2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: 4C5S on June 09, 2023, 04:05:09 AM
-
https://youtu.be/r1lF0j1PYG8
-
https://youtu.be/r1lF0j1PYG8
Every time this animal speaks, I want to vomit.
"It" is at the level of a Clinton and Obama.
They all should have been cleansed from our society years ago.
Full disclosure; The only Democrat I had ANY respect for was
John C. Calhoun, at least he was honest.
History test for you Honolulu guys.
-
Bruen is tearing them a new one so they move the goal post.
-
Bruen is tearing them a new one so they move the goal post.
"Bruen is tearing them a new one so they move the goal post."
The constitution doesn't matter in Hawaii.
Hawaii doesn't have goal posts.
:shaka:
-
Send kommiefornia into the sea by using low yield nukes along the San Andreas and San Bernadino fault lines to facilitate the removal… :shaka:
-
Send kommiefornia into the sea by using low yield nukes along the San Andreas and San Bernadino fault lines to facilitate the removal… :shaka:
If only such actions were not going to cause radiation fallout -- low yield or not.
The charges would have to be buried way, way down to contain the radiation.
Or, just use a larger number of MOABs ...
:thumbsup: :geekdanc:
-
If only such actions were not going to cause radiation fallout -- low yield or not.
The charges would have to be buried way, way down to contain the radiation.
Or, just use a larger number of MOABs ...
:thumbsup: :geekdanc:
Bury em then….as long as kommiefornia disappears….
-
Karl Roads to Newsome: "hold my beer..."
-
Newsome is a joke but at least he is actually going about it the proper way. Amending the constitution is the right way for them to achieve this goal, not dishonest interpretations by politicians and judges.
Even though I hate Newsome, I am not going to shut the door without seeing the language of the amendment he is approving because it is possible there could be something I could agree with and I would rather work to find more of a middle ground than complain as he gets what he wants.
-
Even though I hate Newsome, I am not going to shut the door without seeing the language of the amendment he is approving because it is possible there could be something I could agree with and I would rather work to find more of a middle ground than complain as he gets what he wants.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8P8UaA_WA0vmnVIWC7pQhhRTzVvlz9WZpNG77u2RJd1Q0lFdXxDdnSwzeNnGCCt3LWBtQ5qXysHjgPd7cqIxEAVBYJXK6v42fzxNswqdZb9b6hcIWhtpKxh7aNc59JohcprubN2BkBG_4C1xROrosw1v-rm9ct3HsN4wR40BeSc3km3EdunY/s1472/FxN-Uv0WwAMoV6X.jpeg)
-
Newsome is a joke but at least he is actually going about it the proper way. Amending the constitution is the right way for them to achieve this goal, not dishonest interpretations by politicians and judges.
Even though I hate Newsome, I am not going to shut the door without seeing the language of the amendment he is approving because it is possible there could be something I could agree with and I would rather work to find more of a middle ground than complain as he gets what he wants.
I disagree. instead of offering an amendment to the Second Amendment to repeal or add specificity to it, he's wanting to create another new amendment that conflicts with the 2A.
He's taking the same path as those who supported prohibition. The feds didn't have the power to ban alcohol at the congressional level, so they created an amendment that did that for them. it was such an awful use of the constitution they wound up repealing it.
The constitution is a framework that defines the structure and underlying rules to set up our system of government, and the Bill of Rights protects our liberties from government infringement. The Constitution is NOT a solution for imposing one group's set of laws on the nation apart from the representative legislative process.
Imagine if every proposed law that was shot down a dozen times were to be proposed as a Constitutional Amendment to bypass the lawmakers. The reason the process to change the document is so difficult is precisely because it should only be changed when there is a fundamental flaw in it or a (real, not imagined) right that was not well defined previously -- such as allowing former slaves and women the right to vote.
So, i don't agree with you that this is the "proper way" to go about it. His state has more mass shootings than any other, and their gang violence is well known in certain cities. Now he wants to tell the nation how to run things?
His gun control doesn't work, yet he thinks more of it is better?
His proposal will fall on many deaf ears I believe. But for you to think this is a good thing is bothersome. The dems have used the filibuster, mail-in-ballots, social media censorship, mainstream media collusion, and presidential impeachments to obtain power, attack their opposition, and push their agendas. Let's not add trying to change the Constitution whenever it gets in their way to the mix.
-
Hawaii's politicians love Newsome and the way he thinks.
-
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8P8UaA_WA0vmnVIWC7pQhhRTzVvlz9WZpNG77u2RJd1Q0lFdXxDdnSwzeNnGCCt3LWBtQ5qXysHjgPd7cqIxEAVBYJXK6v42fzxNswqdZb9b6hcIWhtpKxh7aNc59JohcprubN2BkBG_4C1xROrosw1v-rm9ct3HsN4wR40BeSc3km3EdunY/s1472/FxN-Uv0WwAMoV6X.jpeg)
WELL spoken!
:thumbsup:
-
Newsome is a joke but at least he is actually going about it the proper way. Amending the constitution is the right way for them to achieve this goal, not dishonest interpretations by politicians and judges.
Even though I hate Newsome, I am not going to shut the door without seeing the language of the amendment he is approving because it is possible there could be something I could agree with and I would rather work to find more of a middle ground than complain as he gets what he wants.
Do you honestly believe that he proposed this for the good of the 2a right? I get that you want to read it first, but to give him some possible doubt that it's not all bad is not good. Then add in the timing of the Buren ruling and this new amendment. That's like saying if Jeffrey Dhamer who likes to eat people has a new cook book and you want to see what it's about before you cast judgement. Compared to if Martha Stewart had a new cook book that one blindly buys.
-
I disagree. instead of offering an amendment to the Second Amendment to repeal or add specificity to it, he's wanting to create another new amendment that conflicts with the 2A.
He's taking the same path as those who supported prohibition. The feds didn't have the power to ban alcohol at the congressional level, so they created an amendment that did that for them. it was such an awful use of the constitution they wound up repealing it.
The constitution is a framework that defines the structure and underlying rules to set up our system of government, and the Bill of Rights protects our liberties from government infringement. The Constitution is NOT a solution for imposing one group's set of laws on the nation apart from the representative legislative process.
Imagine if every proposed law that was shot down a dozen times were to be proposed as a Constitutional Amendment to bypass the lawmakers. The reason the process to change the document is so difficult is precisely because it should only be changed when there is a fundamental flaw in it or a (real, not imagined) right that was not well defined previously -- such as allowing former slaves and women the right to vote.
So, i don't agree with you that this is the "proper way" to go about it. His state has more mass shootings than any other, and their gang violence is well known in certain cities. Now he wants to tell the nation how to run things?
His gun control doesn't work, yet he thinks more of it is better?
His proposal will fall on many deaf ears I believe. But for you to think this is a good thing is bothersome. The dems have used the filibuster, mail-in-ballots, social media censorship, mainstream media collusion, and presidential impeachments to obtain power, attack their opposition, and push their agendas. Let's not add trying to change the Constitution whenever it gets in their way to the mix.
Amending the 2nd amendment vs adding a new amendment seems like a distinction without a difference to me. Either way we would get the same result if changes are made to gun rights. I mean if I had a choice I say better to ament the 2nd rather than clarify with a 28th amendment but in the end, the changes he wants to implement would be the same.
If a law is shot down as unconstitutional then the only way to get that law passed would be to modify the constitution. We may not like it but it is the proper way to go about it. Some people didn't like constitutional amendments to give women the right to vote or give all rights to black people either but it doesn't mean anything was done improperly. If a legislature or the courts conjured up some right or conjured away some right that did not exist in the constitution that would be improper. The only proper way to add or take away a constitutional right is to modify the constitution. You say you disagree, then what is the proper way to amend the constitution to make desired changes?
His state's own gun and violence problems are legitimate concerns but ultimately irrelevant to this particular issue.
For the hardcore gun rights crowd, yes his proposal will fall on deaf ears. For the moderates and the left though I think this could get a lot of attention.
-
Do you honestly believe that he proposed this for the good of the 2a right? I get that you want to read it first, but to give him some possible doubt that it's not all bad is not good. Then add in the timing of the Buren ruling and this new amendment. That's like saying if Jeffrey Dhamer who likes to eat people has a new cook book and you want to see what it's about before you cast judgement. Compared to if Martha Stewart had a new cook book that one blindly buys.
I don't have any hopes that I would agree with everything he puts into the texts but as a matter of principle, I have to wait and see the text otherwise I am failing to be objective. I have my biases against him to be sure but if I refuse to engage in honest discourse and consideration of the opposition's points then I am part of the problem. Unlike other political attempts to use judges or politicians to "reinterpret" the 2nd amendment I can at least give credit to Newsome for trying to make changes the proper way by amending the constitution though I may disagree with the amendment. No amendment will make everyone happy but by participating maybe we can sway it more in favor of us.
