AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-03-30, 13:56   Link #701
synaesthetic
blinded by blood
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 30
Send a message via AIM to synaesthetic Send a message via Skype™ to synaesthetic
Who says background checks aren't done? Because when I bought my guns I had to have my background checked through NICS, and I wasn't even living in an especially blue state.
__________________
synaesthetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 14:08   Link #702
Badkarma 1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
It's not dat they're not done, some just want them to be more intrusive, inquizative. Sorta like the Spanish Inquisitions.
Badkarma 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 14:13   Link #703
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badkarma 1 View Post
And you missed the point entirely. On da form it asks if your a mental case, of course you say no. With a state background check they could see if your dine time for being mental unless your files are sealed by doctor patient whatchamacallit.
So lets make all mental cases a a part if the NCIS database and we can keep the weapons out of there hands.
Why we coddle dese people is beyond me, if they're a danger to society they needs to be "in the system". We do the same wit convicted pedophiles, sexual predators and such, so why not the mental ones to?
You can't keep weapons out of their hands if they can get guns from private sales. That's the point.

You say there are plenty of laws? Laws are not measured by quantity, but by what they do. Background checks only work if it is universal, loopholes are like leaks in a bucket. Doesn't matter how small the hole it is still going to be emptied. It makes no sense for there to be a way to bypass background checks. And as I said earlier, I don't see anyone explaining why they need to have untraceable guns.

Quote:
It's not dat they're not done, some just want them to be more intrusive, inquizative. Sorta like the Spanish Inquisitions.
And that's related to universal background checks how?

And don't bring up the Spanish Inquisition as if it means anything to the argument. It doesn't work here anymore than if you bring up "Nazi" or "Communist".
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 14:41   Link #704
Badkarma 1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
You can't keep weapons out of their hands if they can get guns from private sales. That's the point.

You say there are plenty of laws? Laws are not measured by quantity, but by what they do. Background checks only work if it is universal, loopholes are like leaks in a bucket. Doesn't matter how small the hole it is still going to be emptied. It makes no sense for there to be a way to bypass background checks. And as I said earlier, I don't see anyone explaining why they need to have untraceable guns.


And that's related to universal background checks how?

And don't bring up the Spanish Inquisition as if it means anything to the argument. It doesn't work here anymore than if you bring up "Nazi" or "Communist".
Man, you got a serious hard on for this don't ya?
Whilst I can't speak for other states, here in Il. one must provide documentation on the said selling to an individual, simply put you the seller must keep a record of the sale, the buyers FOID, DOB, and date of his/her card expiration and da I.D. #.
If you wanna invoke the "Adolph rule" so be it, I'm not playin.
By inquisition I meant you'd have to explain why you think you needs a weapon, what it's purpose would be, possible mental exams, and a full background check by the FBI. All of which is pure manure! The states can do this and it would make new jobs in the process.
And what make you think they'll actually check each and every weapons transfer anyway? How are they gonna check the one already out there bought before the whatever it is was enacted? Or da ones passed down from parent to child, or gifted?
Or for dat matter weapons made prior to the GCA of '68, some don't have serial #s.
Badkarma 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 15:18   Link #705
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badkarma 1 View Post
Man, you got a serious hard on for this don't ya?
Whilst I can't speak for other states, here in Il. one must provide documentation on the said selling to an individual, simply put you the seller must keep a record of the sale, the buyers FOID, DOB, and date of his/her card expiration and da I.D. #.
How is any of that a background check? It's a ledger of sales, which every level of business keeps.

Quote:
By inquisition I meant you'd have to explain why you think you needs a weapon, what it's purpose would be, possible mental exams, and a full background check by the FBI. All of which is pure manure! The states can do this and it would make new jobs in the process.
How is any of it "pure manure"? What, pray tell, is wrong with any of it?

Also, what's with the "da"s?
GDB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 15:46   Link #706
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
Some people basically don't want the governement to know how many guns they have. Mostly in fear that they will be taken away by some random feel good law. Or in some cases, when a gun is used in self defense, the police take the gun. Some have suggested they will take all the guns as evidence and potentally not return any of them. Which could be a lose of several hundred to thousands of dollars depending on the number of rifles and handguns a person may own. Especially collecters of older weapons. And this is even if the gun did not harm anyone. It could have been discharged to get the attention of someone to invading one's property, or even just branished to get them to leave and never fired at all. Yet the weapon is still taken by the police and could potentially never be returned.

