buy the gun from him it's downright fucking stupid, there's literally no reason that gun transfers at gunshows and between two individuals can't be mediated via a FFL license holder[/QUOTE] If you can't effectively enforce a law, don't make it. It cheapens the rule of law and spreads law enforcement thin. Law enforcement is a limited resource. You can only enforce so many laws before it becomes unreasonable, and some laws will require significantly more resources than others. Furthermore you run into the very real possibility that you will spend state resources on a legal trial for a person purchasing a firearm without any criminal intent. Can't enforce the law and the act of selling a firearm isn't inherently criminal or damaging to anyone, so passing it would not be the logical choice.

[QUOTE=GunFox;40319354]If you can't effectively enforce a law, don't make it. It cheapens the rule of law and spreads law enforcement thin. Law enforcement is a limited resource. You can only enforce so many laws before it becomes unreasonable, and some laws will require significantly more resources than others. Furthermore you run into the very real possibility that you will spend state resources on a legal trial for a person purchasing a firearm without any criminal intent. Can't enforce the law and the act of selling a firearm isn't inherently criminal or damaging to anyone, so passing it would not be the logical choice.[/QUOTE] and the alternative is having guns where the owner doesn't legally own it? no thanks gunfox