Ther is a black man who befriended dozens (hundreds?) of KKK members over the years and got them to leave the KKK and change their ways and minds. Do you think he would have succeeded if he simply saw their robes and refused to interract with them?
-
I don't have any hopes that I would agree with everything he puts into the texts but as a matter of principle, I have to wait and see the text otherwise I am failing to be objective. I have my biases against him to be sure but if I refuse to engage in honest discourse and consideration of the opposition's points then I am part of the problem. Unlike other political attempts to use judges or politicians to "reinterpret" the 2nd amendment I can at least give credit to Newsome for trying to make changes the proper way by amending the constitution though I may disagree with the amendment. No amendment will make everyone happy but by participating maybe we can sway it more in favor of us.
Ther is a black man who befriended dozens (hundreds?) of KKK members over the years and got them to leave the KKK and change their ways and minds. Do you think he would have succeeded if he simply saw their robes and refused to interract with them?
So, you are equating the right to keep and bear arms to being a KKK member? Really?
If you stopped to think, you'd realize it was gun control, not 2A rights, that were created to keep guns out of the Black's hands -- a cause created and supported by the likes of the KKK.
I know you were trying to make a general comparison between the two as "we can't win if we don't try," but you can't use examples that have nothing in common and pretend the same unbiased rules apply. The anti-2A crowd will never change until they are put in a position where not having a gun cost them something dearly, and gun control laws & law enforcement were incapable of stopping it..
-
I don't have any hopes that I would agree with everything he puts into the texts but as a matter of principle, I have to wait and see the text otherwise I am failing to be objective. I have my biases against him to be sure but if I refuse to engage in honest discourse and consideration of the opposition's points then I am part of the problem. Unlike other political attempts to use judges or politicians to "reinterpret" the 2nd amendment I can at least give credit to Newsome for trying to make changes the proper way by amending the constitution though I may disagree with the amendment. No amendment will make everyone happy but by participating maybe we can sway it more in favor of us.
Ther is a black man who befriended dozens (hundreds?) of KKK members over the years and got them to leave the KKK and change their ways and minds. Do you think he would have succeeded if he simply saw their robes and refused to interract with them?
"Ther is a black man who befriended dozens (hundreds?) of KKK members over the years and got them to leave the KKK and change their ways and minds. Do you think he would have succeeded if he simply saw their robes and refused to interract with them?"
What was his name?
If you ever spent much time in the south, Y'all know most are decent
Christian people with morals that don't match up with some KKK activities.
I can tell you if you cross a red line in the morals of people living in the
swamps of Mississippi you will have problems.
Nobody ever mentions how many white people were Lynched.
That is not talked about or reported, but they got rid of assholes.
Kind of like troublesome Meth heads tend to leave my Island.
Y'all have to ignore the progressive Memes as they are for a
political purpose, not for the good of our citizens.
NRA was formed to teach recently freed Black slaves how to shoot.
KKK was formed because of the lack of Law after the north
destroyed southern society.
I supposed I could come up with a few more Organisations
modern Democrats are try to crush
Just because they can lie and get away with it.
>:D :grrr:
-
I don't have any hopes that I would agree with everything he puts into the texts but as a matter of principle, I have to wait and see the text otherwise I am failing to be objective. I have my biases against him to be sure but if I refuse to engage in honest discourse and consideration of the opposition's points then I am part of the problem. Unlike other political attempts to use judges or politicians to "reinterpret" the 2nd amendment I can at least give credit to Newsome for trying to make changes the proper way by amending the constitution though I may disagree with the amendment. No amendment will make everyone happy but by participating maybe we can sway it more in favor of us.
Ther is a black man who befriended dozens (hundreds?) of KKK members over the years and got them to leave the KKK and change their ways and minds. Do you think he would have succeeded if he simply saw their robes and refused to interract with them?
Yo Yo….. :rofl:
-
The last amendment to the Constitution was the 27th, ratified in 1992.
The amendment delays laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives. Basically, anyone who votes for a raise for themselves may be subject to losing their jobs in the next election -- possibly because they voted for a raise for themselves. Only their replacements and any surviving incumbents would benefit from the salary bump.
This amendment was first proposed in 1789, and it took almost 203 years for it to be made official.
This is not the norm for amendments, but it illustrates how issues that don't directly impact the day-to-day lives of Americans are not a high priority. Watering down or eliminating a protected civil right would be much more divisive and bad for the country. We should not use the Constitution as a way of forcing one group's agenda over another's when there is already a specific protected right contained in the Constitution.
Any specific gun control laws that are not enacted by Congress should be left to the states to decide -- not enshrined in the Constitution. Prohibition laws should have taught everyone that lesson.
-
So, you are equating the right to keep and bear arms to being a KKK member? Really?
Clearly not. Don't troll
I know you were trying to make a general comparison between the two as "we can't win if we don't try," but you can't use examples that have nothing in common and pretend the same unbiased rules apply. The anti-2A crowd will never change until they are put in a position where not having a gun cost them something dearly, and gun control laws & law enforcement were incapable of stopping it..
It is not "we can't win if we don't try" rather it is that refusal to engage out of some morally superior notion of the other side is too close minded is a self fulfilling prophecy and is false.
Newsome is trying to change the constitution. Can we flip him to be totally in our camp? Probably not but there is potential to work to get something less bad. I for one don't oppose a universal background check if done in the way I have in mind. Plus if we sit on the sidelines refusing to engage, all that does is give him ammunition to saw we are unreasonable and I am not going to give him that ammo.
Try to balance idealism with realism.
-
"Ther is a black man who befriended dozens (hundreds?) of KKK members over the years and got them to leave the KKK and change their ways and minds. Do you think he would have succeeded if he simply saw their robes and refused to interract with them?"
What was his name?
Daryl Davis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw
-
Clearly not. Don't troll
It is not "we can't win if we don't try" rather it is that refusal to engage out of some morally superior notion of the other side is too close minded is a self fulfilling prophecy and is false.
Newsome is trying to change the constitution. Can we flip him to be totally in our camp? Probably not but there is potential to work to get something less bad. I for one don't oppose a universal background check if done in the way I have in mind. Plus if we sit on the sidelines refusing to engage, all that does is give him ammunition to saw we are unreasonable and I am not going to give him that ammo.
Try to balance idealism with realism.
Two questions for you:
(1) How is a Universal Background Check going to be enforced? In other words, what mechanism is necessary to ensure John doesn't transfer a firearm to Fred without first running a background check?
(2) If you were able to answer the first question, then you have to ask, "What atrocities have often followed the implementation of the mechanism referred to above?"
The people (like you) who espouse the wonderful benefits of a UBGC system never think about the system that must first be in place for it to have a chance of working as advertised -- assuming it even can work.
-
Two questions for you:
(1) How is a Universal Background Check going to be enforced? In other words, what mechanism is necessary to ensure John doesn't transfer a firearm to Fred without first running a background check?
(2) If you were able to answer the first question, then you have to ask, "What atrocities have often followed the implementation of the mechanism referred to above?"
The people (like you) who espouse the wonderful benefits of a UBGC system never think about the system that must first be in place for it to have a chance of working as advertised -- assuming it even can work.
There could be a few different ways to enforce the background checks. You could use sting operations as preemptive ways of enforcing, like enforcing alcohol age laws. You could also enforce based on after the fact investigations, like tracing the sale of the firearm used in a crime. One of the benefits is that it would help an honest person selling a gun make sure they don't unknowingly sell the gun to someone who isn't allowed. Like if I am selling a gun on here and I meet you in a parking lot and just sell you the gun, I don't know if you are actually prohibited. With a background check type system I would have a way of making sure I was making a legal sale. (Not a comprehensive list)
Atrocities following mechanisms like this? What atrocities do you have in mind?
-
There could be a few different ways to enforce the background checks. You could use sting operations as preemptive ways of enforcing, like enforcing alcohol age laws. You could also enforce based on after the fact investigations, like tracing the sale of the firearm used in a crime. One of the benefits is that it would help an honest person selling a gun make sure they don't unknowingly sell the gun to someone who isn't allowed. Like if I am selling a gun on here and I meet you in a parking lot and just sell you the gun, I don't know if you are actually prohibited. With a background check type system I would have a way of making sure I was making a legal sale. (Not a comprehensive list)
Atrocities following mechanisms like this? What atrocities do you have in mind?
Boy I sure hope HPD pays you enough for your psyop campaigns on this site.