This seemed to be the common thoughts in the 1990s around the time of the Brady Bill.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 16:17   Link #707
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42 10' N (Latitude) 87 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Some people basically don't want the governement to know how many guns they have. Mostly in fear that they will be taken away by some random feel good law.
However, that notion seriously needs to be debunked because the idea of confiscation has and never was on the table.
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 16:19   Link #708
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Some people basically don't want the governement to know how many guns they have. Mostly in fear that they will be taken away by some random feel good law. Or in some cases, when a gun is used in self defense, the police take the gun. Some have suggested they will take all the guns as evidence and potentally not return any of them. Which could be a lose of several hundred to thousands of dollars depending on the number of rifles and handguns a person may own. Especially collecters of older weapons. And this is even if the gun did not harm anyone. It could have been discharged to get the attention of someone to invading one's property, or even just branished to get them to leave and never fired at all. Yet the weapon is still taken by the police and could potentially never be returned.

This seemed to be the common thoughts in the 1990s around the time of the Brady Bill.
So you are saying their arguments boil down to "we need guns to be untrackable so we can keep them"... Keep them for what?

Yes, guns are expensive, but what does that have to do with being untrackable?

There are plenty of gun paradises left in the world. Most of them are Third World, but that's the way it works.

Anyway, what does untraceability have to do with police confiscation? If they found out one own a gun off the books then off course they would take it away. Being traceable or not is moot when the cops already saw the weapon.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 16:42   Link #709
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Maybe they hide their unregistered guns? In different places, so that if they won't lose it all if one hiding place is discovered.
Anh_Minh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 16:56   Link #710
justinstrife
Queen Sheryl's Protector
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: John Galt Railroad
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to justinstrife Send a message via Skype™ to justinstrife
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Some people just don't like the idea of having a paper trail for their guns.
This guy included. I'm not against a background check, but once the check has been done that's it. No paper-trail. It isn't the Government's business what you or I bought and when in terms of record keeping. And this should only apply to new gun purchases or even gunshows. Selling a firearm to your friend should not fall under this. As would passing your firearms down to your children or grandchildren.
__________________
justinstrife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 17:14   Link #711
Badkarma 1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB View Post
How is any of that a background check? It's a ledger of sales, which every level of business keeps.

It isn't. It's for a person to person sale!

How is any of it "pure manure"? What, pray tell, is wrong with any of it?
The STATES can keep the records of an individual on record and the state police or sheriff can do the back ground checks. They can also notify da Feds if there's a problem or somethin come up!
Also, what's with the "da"s?
DragonFire! It's a program dat allows you to speak and it prints out your words exactly. Sort of like how Canadians say "Eh" ya know?
Badkarma 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 17:17   Link #712
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinstrife View Post
This guy included. I'm not against a background check, but once the check has been done that's it. No paper-trail. It isn't the Government's business what you or I bought and when in terms of record keeping. And this should only apply to new gun purchases or even gunshows. Selling a firearm to your friend should not fall under this. As would passing your firearms down to your children or grandchildren.
"Selling a firearm to your friend" translates to "Selling a firearm to anybody you want."

Unless "friend" is some specific legal qualification I didn't know about, to be able to sell to a "friend" implies absolute unrestricted weapon sales. Once you transfer it to a "friend" it is gone.

You do know WHY there are background checks, right? It is to make sure guns don't fall in the wrong hands. For you to say there shouldn't be a paper trail is to say you want the background checks to be meaningless. Because once you get to decide who own the gun after you, we don't know who's hands is holding the gun next.

Did you think background checks are just a formality?

It is currently a crime in the US to transfer ownership of a gun to someone who you know can't legally own one. It doesn't carry that much of a penalty consider the seriousness, even if the person you give the gun to then proceeds to rob a bank. It's called "Straw purchase". And it is the easiest way for a known felon to obtain a gun. No need for a black market when you can just ask your family members to buy the gun for you.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 17:22   Link #713
Badkarma 1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
So you are saying their arguments boil down to "we need guns to be untrackable so we can keep them"... Keep them for what?

Yes, guns are expensive, but what does that have to do with being untrackable?

There are plenty of gun paradises left in the world. Most of them are Third World, but that's the way it works.

