Senate blocks deal on gun background checks

I am a gun dealer so I will weigh in my 2 cents.

1. When they talk about "better access to mental health care" they sell it as if I am depressed that I will have access to therapy and psychological counseling in addition to medication.

What it really means is they want government to subsidize the cost of anti-depression medication which will now be a red flag in the purchase of firearms

What most people don't realize is these medications literally cause a huge portion of gun violence... so... I don't understand what the thought process is.

2.(I know a lot of you already know this but this is for people who dont) Expanded background checks for internet sales... well... there is no background check for internet sales HOWEVER ALL FIREARMS PURCHASED OVER THE INTERNET MUST BE SHIPPED TO A LICENSED DEALER

They are selling it as though you can buy a Glock 17 and have it delivered to your house like an amazon package and you simply can't. By law. You can't. All firearms, even lowers for ARs (Lower receivers are not even the whole weapon, they are not even capable of firing by themselves) must be shipped to a dealer.

Once the gun you ordered over the internet is shipped to your dealer in your state, you do a background check based on your states laws.

3. Gun show purchases are the same way. 9 out of 10 sales at a gun show are done by dealers. Any transaction done by a dealer to a private citizen MUST have a background check done.

The only time you can sell without a background check is in states that allow private sales (AZ is one and I believe TX is another)

I can assure everyone as a dealer and living in Arizona (one of the absolutely most lose gun laws in the country) it is still incredibly difficult for someone whom goes through the proper channels to obtain a firearm.

Honestly, in my opinion the only common sense way to curb gun violence would be a waiting period. A waiting period does not infringe on the right to own a firearm and anyone whom is planning a violent gun crime will have 3 days to think about what they are going to do. Anything after 3 days and that person is going to do it regardless.

2 cents

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

Didnt you know that complete and total ignorance is a prerequisite for wanting to ban, confiscate or otherwise regulate a thing?

No one who knows what they're talking about ever supports regulation or prohibition. Only the ignorant and fearful do.

Not true! Even if all the new gun laws fail to pass there are plenty of older laws that still exist. Not a single person can buy a gun without federal and state background checks on new gun purchases. AFAIK only intrastate person-to-person sales do not require a gun broker to complete.

The states have their own laws and even towns have their own laws aka ordinances.

All this extra regulation seems overkill, evil, choking nonsense to me. Of course I am no gun enthusiast but I have done some basic research.

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I think background checks would be a good idea, as long as having "adhd" or something common like that wasn't grounds to not own one.

That's the problem. Millions of people have depression/ anxiety. I'd be willing to bet those people would not be allowed to own guns should this get too in depth.

edit on 17-4-2013 by Covertblack because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2013 by Covertblack because: (no reason given)

Yep, I bet the whole thing would be tied to medical record keeping in Obamacare.

reply to post by YayMayorBee


They don't care about any of that. They want confiscation.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Yep. By using their logic the Tyrant 0bama is for killing kittens in a microwave, because after all, he has not come out against it.

I would love to have more anti-gun rights people chime in. I do love destroying stupid arguments and watching this happen as well.

I personally would like to have ALL GUNS registered as a requirement to ownership, regardless if background checks were done or not. Remember private sales often go unrecorded and crazy people can purchase them.

It is not a black and white issue; everyything allowed or nothing allowed. Jesus Christ!

If you buy a car, regardless if it is used or new, you have to register it, as well as have a drivers license and insurance policy. Why should guns be exempt from this? Guns are more dangerous than cars are.

Originally posted by FreeQuebec86
Once again, USA look stupid xD.


Right-wing maniac said : We won !!!

You won what ????

For doing nothing ? Now everybody can still have ASSAULT weapons without intense background checks ?


Once again, USAers are sheeps to Gun Lobby...

Here people talk about Illuminati and sh*t. But WHEN REAL conspirational lobby are putting REAL MONEY for their cause ( That KILLS PEOPLE, gun = make to kill/hurt badly ). You people embrass them.


Lol USA Fail again...