-
Boy I sure hope HPD pays you enough for your psyop campaigns on this site.
if so, HPD deserves a refund
-
There could be a few different ways to enforce the background checks. You could use sting operations as preemptive ways of enforcing, like enforcing alcohol age laws. You could also enforce based on after the fact investigations, like tracing the sale of the firearm used in a crime. One of the benefits is that it would help an honest person selling a gun make sure they don't unknowingly sell the gun to someone who isn't allowed. Like if I am selling a gun on here and I meet you in a parking lot and just sell you the gun, I don't know if you are actually prohibited. With a background check type system I would have a way of making sure I was making a legal sale. (Not a comprehensive list)
Atrocities following mechanisms like this? What atrocities do you have in mind?
You're demonstrating my point exactly. The proponents of so-called Universal Background Checks don't get the simple fact that NO background check system works without positive recording of who bought and sold each firearm. FFLs are already required to keep those records for all purchased and sold weapons. But a national registry would need to exist in order to track sales and enforce the background requirements.
Let's use your example. You meet up with stranger X in a parking lot in a state that doesn't have 100% registration unlike HI. You sell him the gun and forego the background check because you know he's over 21, a resident of your state (checked his license), and don't see any prison or gang tats. So, assuming the UBC law exists, and there is no registry, how do you enforce the law in this case? If the gun happens to be used in a crime, how do the cops know YOU sold the gun to him? You can say you sold it to someone different, and that buyer must have resold it. You could say it was stolen/lost and didn't notice. The buyer probably doesn't have more than an online name. If you called him or dealt exclusively via direct messages, there's no actual way to know that you sold the gun to him.
Even with a registry, the penalties for having an unregistered handgun would have to be severe to force compliance with the majority. But, that ignores the fact that a national firearm registry is illegal and unconstitutional. Throughout history, registries have been less about solving or preventing crimes, and more about confiscations. That's where the atrocities happen. When the government knows who has all the guns, they can more easily come and take them all. Why do you think gun registration was forbidden under the GCA and subsequent Firearm Acts? It's because history has proven over and over again that the government cannot be trusted with a list of private firearm ownership.
CT governor proves gun registration leads to confiscation
https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2022/12/20/ct-gun-registration-n65452
National Gun Registration: The Road to Tyranny
Americans, and now Canadians, have pointed out that rather than helping track
criminals and their guns as claimed, registration of firearms is dangerous to the
liberties of law-abiding citizens, and as we shall see, counterproductive with
respect to criminals.
Gun Registration and Tyranny
Unbeknownst to many Americans, who have seen and experienced mostly the
goodness of America, gun registration is the gateway to civilian disarmament,
which often precedes genocide. In the monumental book Lethal Laws* we learn
that authoritarian governments that conducted genocide and mass killings of
their own populations first disarmed their citizens. The recipe for accomplishing
this goal was: demonizing of guns, registration, banning and confiscation, and
finally total civilian disarmament. Enslavement of the people then followed with
limited resistance, as in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, and
other totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century.
https://fee.org/articles/national-gun-registration-the-road-to-tyranny
Registration does not cause confiscation, but confiscation is less likely to succeed without a national registry.
To create a list for "benevolent purposes" doesn't immunize the list from malevolent use.
https://youtu.be/S_xrjbL5o98
-
The left has shown to be either willfully ignorant or purposefully deceptive when it comes to their gun control agenda. They do not deserve an ounce of objective analysis in my opinion.
-
The left has shown to be either willfully ignorant or purposefully deceptive when it comes to their gun control agenda. They do not deserve an ounce of objective analysis in my opinion.
No matter how many times or in how many ways the details are explained, they still refuse to believe their "common sense gun control" measures are worse than doing nothing.
Universal background checks are intended to keep guns out of the "wrong hands.' Yet, those laws can't be enforced without an illegal national gun registry. Plus, the people causing the most gun violence are criminals who (1) don't follow the laws, (2) are already prohibited from owning guns, and (3) will never register a gun even IF it was legally purchased by current standards.
"Stings" and tracing a crime gun to its seller are after-the-fact enforcements/penalties. That does nothing to make anyone perform background checks BEFORE the private sale is complete.
Then there's the false sense of security a background check creates. How many mass shooters and other murderers have used legally purchased firearms after passing a background check? Who do we blame when the number of private gun buyers committing gun-involved crimes pass their background checks?
The NICS system is already broken. Placing more demand on it doesn't make much sense. Maybe fix the faulty foundation before adding another story?
-
No matter how many times or in how many ways the details are explained, they still refuse to believe their "common sense gun control" measures are worse than doing nothing.
Universal background checks are intended to keep guns out of the "wrong hands.' Yet, those laws can't be enforced without an illegal national gun registry. Plus, the people causing the most gun violence are criminals who (1) don't follow the laws, (2) are already prohibited from owning guns, and (3) will never register a gun even IF it was legally purchased by current standards.
"Stings" and tracing a crime gun to its seller are after-the-fact enforcements/penalties. That does nothing to make anyone perform background checks BEFORE the private sale is complete.
Then there's the false sense of security a background check creates. How many mass shooters and other murderers have used legally purchased firearms after passing a background check? Who do we blame when the number of private gun buyers committing gun-involved crimes pass their background checks?
The NICS system is already broken. Placing more demand on it doesn't make much sense. Maybe fix the faulty foundation before adding another story?
It seems someone is just trying to justify sting operations on law abiding citizens. More over reach, more centralized power.
-
It seems someone is just trying to justify sting operations on law abiding citizens. More over reach, more centralized power.
Exaclty.
Speed enforcement often takes place during roadside "speed traps," to hopefully catch speeders before they cause an accident and injuries (plus it raises revenue).
The only way to set up similar traps for gun law breakers as related to background checks is to (1) know who owns every gun, and (2) require purchases to be registered. if a buyer registers a gun, and the seller failed to do a background check, the ATF could confiscate the gun until one is completed.
That's the only way i can see background checks for private sales having any hope of stopping someone who is prohibited from buying a gun.
Of course, straw purchases will completely dismantle this system, because private sellers are less likely than FFLs to spot someone buying for someone besides themselves.
-
The NICS system is already broken. Placing more demand on it doesn't make much sense. Maybe fix the faulty foundation before adding another story?
If anti 2a groups would put $ and resources toward this to fix it, maybe their cause would hold some merit. But instead they go the easy route and just ban stuff. Then pocket the money.
To take up a sensitive places lawsuit, ET's lawyer gonna be pro bono per the AG"s statement while Comrade Green signed SB1230.
Here he is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fu9vqByBU8g&t=202s
-
Boy I sure hope HPD pays you enough for your psyop campaigns on this site.
Psyops because I voice a moderate opinion?
-
You're demonstrating my point exactly. The proponents of so-called Universal Background Checks don't get the simple fact that NO background check system works without positive recording of who bought and sold each firearm. FFLs are already required to keep those records for all purchased and sold weapons. But a national registry would need to exist in order to track sales and enforce the background requirements.
Let's use your example. You meet up with stranger X in a parking lot in a state that doesn't have 100% registration unlike HI. You sell him the gun and forego the background check because you know he's over 21, a resident of your state (checked his license), and don't see any prison or gang tats. So, assuming the UBC law exists, and there is no registry, how do you enforce the law in this case? If the gun happens to be used in a crime, how do the cops know YOU sold the gun to him? You can say you sold it to someone different, and that buyer must have resold it. You could say it was stolen/lost and didn't notice. The buyer probably doesn't have more than an online name. If you called him or dealt exclusively via direct messages, there's no actual way to know that you sold the gun to him.
Even with a registry, the penalties for having an unregistered handgun would have to be severe to force compliance with the majority. But, that ignores the fact that a national firearm registry is illegal and unconstitutional. Throughout history, registries have been less about solving or preventing crimes, and more about confiscations. That's where the atrocities happen. When the government knows who has all the guns, they can more easily come and take them all. Why do you think gun registration was forbidden under the GCA and subsequent Firearm Acts? It's because history has proven over and over again that the government cannot be trusted with a list of private firearm ownership.
Sorry, did I miss something? I didn't see any mention of a national gun registry mentioned in the video. Double checked his website, don't see any mention of registration. Regardless, you are incorrect, universal background checks could be performed without a firearm registry. A good, responsible citizen will check for the background check and even if they didn't write down the name, that doesn't make him useless to officers investigating a case.
How do you enforce ID check requirements for people selling alcohol? You could do the same thing with firearm sales. Of course some people will cheat but if cheaters were a reason to not have a law/regulation then we wouldn't have any at all.
-
Sorry, did I miss something? I didn't see any mention of a national gun registry mentioned in the video. Double checked his website, don't see any mention of registration. Regardless, you are incorrect, universal background checks could be performed without a firearm registry. A good, responsible citizen will check for the background check and even if they didn't write down the name, that doesn't make him useless to officers investigating a case.
How do you enforce ID check requirements for people selling alcohol? You could do the same thing with firearm sales. Of course some people will cheat but if cheaters were a reason to not have a law/regulation then we wouldn't have any at all.
