New DNC head is furious you can sell your own property without government permission

The statist solution is always to set up a "specialist" with a certificate who is the only authorized transactor. Then the proletariat has to pay this petty official for permission to do something they could otherwise do for themselves.

Authorized firearm dealer
Authorized liquor dealer
Authorized seller of fishing and hunting licenses
Authorized automobile inspector

None of those people perform an active service by virtue of their "license." You just have to pay them more for doing whatever it is they've been granted a monopoly on.

I think the title of this thread is a little misleading. I opened this expecting to read about personal property as in land or your home. I don't see why gun owners are so upset. The argument that this is personal property is a weak one in my opinion. Look this is not like you are trying to sell a stamp collection or a guitar or something. This is about the private citizen attempting to sell a deadly WEAPON. I know I would want anyone trying to do that put under the microscope. Could have been a weapon used in a murder for all you know. Next they find the weapon and you own it. Guess who gets charged with murder!

reply to post by CaptGizmo

I think the title of this thread is a little misleading. I opened this expecting to read about personal property as in land or your home. I don't see why gun owners are so upset. The argument that this is personal property is a weak one in my opinion. Look this is not like you are trying to sell a stamp collection or a guitar or something. This is about the private citizen attempting to sell a deadly WEAPON.

Are you saying my firearms aren't my property simply because they are firearms?

I know I would want anyone trying to do that put under the microscope. Could have been a weapon used in a murder for all you know. Next they find the weapon and you own it. Guess who gets charged with murder!

That's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the DNC chair proposing we enact third party background checks within in-state commerce, which A is not constitutional, and B if this were actually a concern they would allow private citizens access to the NICS system. They don't.

Secondly weapons of the type you describe are most often not found in the hands of anyone law abiding. They are usually sold from the back of a van in a dark alley away from prying eyes, usually STOLEN.

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
I think the title of this thread is a little misleading. I opened this expecting to read about personal property as in land or your home. I don't see why gun owners are so upset. The argument that this is personal property is a weak one in my opinion. Look this is not like you are trying to sell a stamp collection or a guitar or something. This is about the private citizen attempting to sell a deadly WEAPON. I know I would want anyone trying to do that put under the microscope. Could have been a weapon used in a murder for all you know. Next they find the weapon and you own it. Guess who gets charged with murder!

edit on 4/20/2011 by CaptGizmo because: (no reason given)

A hammer is a deadly weapon, do you want background checks done on those too?

How about knives? Bows?

A gun is just as much personal property as a house, car, cell phone, or a tv.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

 

Okay, so why cant I call NICS?

If keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is the goal then she should just be requesting that private sellers call NICS.

But she's not. So what's her real goal?

If you want to sell guns to other people just sign up with NICS as a dealer and you can do exactly that. Maybe you can capture a niche market in your area by doing NCIS checks for others as well. Sure it is a bother, but really not a huge deal.

Just today, another story of a kindergartener bringing a gun to school and now three kids are wounded and the rest of the kids are probably quite distressed. Without a law of this type, the irresponsible gun owner in this instance , could just go buy another gun. I beleive that whoever let that kindegartener get his hands on this gun, should not be able to legally own one. The point is, some folks shouldn't own guns and we need a system to keep the most obvious from doing so. I understand the friend to friend thing, but you can't even legally sell a car to a friend without going through the government. You casn't enforce property rights if there is no trail of who owns the property so in this case the gov. is actually your friend, so to say.

reply to post by projectvxn

My point was if a non law abiding citizen sells his gun to an unsuspecting law abiding citizen then the person with a weapon in their possession that was used in a murder could be charged with the crime.

The most famous words of any liberal is "But, that's different".
No it is not. Regardless if it's my guns, shoes, food or what ever, they are my property. Very simple.
The Govt has no right to regulate this.
Since they have regulated it unlawfully, then how about just enforcing the rules that are already in the books? Instead of making up new crap.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


I cant sign up as a dealer unless I am a dealer. CAnt get an FFL unless I have a physical storefront. The "virtual" storefronts of the past dont cut it anymore.

reply to post by CaptGizmo


It is called Due Diligence.
The States have laws regarding this. The Fed has not authority in the matter.

Again, there are laws in place for this. New ones do not need to be created.
It is merely "Feel Good" politics.

Kind of like Gun/Drug free zones.

Because that has stopped how many criminals/crimes?

reply to post by CaptGizmo



My point is that criminals are not stopped by laws.

I check IDs when I sell mine. Law abiding people normally go through lawful channels to buy weapons. Not from some random guy in the ghetto.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

 

I cant sign up as a dealer unless I am a dealer. CAnt get an FFL unless I have a physical storefront. The "virtual" storefronts of the past dont cut it anymore.