They already do background checks, they just don't keep gun purchases stored in databases. A shopkeeper who sells a gun keeps the record of it on location, not in a federal database.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I personally would like to have ALL GUNS registered as a requirement to ownership, regardless if background checks were done or not. Remember private sales often go unrecorded and crazy people can purchase them.

It wouldn't make a bit of difference if you required that they are all registered.

Guns would continue to find their way into the 'wrong hands'.

In the US, what group of people are the 'right' people to possess methamphetamine?
No one, because it is completely illegal.

Yet anyone that wants to buy it may do so, no lines, no shortages and no ID required. It sure is a good thing that laws prevent methamphetamine from existing in the US.

reply to post by neo96


Thanks very much for looking that up. So if they only surveyed houses with guns already, those people already know that they've passed a background check and that a background check doesn't keep them from having a gun - which it would seem 100% of them WANT.

Gad. I knew it was some sort of craziness. Everyone kept yelling 90% 90% 90%
...I'm just looking around like a deer with the headlights in my eyes. I don't even know 1% around here that want any sort of firearm restrictions.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I personally would like to have ALL GUNS registered as a requirement to ownership, regardless if background checks were done or not. Remember private sales often go unrecorded and crazy people can purchase them.

It wouldn't make a bit of difference if you required that they are all registered.

Guns would continue to find their way into the 'wrong hands'.

In the US, what group of people are the 'right' people to possess methamphetamine?
No one, because it is completely illegal.

Yet anyone that wants to buy it may do so, no lines, no shortages and no ID required. It sure is a good thing that laws prevent methamphetamine from existing in the US.

I partially agree with this however HOW exactly would a gun be traced back to its owner when a gun crime has been committed if the gun was never registered or sold in the black market a couple of times to the wrong hands?

Straw purchases are already illegal yet go to any big city in the USA and buying a cheap saturday night pistol is simply a matter of knowing the right people.

How do they catch criminals anyway? Fingerprints? If someone was wearing gloves and no witness was present then I guess no crime was committed. We see this in movies with criminals wearing gloves and tossing the gun in the garbage can.

I hate jumping into the middle of gun debates, as I have my own personal feelings involved, but according to the ATF the definition of a firearm is very specific.

ATF - Firearms - FAQ

The GCA, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), defines the term “firearm” to include the following: … (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive: (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

What that means is any 80% receiver can be delivered to your house without any FFL dealer or paper trail involved, you just have to complete the last 20% yourself and not place the "firearm" for sale without notifying the ATF. Citizens are allowed to build all the guns they want without the gov't involved as long as they don't sell them to another party. 80% lower AR-15(since the AR consists of an upper and lower receiver, only the lower is considered the firearm) and AK receivers are totally legal and beyond the BGC system. Therefore extended background checks are pointless. I mean I've seen the prison shows where inmates have made guns out of tubing and they are the most restricted Americans on the planet. More laws to restrict law abiding citizens' constitutional rights isn't going to affect the crime rate or the so called "massacres".

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I partially agree with this however HOW exactly would a gun be traced back to its owner when a gun crime has been committed if the gun was never registered or sold in the black market a couple of times to the wrong hands?

Even if all guns were required to be registered, guns would be stolen, imported from other countries, or built in underground workshops... and sold in the black market. How DO you trace those?

A lot of murders are committed with blunt objects or kitchen knives. How do you trace them?

It isn't about catching criminals, it is about knowing where the guns are.

Straw purchases are already illegal yet go to any big city in the USA and buying a cheap saturday night pistol is simply a matter of knowing the right people.

As I asked earlier, 'What happened to the straw purchaser for the Columbine Massacre?'
She admitted her guilt.
What sentence did she receive?
Better yet, was she even tried??
Uh... no. No trial, so no sentence.
Wow, that whole rule of law crap is just that, crap.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I partially agree with this however HOW exactly would a gun be traced back to its owner when a gun crime has been committed if the gun was never registered or sold in the black market a couple of times to the wrong hands?

Even if all guns were required to be registered, guns would be stolen, imported from other countries, or built in underground workshops... and sold in the black market. How DO you trace those?