Argue for universal background check—-> ineffective law because no way to enforce—-> argue for registry to make UBC enforceable. We’re not dumb. No amount of gaslighting is gonna work, psyop failed.
ID check requirements are only enforceable at areas licensed to sell alcohol. same way with firearms and FFLs, again you’ve failed to demonstrate how UBC can be enforced effectively without a registry. You’re not arguing for more laws to regulate FFLs correct? We’re talking about private sales. Please show me an article or study that shows alcohol laws keep alcohol out of the hands of young kids. Psyop fail again.
-
How do you enforce ID check requirements for people selling alcohol? You could do the same thing with firearm sales. Of course some people will cheat but if cheaters were a reason to not have a law/regulation then we wouldn't have any at all.
Sometimes people on parole aren't allowed to consume alcohol. So by showing an ID doesn't check this.
Like I said, if the anti gunners spent their resouses on the NICS system instead of banning stuff, maybe NICS would run a lot faster and smoother.
What I think Flapp is getting at is say it's required for all sellers to use NICS. Say a felon is caught with a gun, they say they bought it from X. AFT goes to X and ask did he do a check on the felon. Is X required to keep paperwork? X could keep a tracking number if 1 is even issued,but for how long? What if the AFT comes 10 years later? NICS is often used via phone, so there is no paperwork given to sellers. Now they could do it online, but that requires the seller to have a smart phone or willing to do stuff online. Many old people don't do this. And it would require that a gun purchase be done at somewhere with wifi or an internet connection. I mean, I don't suggesting going to a Starbucks.
Then how does the buyer know the seller is the legal owner? No registration to prove it. So the buyer gives the seller their social and DOB and trust that they're a law abiding citizen who wouldn't use that info for criminal purposes.
-
Sorry, did I miss something? I didn't see any mention of a national gun registry mentioned in the video. Double checked his website, don't see any mention of registration. Regardless, you are incorrect, universal background checks could be performed without a firearm registry. A good, responsible citizen will check for the background check and even if they didn't write down the name, that doesn't make him useless to officers investigating a case.
How do you enforce ID check requirements for people selling alcohol? You could do the same thing with firearm sales. Of course some people will cheat but if cheaters were a reason to not have a law/regulation then we wouldn't have any at all.
My god, you're dense -- and naive.
They want to put the cart before the horse. Once the law is in place to require private party sale background checks, and the weakness is displayed, then they will come back and add the registry. That part will be more time consuming since there are laws that currently make one illegal -- have to modify or repeal those.
Common sense is lacking with you. If the UBC system is to work, the government must know who owns every single firearm. Otherwise, there's no accountability for any sellers. A gun that changes hands after the initial sell may have zero documentation to record the buyer and seller.
Not everyone gives a flip about generating and signing a bill of sale. The buyer may not even know the seller's real name. Why would he care?
Then you have to factor in the number of people who aren't knowledgable of the law and will skip the background check out of ignorance.
If there's a fee, others will skip it to save money.
If the buyer offers a little above asking price to not run the BG check ("I had a domestic argument 20 years ago with my ex but charges were never filed, so I might have a problem passing..."), how many sellers would be okay with helping someone out who's being denied a right under those circumstances?
"A good, responsible citizen will check for the background check and even if they didn't write down the name, that doesn't make him useless to officers investigating a case." So, you basically think the honor system for firearm felonies will work? With all the gun laws on the books, that's your answer? :rofl: Obviously the government doesn't share your optimism.
And I never said the gun owners would be useless in an investigation. What I said is they won't provide enough details to qualify as evidence. A seller who doesn't run a background check before a sale is knowingly breaking the law. He's going to use a fake name, meet where he's not near his home, use a phone or email that can't be associated with him, and not have any records of having owned the gun himself. The buyer will be unwilling to cooperate because he'd be admitting he knowingly bought the gun without a background check (skipping it benefits him more than the seller). Someone looking at a felony charge might be persuaded to identify the seller, but (1) can he?, and (2) would his identification hold up without any corroborating evidence? "Yeah, that's the dude." Dude: "He's mistaken." Not much to go on when the buyer has every incentive to lie in exchange for a charge reduction.
As for checking IDs -- alcohol sellers (liquor stores, bars, Costco, etc.) are licensed by the state. If they fail to do the minimum due diligence to make sure buyers are of legal age, they can not only lose that license, but they can be criminally charged as well. There are cameras that can prove whether the store requested ID and can prove that the buyer purchased from that store. There are register receipts that track inventory and prove what was sold at that time. None of this exists with a private gun sale.
Not to mention that there is no law currently that requires you to check a gun buyer's ID, even though you can't knowingly sell a gun to a resident of another state without using an FFL, nor can you sell to someone who is under age. A quick check of a drivers license can verify those requirements are met, but it's not punishable if you don't check an ID. And, just like a liquor store or bar, fake IDs can be used to bypass those restrictions.
Your comparison is lame. Unless private firearm sellers are required to apply and pay for a license to sell their guns, there's no similarity with checking ID for alcohol sales.
-
Not to mention that there is no law currently that requires you to check a gun buyer's ID, even though you can't knowingly sell a gun to a resident of another state without using an FFL, nor can you sell to someone who is under age. A quick check of a drivers license can verify those requirements are met, but it's not punishable if you don't check an ID. And, just like a liquor store or bar, fake IDs can be used to bypass those restrictions.
This happens often, someone used to live in 1 state and still has that states ID. The seller would also have to check something like an electric bill, asssuming the buyer pays for eletricity. Or a tax return, assumuing they file taxes.
-
This happens often, someone used to live in 1 state and still has that states ID. The seller would also have to check something like an electric bill, asssuming the buyer pays for eletricity. Or a tax return, assumuing they file taxes.
Identity theft has been the fastest growing crime in the US for 30 years.
It's nothing to get your hands on a fake OR STOLEN ID card with your picture. Lots of how-to videos explaining how and where to buy fakes.
Just watched 2 body-cam videos recently where a teen had a fake iD when talking to a cop at a traffic stop. The first girl had her real and fake IDs together in her wallet, and the cop saw the fake when she took out her license. The second was a passenger who for some reason gave the cop a fake when asked for ID -- no idea what he was thinking unless he wanted to just punk the cop. In both instances, possessing a fake ID could have been a felony.
-
My god, you're dense -- and naive.
I am neither, you are just making a non sequitur because of your limited imagination. Hence your inability to see how background check system could exist without a registry. All your objections amount to pointing out that someone might try to cheat the system which doesn't amount to an argument against universal background checks. A gun store owner could do all the same things you point out if they are imaginative enough. Should gun stores not have to do background checks either?
-
Argue for universal background check—-> ineffective law because no way to enforce—-> argue for registry to make UBC enforceable. We’re not dumb. No amount of gaslighting is gonna work, psyop failed.
ID check requirements are only enforceable at areas licensed to sell alcohol. same way with firearms and FFLs, again you’ve failed to demonstrate how UBC can be enforced effectively without a registry. You’re not arguing for more laws to regulate FFLs correct? We’re talking about private sales. Please show me an article or study that shows alcohol laws keep alcohol out of the hands of young kids. Psyop fail again.
Ok, fair enough, alcohol sales establishments need a license and are different, I will give you that point.
Say I want to sell my gun to you (not in Hawaii). I post an ad and we meet up in a parking lot somewhere. How do I know whether you are allowed to own a firearm? I could ask for a driver's license to determine age but I have no way of ensuring you aren't a convicted felon. Absent some for of background check I have no way of knowing whether I am selling my gun to someone legally allowed to own one. One form of UBC would be like a government issued card that says Bryston has passed a background check. Id #12345. I can call the police and ask them if ID #12345 is valid and they say yes and I sell you the gun. No registry necessary, the government doesn't even know if a gun changed hands, all they would know is someone confirmed your ID was valid.
-
Sometimes people on parole aren't allowed to consume alcohol. So by showing an ID doesn't check this.
Like I said, if the anti gunners spent their resourses on the NICS system instead of banning stuff, maybe NICS would run a lot faster and smoother.
What I think Flapp is getting at is say it's required for all sellers to use NICS. Say a felon is caught with a gun, they say they bought it from X. AFT goes to X and ask did he do a check on the felon. Is X required to keep paperwork? X could keep a tracking number if 1 is even issued,but for how long? What if the AFT comes 10 years later? NICS is often used via phone, so there is no paperwork given to sellers. Now they could do it online, but that requires the seller to have a smart phone or willing to do stuff online. Many old people don't do this. And it would require that a gun purchase be done at somewhere with wifi or an internet connection. I mean, I don't suggesting going to a Starbucks.
Then how does the buyer know the seller is the legal owner? No registration to prove it. So the buyer gives the seller their social and DOB and trust that they're a law abiding citizen who wouldn't use that info for criminal purposes.
