My sentiments exactly
- Thread starter robEERt
- Start date
"require some unlicensed gun dealers to get licenses and conduct background checks on potential buyers.”
Is this a bad thing?
Is this a bad thing?
He's also looking to change the definition of who is a seller that requires licensing and thus background checks. Not saying that is a bad thing...I don't think it does squat to impact violence...but I guess it feels good.
I don't know all of the gun laws, maybe. Would you sell them to him? Are you a convicted felon? Are you allowed to own guns? Would you pass on the guns while you're still living? I just inherited some guns from my father and it was easy, just had to value them. Care to answer my original question?
If you are asking for my opinion, I say yes. I say a background check should be required for any transfer, sell or give away, family or not. I don't want guns in the hands of those that have mental health problems.
Should we care who sells guns - should we require individuals who sell one gun to someone else to be licensed and require that purchaser get a background check? That's what we're talking about here - right now there is a definition of what a licensed seller is (and thus requires background checks of purchasers)...where do you draw the line at defining who requires a license to sell a gun? We have laws - better enforcment might help...what good are new laws if they're not going to be enforced either? This is just a feels-good measure anyway. How does it impact violence?
We wouldn't want to go backwards on our tracking of cars but lots of people die in auto accidents, true.
Probably. If the idiot mother had not been allowed to buy guns and give them to her mentally disturbed son (who killed her first), she and those children and their teachers would still be alive. (Adam Lanza, being mentally disturbed, probably would have found another way to kill himself.) And I'm still waiting for someone to outline for me which laws are not being enforced -- to me that sounds like an NRA sound bite and straw man, just like the dumb stuff about how "cars kill people." There are very few cases of people buying or stealing a car with the purpose of using it to kill someone.
DOG is a state agency where all firearm transactions are recorded? Who funds this agency? Will it be operated by people too dumb to work at DOH? Smarter?
At DOH, I have to take my lunch every time I visit they are so slow. I assume we could take a bed to wait for them to record a firearm transaction at DOG. And police can pretty easily spot an unlicensed vehicle. How do they detect any unlicensed firearm?
They'd probably call it DOF (Firearms).
Just like the DMV, fees paid for registration, etc. would pay for it.
They will come to your house and detect them.
Strawman purchases are already illegal. But instead of prosecuting offenders the Feds let it go.
This is a "see I care I'm doing something" feelgood measure.
No idea what you're talking about. I made a flippant answer to something above and another poster wanted to learn more about it, thus the response that you responded to. My flippant answer on tracking guns was to treat them like vehicles, each weapon being registered like a car. Not likely but what's unconstitutional about any of that?
LOL and at what point during the mom purchasing the guns would you be able to tell that she was going to give them or allow her son to use them?
A lie detector test would be administered to you on the spot and when you're found lying, you would be tazed (if needed) and arrested.
On the surface, no it isn't. The devil is in the details. If they can clearly define some of this stuff it will be ok. If they limit my ability to gift, sale, or trade with one of my friends or with a family member, then yeah, I have a problem with it.