A lot of murders are committed with blunt objects or kitchen knives. How do you trace them?

It isn't about catching criminals, it is about knowing where the guns are.

Guns don't get stolen that often. I think the problem is person-to-person sales from people who own multiple guns and make a living buying guns enmasse/bulk from states with lax gun laws and then transporting them to liberal strongholds after scratching the serial numbers off.

Illegal firearms possession is not enforced but used as a complimentary sentence or as a form of exortion by cops to get you to coperate with them on other matters. Owning a gun and traveling with it without a CCP is also illegal, but never enforced. BTW I disagree with CCP since buying a gun should infer full privileges of defense, target practice and militia usage.

Basically if someone saw you commit a gun crime and they have your fingerprints you are guilty. They didn't see you? You are a free man. Cops are tax collectors primarily. Well unless you rob a bank then nothing will be spared against you. Double standards!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Guns don't get stolen that often.

What?
No really. You are saying that guns don't get stolen that often?

Cops are tax collectors primarily.

No question there.
When it comes to actual crimes, they mostly fill out paperwork after they find the crime scene.

the paper where I live, there is a big ol picture of Obama on the front page looking like he is about to cry. Can't always get your way buddy. Also honestly did he think having the families of newtown there was going to help? Or did he think making Gabrielle Gifford limp to him would make people change there minds? Maybe the president should stop using these peoples sad stories to push an agenda for something that won't change the violence in this country my case on point is the Boston bombing

reply to post by muse7


See what you ignorantly did just there, in ignorance of your own ignorance?

You made a sweeping generalisation implying that ANY persons with ANY mental health disorders are dangerous criminals who can't be trusted to keep themselves from killing other people.

You understand why that's just about the most ignorant thing I've read on ATS in recent times?

A MINORITY of persons with SOME mental health conditions are dangerous under SOME circumstances. But they are in a distinct minority, perhaps 10% of patients with long-term, severe conditions of a psychotic nature, if they are unmedicated and unsupervised...

People who are feeling a little down every now and then, often get labelled as depressive, even if they hold down a job & have a family, social life etc. Just because they feel a bit despondent at times, unsure of their purpose in life, etc, they get labeled as someone with 'mental health issues'. Then some ignorant schmuck comes along and thinks that he/she can't be trusted around animals with a butter knife, let alone around people with a gun.

Violent criminals are the ones who law-abiding citizens should be concerned about. The ones who would loot your home, rape your wife, kill your parents for getting in the way, etc, in the event of a natural disaster when ordinary law broke down temporarily. The decades upon decades of the availability of guns in the US means that any home break-in can automatically be assumed to be a potential murderer creeping around in your home, whereas in the UK we rarely have armed break-ins. If I lived in America, I would own a gun or two for the protection of my family. Simples.

As regards the gun question in general:

If a person wanted to kill or harm, they could just pick up a kitchen knife. Those who kill use the weapons at their disposal - in the UK we have a terrible knife crime culture amongst the youth in gangs.. However, the gang members who want to can get a gun here very easily on the black market - but they have to save up a little extra cash compared to the gang members in the US, simply because guns are less prevalent on our streets, and therefore a higher price tag (supply & demand..) They also quite frequently have to ask permission to use the gun in a certain way, or expect repercussions from established criminal elements, though as described below such organisation & self-regulation is less common than it used to be..

Our nation is easier to control & monitor due to size & areas of high population density being centred in a very few locations. Crime is easier to detect & correct, therefore, and so gun crime has never taken off here the way it has in the States, even when handguns were legal. Plus, we had a different attitude bred into our consciousness, as regards fair play - guns are cheating, effectively - all the organised criminal gangs used to frown on indiscriminate use of weapons in crime, and they would have mafioso-style control of cities to prevent their complex operations from being compromised by idiots who went around indiscriminately wounding or killing members of the public. These days, that sort of 'honor amongst thieves' is almost dead & gone, and the degeneration into savagery has begun, only just being held back by determined police & intelligence efforts, and by what remains of the gangland code.