One of the big problems with the NCIS system is that so many jurisdictions don't update it. I am sure you are right, that there are needed improvements to the system however the system will only ever be as good as the information put into it. If some police department, or county, etc. never enters in convictions, stolen property, etc. like they are supposed to then it will always suffer intelligence holes.
Do you suggest that background checks be eliminated entirely, even by FFLs?
I am not in favor of a national registry so I oppose any background check system that would constitute a national registry. Thus I am considering ways that would allow responsible sellers to ensure they are not selling to someone prohibited. See my explanation to Bryston of what I had in mind. It isn't perfect, it has holes like any possible system, but it is a framework to start from.
One of the complaints is that it is unenforceable but this isn't the case, you just need a little creativity. You could do undercover spot checks, like a plain clothes officer goes into a gun show and tries to buy a gun. If the seller doesn't ask to see the background check ID then the officer issues a citation. This would help ensure compliance. Not 100% of course but thats true of any regulation
-
I am neither, you are just making a non sequitur because of your limited imagination. Hence your inability to see how background check system could exist without a registry. All your objections amount to pointing out that someone might try to cheat the system which doesn't amount to an argument against universal background checks. A gun store owner could do all the same things you point out if they are imaginative enough. Should gun stores not have to do background checks either?
Explain how you would catch someone selling a gun in a private transaction without a background check whether before or after the transfer.
Explain how a background check for a private sale will stop a straw purchase.
Explain why the vast majority of NICS background check denials are false positives -- i.e. denials that were in error. If the 99% error rate reported in the link below is supported by the data, it means only 1% of those checks resulted in keeping guns out of the hands of people not allowed to buy one. That represents a huge waste of money and resources given the millions of guns purchased from FFLs every year.
In your examples, you are only worried about guns used in crimes that can be traced back to the seller/s. is not the purpose of background checks to stop crime by keeping guns out of the wrong hands? So you're focusing on crimes, which means all of those cases are proof the background checks fail to stop gun crimes.
FBI Admits It Is Often Wrong On Gun Related Background Check Denials
Each year, the FBI denies somewhere around 100,000 would-be firearm purchases —
a statistic that the FBI is always proud to report. Those on the anti-gun Left, in turn,
often tout this ever-increasing number of persons who have been denied the purchase
of a firearm since implementation of the Brady Act on November 30, 1998. Through
October 31, 2021, that number now exceeds two million NICS denials.
Gun control advocates point to this figure as proof positive that the NICS system works
at stopping criminals from getting their hands on firearms. But their flawed assumption
is that those who are denied by NICS are actually prohibited persons — something
that is far from the case.
Notably, Second Amendment researcher and economist John Lott has claimed that as
many as 99 percent of NICS denials are actually false positives — meaning the person
denied is not actually a prohibited person.
https://www.ammoland.com/2021/11/fbi-admits-wrong-gun-background-check-denials/
As for your childish comment about gun dealers no longer running background checks, you fail to recognize what i already posted. FFLs have LICENSES and businesses to think about -- on top of any fines or criminal charges. They have to account for every single firearm that enters and leaves their inventory. They have to file a 4473 for each sale. If they fail in record keeping or filing the proper forms, they will lose their license which means they will lose the ability to continue selling guns as a business. So much more to lose than Joe when he sells a handgun to his friend, Pete.
Try reverse-engineering the answers to the questions I asked. Start from "a gun was privately transferred without a background check", and see what it'll have taken for the authorities to have noticed that violation before any crimes were committed using that gun.
-
Ok, fair enough, alcohol sales establishments need a license and are different, I will give you that point.
Say I want to sell my gun to you (not in Hawaii). I post an ad and we meet up in a parking lot somewhere. How do I know whether you are allowed to own a firearm? I could ask for a driver's license to determine age but I have no way of ensuring you aren't a convicted felon. Absent some for of background check I have no way of knowing whether I am selling my gun to someone legally allowed to own one. One form of UBC would be like a government issued card that says Bryston has passed a background check. Id #12345. I can call the police and ask them if ID #12345 is valid and they say yes and I sell you the gun. No registry necessary, the government doesn't even know if a gun changed hands, all they would know is someone confirmed your ID was valid.
So, then how do they enforce the UBC requirement if they have no idea when guns are changing hands?
Do you not see the simple flaw in the process? It's unenforceable. all you can do is punish a seller IF the gun is ever used in a crime and the background check was not run.
Then there's the other side of that scenario. Fred sells Pete a pistol, but doesn't run a background check. Pete knocks off a liquor store and shoots the clerk. Pete gets caught with the gun, and police find out from Pete where he got it. The Cops then find out you never ran a background check. But -- wait for it -- there was nothing in Pete's background that would have caused the FBI to deny the transfer. So, not only did the law not prevent the transfer, but had the law been followed, Pete would have been allowed to get the gun.
Now you have to rationalize whether or not Fred gets charged for breaking an administrative law that would have had the same results had he followed it. Is that really beneficial to anybody (other than the gun control freaks who will be happy Fred gets convicted and can never own guns again)?
-
Ok, fair enough, alcohol sales establishments need a license and are different, I will give you that point.
Say I want to sell my gun to you (not in Hawaii). I post an ad and we meet up in a parking lot somewhere. How do I know whether you are allowed to own a firearm? I could ask for a driver's license to determine age but I have no way of ensuring you aren't a convicted felon. Absent some for of background check I have no way of knowing whether I am selling my gun to someone legally allowed to own one. One form of UBC would be like a government issued card that says Bryston has passed a background check. Id #12345. I can call the police and ask them if ID #12345 is valid and they say yes and I sell you the gun. No registry necessary, the government doesn't even know if a gun changed hands, all they would know is someone confirmed your ID was valid.
Any citizen that wants to make sure they are not selling to a prohibited person has the option to walk into an FFL and have the store run a background check. Police departments/government do not have to be a part of the process at all, as it should be.
-
Any citizen that wants to make sure they are not selling to a prohibited person has the option to walk into an FFL and have the store run a background check. Police departments/government do not have to be a part of the process at all, as it should be.
A simple drivers license check would answer most of the questions: legal age to purchase, legal resident of the state, real name & photo.
I always ask the buyer to send me a pic of their license so I can fill in the bill of sale ahead of meeting.
Once you have their name, you could run a query on the state's judicial database for any cases. If they were convicted in Hawaii, that should be in the database. Won't include convictions in other states, though.
And if they hand you a state ID instead of a license, you might wonder why they don't have one. Too many DUIs could lose them their driving privileges, which could also lose them their firearm rights.
So, if these or any other red flags are preset, you might ask if they are comfortable with you running a background check first. Chances are, they will say forget it if they know it'll be denied. At least, they should say that.
Yet, felons still go to FFLs and attempt to get guns just to see if they can slip past the check -- and they almost never suffer consequences for lying on the 4473. So, your buyer might do that, too, and waste your time and money. Maybe asking for a deposit up front to cover the UBC cost would protect you from losing that?
Trying to hash out all these details of how a UBC process would work, what your risks and liabilities are as a seller, and whether or not the checks even work at all have never been brought up because the long pole in the tent is still the fact that the scheme fails without knowing who has what guns -- a registry. if you can't enforce the law without a registry, there's no incentive to follow such an unenforceable statute.
People speed believing they won't get caught, even though LE is on the roads everyday trying to enforce the speed limits. Yet, the odds of getting caught are slim. If you think people are obeying the law, you haven't been driving lately. If you drive the speed limit, you're being passed and impeding the flow of traffic.
-
Explain how you would catch someone selling a gun in a private transaction without a background check whether before or after the transfer.
Explain how a background check for a private sale will stop a straw purchase.
Explain why the vast majority of NICS background check denials are false positives -- i.e. denials that were in error. If the 99% error rate reported in the link below is supported by the data, it means only 1% of those checks resulted in keeping guns out of the hands of people not allowed to buy one. That represents a huge waste of money and resources given the millions of guns purchased from FFLs every year.
In your examples, you are only worried about guns used in crimes that can be traced back to the seller/s. is not the purpose of background checks to stop crime by keeping guns out of the wrong hands? So you're focusing on crimes, which means all of those cases are proof the background checks fail to stop gun crimes.
FBI Admits It Is Often Wrong On Gun Related Background Check Denialshttps://www.ammoland.com/2021/11/fbi-admits-wrong-gun-background-check-denials/
As for your childish comment about gun dealers no longer running background checks, you fail to recognize what i already posted. FFLs have LICENSES and businesses to think about -- on top of any fines or criminal charges. They have to account for every single firearm that enters and leaves their inventory. They have to file a 4473 for each sale. If they fail in record keeping or filing the proper forms, they will lose their license which means they will lose the ability to continue selling guns as a business. So much more to lose than Joe when he sells a handgun to his friend, Pete.