Anyway, what does untraceability have to do with police confiscation? If they found out one own a gun off the books then off course they would take it away. Being traceable or not is moot when the cops already saw the weapon.
Why would the police confiscate a weapon in the first place?
If its legally owned, the owner doesn't have any felonies and its never been used in a crime, why would they bother?
Now if they wanna give me what their worth, maybe I'll turn them alls over. But with ARs no commanding almost $2000 and 5.56/.223 going for $20+ a box and the fact that even findin said piece is almost like hittin the lottery, I could make one helluva haul!
Badkarma 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 17:29   Link #714
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badkarma 1 View Post
Why would the police confiscate a weapon in the first place?
If its legally owned, the owner doesn't have any felonies and its never been used in a crime, why would they bother?
Now if they wanna give me what their worth, maybe I'll turn them alls over. But with ARs no commanding almost $2000 and 5.56/.223 going for $20+ a box and the fact that even findin said piece is almost like hittin the lottery, I could make one helluva haul!
The police might confiscate a weapon if you are not the known owner of the weapon. That's my point; that the desire to hide your guns is simply a counter-productive desire to own guns illegally. If you have no proof that the gun is under your name, then you don't actually own it, it's that simple. And if you don't own it then the cops take them away.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 17:47   Link #715
justinstrife
Queen Sheryl's Protector
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: John Galt Railroad
Age: 34
Send a message via AIM to justinstrife Send a message via Skype™ to justinstrife
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
"Selling a firearm to your friend" translates to "Selling a firearm to anybody you want."

Unless "friend" is some specific legal qualification I didn't know about, to be able to sell to a "friend" implies absolute unrestricted weapon sales. Once you transfer it to a "friend" it is gone.

You do know WHY there are background checks, right? It is to make sure guns don't fall in the wrong hands. For you to say there shouldn't be a paper trail is to say you want the background checks to be meaningless. Because once you get to decide who own the gun after you, we don't know who's hands is holding the gun next.

Did you think background checks are just a formality?

It is currently a crime in the US to transfer ownership of a gun to someone who you know can't legally own one. It doesn't carry that much of a penalty consider the seriousness, even if the person you give the gun to then proceeds to rob a bank. It's called "Straw purchase". And it is the easiest way for a known felon to obtain a gun. No need for a black market when you can just ask your family members to buy the gun for you.
Then those family members should be held accountable for aiding someone in a crime. Which is an entirely different argument altogether.

You want the Federal Government involved far more than I do. I want it as out of my life as possible. Kind of like the Founders intended.
__________________
justinstrife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 18:10   Link #716
Badkarma 1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
The police might confiscate a weapon if you are not the known owner of the weapon. That's my point; that the desire to hide your guns is simply a counter-productive desire to own guns illegally. If you have no proof that the gun is under your name, then you don't actually own it, it's that simple. And if you don't own it then the cops take them away.
And what would constitute them coming to take said weapon?
If all it does is set in me safe and occasionally go out and shoot some cans or paper, how am I breakin the law?
Badkarma 1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 18:52   Link #717
Ithekro
Warning
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 37
The fear was that they would keep a record of all your weapons and when a report came in of one of them being used (self defense even without a shot fired) not only the gun used, but all the guns would be taken as evidence. Potentally never returned (I seem to recall my father used one to breakup a fight outside his store late one night and had the guns (two of them, only one was used, and I don't think he fired it) conficated by the police. I think it took legal action to get them back even without a crime being committed, not a trial ever held).

The rumors of such thing as well as the idea that the BATF records could be used to crack down on gun owners was a thing in the 1990s. Some software company even made a game were Southern Califoria was invaded and the invaders used the BATF records to nuetralize protental rebels and stores of guns.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai! Signature by ganbaru
Rena's Saimoe Take Home List 2014: Dairenji Suzuka.Misawa Maho.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 18:53   Link #718
GDB
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinstrife View Post
Then those family members should be held accountable for aiding someone in a crime. Which is an entirely different argument altogether.

You want the Federal Government involved far more than I do. I want it as out of my life as possible. Kind of like the Founders intended.
How is selling to a friend any different from selling to a stranger? All it does is circumvent the background check by introducing a third party, just like a black market.
GDB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-30, 20:56   Link #719
relentlessflame
 
*Administrator
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Age: 32
Folks, you all know quite clearly what our stance is about the never-ending gun debate on this Forum. It has outstayed its welcome. Please move on.
__________________
[...]
relentlessflame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-31, 02:29   Link #720
Kyuu
=^^=
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 42 10' N (Latitude) 87 33' W (Longitude)
Age: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by relentlessflame View Post
Folks, you all know quite clearly what our stance is about the never-ending gun debate on this Forum. It has outstayed its welcome. Please move on.
I sorely miss the days, when I flat out did not give a crap...

===

So, to change direction, there's a much bigger fight at hand. That is aimed at Wall Street, Large Corporations, and the Top 1% (in terms of wealth). These people are so much a threat to democracy, such that I expect them to use their position to topple the Federal government (someday); and install their own new system, where business and government fully merge. By definition, that's Fascism. Thanks to the First Amendment, this is a difficult thing to pull.
Kyuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.