Law-abiding civilian gun owners in the US are much less likely to ever be involved in a crime with their gun, than those of a criminal bent who can pick up a gun on a street corner in less than 20 minutes, illegally, simply by making that choice & despite a small amount of cash in their pocket. It can be done cheaper in the US, but it can still be done here in the UK. Criminals will be able to get hold of guns if they want to.

If the criminals can buy guns illegally without hassle, and there is an abundance of such illegal gun owners in the USA, where is the logic in disarming the law-abiding civilian populace? It would take ten generations of determined forcible disarmament by the State to remove the guns from mainland USA. It therefore makes sense to allow the law-abiding civilians to own guns for their own defence against the criminals who will always have guns and won't ever be afraid to use them, won't ever register them, and won't ever struggle to find opportunities to kill with them if someone stands in their way.

Gun crime would actually go up if there were less law-abiding citizen gun owners in the USA, because the criminals would be less afraid of being shot when making decisions to attack the life, liberties & property of others, and because the country would be saturated with black-market weapons (therefore the price would go down).

I suspect that if an administration ever tried taking the guns away forcibly, the nation would collapse in open revolution.

How exactly would this have prevented the sandy hook massacre?? The guns used were bought legally then stolen by a criminal. Criminals bypass legislation so this background check would have done nothing to prevent the massacre. that is what criminals do .. they bypass legislation aka break the law.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Guns don't get stolen that often.

What?
No really. You are saying that guns don't get stolen that often?

Stolen guns is not that common imo. I think some people buy guns enmasse and sell them in the black market. This is the problem. How do we define stealing?

Maybe there should be a limit to how many guns one can buy as well as registering them. If you can only buy 3 guns then that could conceivably cut down on the black market considerably.

But then we see operation fast and furious where gun dealers sell truckloads of ak-47 rifles to mexican drug cartels that probably runs all the way to the top with eric holder in the know.

Cops are tax collectors primarily.

No question there.

When it comes to actual crimes, they mostly fill out paperwork after they find the crime scene.

edit on 18-4-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Its all a dog and pony show with evil intentions right around the corner. Something big seems likely considering they are buying up ammo and creating artificial shortages for the general public.

I am a man of principle so I discuss everything. I don't side with the government.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Guns don't get stolen that often.

What?
No really. You are saying that guns don't get stolen that often?

Stolen guns is not that common imo. I think some people buy guns enmasse and sell them in the black market. This is the problem. How do we define stealing?

Maybe there should be a limit to how many guns one can buy as well as registering them. If you can only buy 3 guns then that could conceivably cut down on the black market considerably.

But then we see operation fast and furious where gun dealers sell truckloads of ak-47 rifles to mexican drug cartels that probably runs all the way to the top with eric holder in the know.

Cops are tax collectors primarily.

No question there.

When it comes to actual crimes, they mostly fill out paperwork after they find the crime scene.

edit on 18-4-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)

Its all a dog and pony show with evil intentions right around the corner. Something big seems likely considering they are buying up ammo and creating artificial shortages for the general public.

I am a man of principle so I discuss everything. I don't side with the government.

edit on 18/4/13 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)

As a gun dealer who sells a lot of used weapons I can assure you a lot of guns are stolen and confiscated by local PD in my jurisdiction. It is not often but not uncommon.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Yes, it is pretty black and white, as per the Constitution and 2nd Amendment.

If you, or others want the law changed, the correct legal way, ratify the Constitution.

But, not necessarily you, Progressives see that correct process as a hurdle they can't overcome. So they will do it the wrong way.


The thing is, that a car is just as deadly as a gun, if not more deadly due to it's weight, mobility and cover/concealment.
There was a saying that was used when I was in LE, never bring a gun to a car fight.

The idea that society has deemed one thing, the gun, as more dangerous then a vehicle is ridiculous.
Both have the ability to save lives, take lives, be used for evil or for good. But, both are nothing without a PERSON in control of it.

Registering firearms is the first step that Hitler took. I guess we want to go that route? Or have we actually learned from the past and will work to not have that sort of thing happen again.