Try reverse-engineering the answers to the questions I asked. Start from "a gun was privately transferred without a background check", and see what it'll have taken for the authorities to have noticed that violation before any crimes were committed using that gun.
You are objecting to my suggestion because it isn't a catchall system. It sounds like the basic complaint is that it is too hard so we shouldn't try.
No single law is going to catch every single way someone might try to cheat the system. You have different types of purchases you are trying to prevent. Underage, mentally defective, straw purchases, felons, etc etc etc. Each one presents a slightly different situation. Universal background checks are just one angle to take.
You are clearly not taking my question to CMO about whether FFLs should continue background checks seriously. Furthermore your use of insults betrays your so called reliance on facts instead of opinions.
I did already give one way in which a UBC could be enforced. Of course realize that if we cannot think of a better method, they might just push for all gun purchases to be done through gun stores. That would solve many of the issues you bring up. Would you prefer that?
-
Any citizen that wants to make sure they are not selling to a prohibited person has the option to walk into an FFL and have the store run a background check. Police departments/government do not have to be a part of the process at all, as it should be.
Then how do we take steps as a society to try and stop people who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining firearms?
-
You are objecting to my suggestion because it isn't a catchall system. It sounds like the basic complaint is that it is too hard so we shouldn't try.
Nope. That's your default reply anytime it's pointed out a law is unenforceable. You've never met a gun law you didn't like, huh? If you have any evidence that background checks can be enforced without a total registration system, I'd still like to hear how. Hawaii requires a background check for all private sales through a permit and REGISTRATION system for all transfers to residents. Have you bothered to contemplate how they would ever enforce the background check without forced registrations?
Fred sells Pete a gun on Maui -- no permit or background check, and no registration. In fact, the gun was never registered in Hawaii, as it was brought from another state and not registered. Pete decides to sell it to Kimo, but Kimo is law abiding and wants to do the permit and registration. All Pete has to do is walk into MPD, register it as an out-of-state gun, and Kimo can now go through the whole process.
So, where in that process is the background check being enforced in a way that prevents bad people from getting guns? I'm not asking if the background check itself can/will/may prevent that -- but whether there is any way to make Fred and Pete follow the permit and registration process if they decide to not comply?
No single law is going to catch every single way someone might try to cheat the system. You have different types of purchases you are trying to prevent. Underage, mentally defective, straw purchases, felons, etc etc etc. Each one presents a slightly different situation. Universal background checks are just one angle to take.
What are the other "angles", and why are those not adequate?
You are clearly not taking my question to CMO about whether FFLs should continue background checks seriously. Furthermore your use of insults betrays your so called reliance on facts instead of opinions.
Facts and insults are not mutually exclusive. For example: This law is unenforceable, jackass. Calling someone a jackass does not make the law enforceable.
I did already give one way in which a UBC could be enforced. Of course realize that if we cannot think of a better method, they might just push for all gun purchases to be done through gun stores. That would solve many of the issues you bring up. Would you prefer that?
Why are you asking what I prefer when the options are all unconstitutional and/or unenforceable? My preference is None of the above. But, if you were paying even a little attention, you'd already know that.
-
none of your arguments address the coming climate crysis
-
Then how do we take steps as a society to try and stop people who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining firearms?
Look up project exile and how successful it was. Then look up why project exile was canned. Then come back here and tell me what you learned and why the left is full of shit about their gun safety crusade.
-
Then how do we take steps as a society to try and stop people who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining firearms?
Your underlying beliefs appear to be (1) guns are the cause of violence, and (2) stopping certain groups of people from legally purchasing a gun will prevent most bad people from ever having one.
Is that accurate, or do you have to pull something out of your bag of nuances and hypothetical thought experiments?
-
One of the big problems with the NCIS system is that so many jurisdictions don't update it. I am sure you are right, that there are needed improvements to the system however the system will only ever be as good as the information put into it. If some police department, or county, etc. never enters in convictions, stolen property, etc. like they are supposed to then it will always suffer intelligence holes.
Do you suggest that background checks be eliminated entirely, even by FFLs?
I am not in favor of a national registry so I oppose any background check system that would constitute a national registry. Thus I am considering ways that would allow responsible sellers to ensure they are not selling to someone prohibited. See my explanation to Bryston of what I had in mind. It isn't perfect, it has holes like any possible system, but it is a framework to start from.
One of the complaints is that it is unenforceable but this isn't the case, you just need a little creativity. You could do undercover spot checks, like a plain clothes officer goes into a gun show and tries to buy a gun. If the seller doesn't ask to see the background check ID then the officer issues a citation. This would help ensure compliance. Not 100% of course but thats true of any regulation
This is why I posted that if the anti 2a orgs would spend their time and $ helping instead of just banning stuff, NICS would run much better. But instead, they ban stuff which causes a backlash from the 2a community.
I don't suggest background checks be banned. But there should be a system in place that 1 can call or go online to check on someone that also is quick. If more funding and efforts were focused on this (see above sentence), then this could be done. When I was in Vegas, a FFL was on hold for 1 hour on NICS. All that should be given is a time and date and tracking number to the seller. That way if X commits a crime and the cops come back to the seller, they can say I did a check on X. If it's another party, then they can say they never sold it to that person.
Of course not every system is perfect, but the above could have it run much better. Example is everyday citizens are not trained to catch fake ID's. I mean even HPD makes mistakes. I was in banking and we get fake ID"s often and sometimes the cops who show up don't believe me that it's fake. This happened over the course of 8 years that I was in banking and would call for forgeries/fake ID's.
Then the other issue are states like HI who does more than what's federally required, like the mental health check, which they lost the lawsuit last month and had to pay like $40K.
For spot checks, 1 does LEO have the manpower to do this enough for it to be effective? HPD doesn't and would have to divert resources. Then now this spot check now takes up more time from the sellers who could be selling to someone who wants to actually buy and adds more work for the NICS system. Let's assume it's a 5 minute process and not a hours+ process. I would not oppose to this, if NICS could be done in 5 mins, so refer to having a well run NICS first.
-
"Then how do we take steps as a society to try and stop people who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining firearms?"
As a rule I do not sell my guns outside of family.
if you have decided to privately sell a gun, it is not your decision as to the
quality of the buyer. you are voluntarily giving up your possession to another person.
How poorly they use it is NOT your business.
There are more than enough laws on the books to fuk us all over concerning guns.
Especially Hawaii, that is why my guns are in WA state.
BTW WA state just outlawed two of my rifles. Since WA state gets more attention,
and we have more effective pro-gun organizations there, we
will see how that BS law holds up in court.
-
"Then how do we take steps as a society to try and stop people who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining firearms?"
As a rule I do not sell my guns outside of family.
if you have decided to privately sell a gun, it is not your decision as to the
quality of the buyer. you are voluntarily giving up your possession to another person.
How poorly they use it is NOT your business.
There are more than enough laws on the books to fuk us all over concerning guns.
Especially Hawaii, that is why my guns are in WA state.
BTW WA state just outlawed two of my rifles. Since WA state gets more attention,
and we have more effective pro-gun organizations there, we
will see how that BS law holds up in court.
WA had a shooting at a campground next to a rave. Like few hundred yards away. 2 dead and 3 injured. Wonder if WA will try to pass sensitive places cause they saw HI do it and get away with it as HI bans parks and events.
-
"Then how do we take steps as a society to try and stop people who shouldn't have firearms from obtaining firearms?"
As a rule I do not sell my guns outside of family.
if you have decided to privately sell a gun, it is not your decision as to the
quality of the buyer. you are voluntarily giving up your possession to another person.
How poorly they use it is NOT your business.
There are more than enough laws on the books to fuk us all over concerning guns.
Especially Hawaii, that is why my guns are in WA state.
BTW WA state just outlawed two of my rifles. Since WA state gets more attention,
and we have more effective pro-gun organizations there, we
will see how that BS law holds up in court.
I respectfully disagree, I would like to know that I am making a responsible sale. But on top of that I didn't mean just how a private seller makes sure but as a society makes sure.
If we have a law trying to keep guns out of certain people's hands but we have a bunch of holes in it, it is going to be of limited effectiveness.
-
Your underlying beliefs appear to be (1) guns are the cause of violence, and (2) stopping certain groups of people from legally purchasing a gun will prevent most bad people from ever having one.
Is that accurate, or do you have to pull something out of your bag of nuances and hypothetical thought experiments?
Guns the cause of violence? No, but they can be closely tied to violence.
Making it harder for bad people to have firearms will reduce the number of bad people who can get their hands on them. It isn't an all or nothing type thing
-
Nope. That's your default reply anytime it's pointed out a law is unenforceable. You've never met a gun law you didn't like, huh?
Of course I have, what a silly question.
What are the other "angles", and why are those not adequate?
Different types of "bad people" (an oversimplification) have different motivations, have different goals, have different ways they get firearms.