Probably spouted out too quickly if that is indeed the truth. I do think private citiizens should have the right to sell their guns, so i will go along with your contention that private citizens should have a way to check the NCIS. Since this is just a proposal, I would write your reps and insist they include a way for private citizens to access the database.

reply to post by macman
You generalization is amusing. A gun is a deadly weapon used for killing or hunting. Not cooking or cutting your grass. I also suspect as I continue to voice my opinion on this matter in a calm and gentlemanly way that we will see a rise in the more angry posts directed towards me simply because I support background checks for gun sales and even private gun sales.

Funny, I don't hear anyone complaining about having to be subjected to background checks when they apply for a job! Only because they want to sell a blatantly deadly weapon on the free market with no checks or balances.

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


So I buy a used butchers knife from someone, use it to kill 10 people. Why is the seller not then charged with a crime?
The knife has become a dangerous weapon.

It is BS at best.
Yes, a kid brought a gun to school. Sounds like the parents had not idea of how to secure it properly. Is it then your say to deem them no worthy of owning a gun?
What is the kid brought the above mentioned knife?

It is not the job of the Fed Govt to regulate who does and does not own a gun.
As for the car, no, you can sell a car without the Govt involved. But, in order to use it, you must pay taxes (Wrong) and register/title it to operate it on public roads. The fact that the Govt gets to tax a used item, which it already taxed on the original purchase is wrong as well.

It is a slow erosion of person rights and freedoms.

Originally posted by FrancoUn-American
I advise purchasing simple metal working tools and a reloading station..... you know what im sayin

i like that idea. scope out craigslist for an old Shop-Smith and bone up on your machine shop skills. one may even start a cottage industry making spare parts to sell.

the DC clowns seem to have their thought patterns in reverse = business as usual. i don't know anyone that has a problem with responsible clear-thinking people owning licensed firearms. the problem IMHO is the illegal weapons in the hands of hoodlums, thats where effort should be placed. get the guns away from criminals and the children who think they are MTV gangstas. too many lives have been ruined by illegal firearms in the hands of irresponsible people. licensed hunters, collectors & enthusiasts respect their firearms and use them properly - these men & women are NOT the problem.

reply to post by CaptGizmo


I support back ground checks as well.

I just don't support the regulation of instate commerce by the Feds.

If they would give gun owners access to NICS I would gladly use it to check the BG of anyone I want to sell a gun to privately.

Would this stop the criminal element you've described? No.

now what would make anyone think that the democrats would let that pesky constitution stop them from doing what they want to do? Politicians never learn do they? How many times does the left need to lose elections because they attempt to infringe on our rights?

reply to post by macman

Do you know why regulations are put in place? Regulations happen when the average citizen can not govern themselves in a particular area anymore and people get ripped off,hurt, or killed! Look to the old west to see what it was like. Arguments were solved in the middle of the street for the whole world to see. Sorry, you guy's can use the Constitutional crutch all you want, but it wont change anything if the majority of the people want regulations. You will be the minority. Lets face it, many of us in this country are tired of the minority speaking for the rest of us!

Originally posted by CaptGizmo
reply to post by macman

 

You generalization is amusing. A gun is a deadly weapon used for killing or hunting. Not cooking or cutting your grass. I also suspect as I continue to voice my opinion on this matter in a calm and gentlemanly way that we will see a rise in the more angry posts directed towards me simply because I support background checks for gun sales and even private gun sales.

Funny, I don't hear anyone complaining about having to be subjected to background checks when they apply for a job! Only because they want to sell a blatantly deadly weapon on the free market with no checks or balances.

edit on 4/20/2011 by CaptGizmo because: (no reason given)

To foresee personal attacks and use that as a defense mechanism is childish.
It does not matter what the gun is for, it is protected under the Constitution. It is not just for killing and hunting.
Background checks for new purchases, sure I guess. Background checks for personal sales, BS.
There does not need to be new laws in place. The old laws, when enforced and practiced are just fine.
The argument does not work as I have never come across a criminal that stopped criminal activities because of a new law being created. The law is to curtail lawful people and their actions. A criminal will not stop. Instead of buying a firearm second hand, I guess they just steal an ID, break into a home or still buy it second hand.

Again, all this is is just feel good politics, to appease the radical base.

reply to post by CaptGizmo



That's not how it works.

The Constitution is not subject to the majority whim. It is a document that protects the individual rights of Americans. That means the minority as well.

It isn't a crutch either. It is the Supreme Law of that land.

Deal with it.

reply to post by CaptGizmo


So what was the old west like? Statistical comparisons to today please.

Outside of dime store novels and fantastic Hollywood exaggerations I've never seen any proof that the old west was some particularly hellish place to live nor very different from any place today.