Facts and insults are not mutually exclusive. For example: This law is unenforceable, jackass. Calling someone a jackass does not make the law enforceable.
You keep saying that yet I gave you one way it was enforceable.
Why are you asking what I prefer when the options are all unconstitutional and/or unenforceable? My preference is None of the above. But, if you were paying even a little attention, you'd already know that.
Are you saying you believe any and all gun control laws are unconstitutional and/or unenforceable?
Lets start from the beginning, we obviously have a problem in this country with "bad guys" getting their hands on guns. If not a UBC type system, how do you propose we tackle this problem?
-
This is why I posted that if the anti 2a orgs would spend their time and $ helping instead of just banning stuff, NICS would run much better. But instead, they ban stuff which causes a backlash from the 2a community.
I don't suggest background checks be banned. But there should be a system in place that 1 can call or go online to check on someone that also is quick. If more funding and efforts were focused on this (see above sentence), then this could be done. When I was in Vegas, a FFL was on hold for 1 hour on NICS. All that should be given is a time and date and tracking number to the seller. That way if X commits a crime and the cops come back to the seller, they can say I did a check on X. If it's another party, then they can say they never sold it to that person.
Of course not every system is perfect, but the above could have it run much better. Example is everyday citizens are not trained to catch fake ID's. I mean even HPD makes mistakes. I was in banking and we get fake ID"s often and sometimes the cops who show up don't believe me that it's fake. This happened over the course of 8 years that I was in banking and would call for forgeries/fake ID's.
Then the other issue are states like HI who does more than what's federally required, like the mental health check, which they lost the lawsuit last month and had to pay like $40K.
For spot checks, 1 does LEO have the manpower to do this enough for it to be effective? HPD doesn't and would have to divert resources. Then now this spot check now takes up more time from the sellers who could be selling to someone who wants to actually buy and adds more work for the NICS system. Let's assume it's a 5 minute process and not a hours+ process. I would not oppose to this, if NICS could be done in 5 mins, so refer to having a well run NICS first.
I think there are two main ways of trying to control guns while still having the public ownership allowed.
1. Control what type of guns are available - Doesn't stop bad people, but makes them less deadly
2. Control who has access to the guns - Powerful guns are still allowed but who can get their hands on them is limited.
I do like your idea of better funding for the NICS system.
The issue I have with some in the firearm rights community is that too often we just point out why we think things wont work but don't really have suggestions for alternatives. If we line up and just say "that won't work" to every idea the anti gun rights people come up with we don't look like we want to address the problem, we look like we are just stonewalling. Thats why they make those stupid claims that we don't care about children getting shot at school, of course we care, but we aren't coming up with many ideas to address the problem.
You are correct, that a spot check system would require an improved NICS system. We don't have cops on every road at every intersection but if cops do enough traffic stops to make it known by the public that cops are out there stopping speeders (for example) you are going to see fewer people speeding. The same idea could be done at a gun show, have a plain clothes officer go in to try and buy something and if the seller makes no attempt to make some sort of background check cite them. They don't have to go to every seller, visit a few and word will get around. The idea behind the UBC system I proposed is that there will be fewer avenues for the bad guys to get guns if the good guys have an extra step to make sure they don't sell to bad guys. You will never eliminate all avenues but the fewer the avenues the harder guns will be to get.
I remember an interview with some Mexican Cartel members about how much they loved the American gun sales system. They were able to easily buy large numbers of guns and bring it across the border. He didn't specify exactly how it was done, straw purchases, street dealers, private sales but it was essentially allowing the cartel to become very well armed.
-
Look up project exile and how successful it was. Then look up why project exile was canned. Then come back here and tell me what you learned and why the left is full of shit about their gun safety crusade.
Unless I am looking at the wrong project exile, it seems to still be up and running in at least one state and has some numbers suggesting it had a beneficial effect.
"During the first year of Project Exile (1998), homicides in Richmond declined 33%, for the lowest number since 1987, and armed robberies declined 30%. In 1999, homicides declined another 21%.[2] By 2007, homicides in Richmond were down to 57 compared to 122 in the year before Project Exile.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile
-
Guns the cause of violence? No, but they can be closely tied to violence.
Making it harder for bad people to have firearms will reduce the number of bad people who can get their hands on them. It isn't an all or nothing type thing
Yet, with every attempt to reduce the number of bad people getting guns, it impacts the law abiding gun buyers, sellers and "gifters" -- as well as the cost to taxpayers and people trying to legally sell their privately owned guns.
There are roughly 400 million guns owned privately in the US. Is it your belief that it's possible to stop bad people from getting guns if it's made "harder" in a nation with that many guns in circulation?
Adam Lanza killed his mother to steal her gun and commit mass murder. He wanted to buy his own, but didn't want to wait the mandatory period. There's no information reported which indicated he would have been denied, although he did have some mental issues.
Government is incompetent. Asking them to make private sales less likely to arm a bad guy while not trampling on our rights will not end as you seem to believe.
As soon as the ATF decides the need a registry to enforce the UBC law, you'll see the anti-gunners pushing THAT as the next "commonsense gun law."
-
Unless I am looking at the wrong project exile, it seems to still be up and running in at least one state and has some numbers suggesting it had a beneficial effect.
"During the first year of Project Exile (1998), homicides in Richmond declined 33%, for the lowest number since 1987, and armed robberies declined 30%. In 1999, homicides declined another 21%.[2] By 2007, homicides in Richmond were down to 57 compared to 122 in the year before Project Exile.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile
Compare those numbers to national stats for the same period. Unless every state was actively implementing the project, then you can't attribute the drop in homicides to that single variable.
You might think you're objective, but you seem to lack critical thinking skills when presenting stats. "Suggesting" something had an effect should lead to only one conclusion: more research is needed before drawing any conclusions.
(https://i.imgur.com/xZq8AGr.png)
-
I think there are two main ways of trying to control guns while still having the public ownership allowed.
1. Control what type of guns are available - Doesn't stop bad people, but makes them less deadly
2. Control who has access to the guns - Powerful guns are still allowed but who can get their hands on them is limited.
I do like your idea of better funding for the NICS system.
The issue I have with some in the firearm rights community is that too often we just point out why we think things wont work but don't really have suggestions for alternatives. If we line up and just say "that won't work" to every idea the anti gun rights people come up with we don't look like we want to address the problem, we look like we are just stonewalling. Thats why they make those stupid claims that we don't care about children getting shot at school, of course we care, but we aren't coming up with many ideas to address the problem.
You are correct, that a spot check system would require an improved NICS system. We don't have cops on every road at every intersection but if cops do enough traffic stops to make it known by the public that cops are out there stopping speeders (for example) you are going to see fewer people speeding. The same idea could be done at a gun show, have a plain clothes officer go in to try and buy something and if the seller makes no attempt to make some sort of background check cite them. They don't have to go to every seller, visit a few and word will get around. The idea behind the UBC system I proposed is that there will be fewer avenues for the bad guys to get guns if the good guys have an extra step to make sure they don't sell to bad guys. You will never eliminate all avenues but the fewer the avenues the harder guns will be to get.
I remember an interview with some Mexican Cartel members about how much they loved the American gun sales system. They were able to easily buy large numbers of guns and bring it across the border. He didn't specify exactly how it was done, straw purchases, street dealers, private sales but it was essentially allowing the cartel to become very well armed.
This is an oxymoron
"I think there are two main ways of trying to control guns while still having the public ownership allowed.
1. Control what type of guns are available - Doesn't stop bad people, but makes them less deadly
2. Control who has access to the guns - Powerful guns are still allowed but who can get their hands on them is limited. "
The reason why pro 2a people quickly shoot down the anti 2a peoples ideas is because they often violate the Constitution and don't involve logic/make sense. So refer to my OG post about the anti 2a working with pro 2a to actual do something better. This has been going on for decades. And lets use whataboutism b4 you do, what if MDA proposes a law that makes sense....
You assume the cartels get guns the illegal way with their statement. If they can find people with clean records to smuggle drugs, logic dictates they could do the same with gun purchases. Have a legal person buy what ever they need and sent it to Mexico. Then multiply this by the thousands if not millions of people who have their family in the cartels and be forced to do this. Then add in our government or like agencies supply the guns to the cartels.
I've worked with anti 2a politicians and the bills they present are about 95% anti 2a. Lets look at recent SB1230 and the 77 pages; the only good part in there is the 4 year CCW valid permit. So it's like saying "here eat this sh!t sandwich, but instead of eating 100% of it, you only have to eat 95% of it". That makes it all G right? So this shows how even with meetings with pro 2a groups, they don't care. And a FYI, that 4 year thing got added in in the final hearing. So prior to that, it wasn't in there at all.
-
Unless I am looking at the wrong project exile, it seems to still be up and running in at least one state and has some numbers suggesting it had a beneficial effect.
"During the first year of Project Exile (1998), homicides in Richmond declined 33%, for the lowest number since 1987, and armed robberies declined 30%. In 1999, homicides declined another 21%.[2] By 2007, homicides in Richmond were down to 57 compared to 122 in the year before Project Exile.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile
My apologies I thought I read somewhere that it got canned because too many black people were getting charged and convicted under that law.
-
....
"Oxymoron?" You got the last part correct! :rofl:
He's loving this -- uses relative adjectives for everything: fewer, more, less, some, etc. The degree to which his new laws would be effective have been proven false in reality. During the 10 year AWB 1994-2004, there was no measurable decrease -- or increase -- in overall gun violence due to the law. The downward trend in gun deaths was already begun before the ban, and it continued long after it was sunset. That fact while the number of AK and AR style weapons in the hands of the public increased dramatically. The AR is now the most prolific semi-auto sporting rifle in the US. People were still buying close-to-AR versions during the ban as the manufacturers made enough cosmetic changes to make them legal without impacting the function and lethality.
What makes a gun "more or less lethal?" I submit that the individual using it is the primary factor. A .38 special or .380 ACP in the hands of a well trained and practiced shooter can out perform a novice with a rifle if the scenario is a mass shooting. Before Mandalay Bay, the record for the most deaths in a mass shooting belonged to Virginia Tech in which 33 died (incl. the gunman) and 23 others injured 9though not all by gunfire). The weapons were a Glock 19 9mm and a Walther P22 .22LR -- both pistols!
There are also many more powerful rifles on the market and in owners' hands which are not considered assault weapons because they don't look the part. There are also non-assault-weapon versions of semi-auto rifles that are fine to own with anti-2A people, even though there's no real difference between those and the so-called AW.
The AR and AK variants are being attacked relentlessly for two reasons -- they look scary to the ignorant masses, and they have been drummed up as the choice of mass shooters because they are "more lethal". All firearms are lethal. Nothing makes the AR more lethal than other rifles of a similar category.
As for magazine restrictions, it's still possible to own 50 10-rd mags to have 500 rds at the ready, just like having 16 or 17 30-rd mags provides. The difference is you need to reload more often, but a rehearsed shooter can do a mag change in under 3 seconds.
The biggest problem with banning a gun believed to be 'more lethal" is that LE will never be able to stop the criminals from having them. When 9mm Uzis and pistols were becoming popular among gangs, the Cops still carried a revolver with 5-6 shots max. Eventually, LE adopted the semi-auto handguns so as to not be out-gunned by the criminals. Many also carry an AR-15 in their patrol vehicles for the same reason.
Whatever the police carry for protection, the public has the right to also carry, because the threats are the same.
By banning "more lethal rifles," you are necessarily depriving the law abiding of the most effective option for self defense, even though law enforcement use them -- including DC agents who carry them as PDWs (Personal defense Weapons).
-
As for magazine restrictions, it's still possible to own 50 10-rd mags to have 500 rds at the ready, just like having 16 or 17 30-rd mags provides. The difference is you need to reload more often, but a rehearsed shooter can do a mag change in under 3 seconds.
Giving up to 3 seconds is very generous.
-
Giving up to 3 seconds is very generous.
I'm allowing for nerves and adrenaline.
-
I'm allowing for nerves and adrenaline.
Or need to get a coffee first. :rofl:
-
Yet, with every attempt to reduce the number of bad people getting guns, it impacts the law abiding gun buyers, sellers and "gifters" -- as well as the cost to taxpayers and people trying to legally sell their privately owned guns.
You are right. It is a very difficult balance to strike but if your goal is to never impose on regular good guys buying and selling firearms then we would have to abandon almost all gun regulations would we not?
There are roughly 400 million guns owned privately in the US. Is it your belief that it's possible to stop bad people from getting guns if it's made "harder" in a nation with that many guns in circulation?
It is difficult to know to what extent but yes I think it would make some difference. Do you think we have as much gambling in Nevada as Hawaii?
Adam Lanza killed his mother to steal her gun and commit mass murder. He wanted to buy his own, but didn't want to wait the mandatory period. There's no information reported which indicated he would have been denied, although he did have some mental issues.
I don't think any UBC system would be capable of stopping that type of shooter.
Government is incompetent. Asking them to make private sales less likely to arm a bad guy while not trampling on our rights will not end as you seem to believe.
As soon as the ATF decides the need a registry to enforce the UBC law, you'll see the anti-gunners pushing THAT as the next "commonsense gun law."
Why have FFLs make background checks at all if private sellers don't need to?
-
My apologies I thought I read somewhere that it got canned because too many black people were getting charged and convicted under that law.
It looks like some states did drop their program and it was a criticism that too many black people were being arrested but of course that could just be because they were committing more gun crimes...
-
Compare those numbers to national stats for the same period. Unless every state was actively implementing the project, then you can't attribute the drop in homicides to that single variable.
You need to go read more about the project results than to try and dismiss it with a simple overall gun homicide crime drop as if the people who studied the results made such a simple conclusion.
The project was implemented in a number of different jurisdictions, it wasn't a single one.
-
This is an oxymoron
"I think there are two main ways of trying to control guns while still having the public ownership allowed.
1. Control what type of guns are available - Doesn't stop bad people, but makes them less deadly
2. Control who has access to the guns - Powerful guns are still allowed but who can get their hands on them is limited. "
The reason why pro 2a people quickly shoot down the anti 2a peoples ideas is because they often violate the Constitution and don't involve logic/make sense. So refer to my OG post about the anti 2a working with pro 2a to actual do something better. This has been going on for decades. And lets use whataboutism b4 you do, what if MDA proposes a law that makes sense....
You assume the cartels get guns the illegal way with their statement. If they can find people with clean records to smuggle drugs, logic dictates they could do the same with gun purchases. Have a legal person buy what ever they need and sent it to Mexico. Then multiply this by the thousands if not millions of people who have their family in the cartels and be forced to do this. Then add in our government or like agencies supply the guns to the cartels.
I've worked with anti 2a politicians and the bills they present are about 95% anti 2a. Lets look at recent SB1230 and the 77 pages; the only good part in there is the 4 year CCW valid permit. So it's like saying "here eat this sh!t sandwich, but instead of eating 100% of it, you only have to eat 95% of it". That makes it all G right? So this shows how even with meetings with pro 2a groups, they don't care. And a FYI, that 4 year thing got added in in the final hearing. So prior to that, it wasn't in there at all.
Sometimes the proposals violate the constitution and sometimes they don't make logical sense but I don't think all their ideas violate one or both. Some think any gun control laws at all are a violation of the constitution.
Sorry but I don't know who you are referring to when you ask what if MDA proposes a law. Mom's demand action?
(Whataboutism has nothing to do with "what ifs" BTW)
If cartels are using straw purchasers that is still a violation of the law...
Don't get me wrong, you are great at pointing out the problems that come with gun regulations but waiting on a suggestion on how we should handle the problem we have with gun violence in this country.
-
Why have FFLs make background checks at all if private sellers don't need to?
I'm not going to research something that simple for you. Here's a clue. Take some time to learn how and why the FFL system exists now, and how guns were sold before FFLs existed.
Simply put, a system of licensed dealers who are mandated to run NICS checks for every sale is easy to enforce. inventory of gun dealers are regulated and subject to ATF inspection, as are the original 4473s submitted to NICS. if a dealer doesn't abide by the law, they lose their license and probably their freedom. No national registry is needed for weapons that pass from manufacturer to wholesaler to dealer to customer. That process is strictly regulated, and the penalties can put any of those entities out of business and in prison.
That system works to a large degree -- no national registry required.
Private sales are not regulated the same way, and the sellers have no interest in continuing to run a business. The firearms private sellers advertise will in most states have no documentation to trace its owner if the gun changed hands more than once. Once the new gun was sold, where it goes afterward is not tracked -- thus no way to enforce the UBC requirement.
You're too used to the Hawaii permit and registration BS. That's at the state level. UBC on a national scale is the issue. They won't have a registry to track gun ownership and transfers without which the whole 'common sense" unenforceable law will solve no actual problems.
-
I'm not going to research something that simple for you. Here's a clue. Take some time to learn how and why the FFL system exists now, and how guns were sold before FFLs existed.
Simply put, a system of licensed dealers who are mandated to run NICS checks for every sale is easy to enforce. inventory of gun dealers are regulated and subject to ATF inspection, as are the original 4473s submitted to NICS. if a dealer doesn't abide by the law, they lose their license and probably their freedom. No national registry is needed for weapons that pass from manufacturer to wholesaler to dealer to customer. That process is strictly regulated, and the penalties can put any of those entities out of business and in prison.
That system works to a large degree -- no national registry required.
Private sales are not regulated the same way, and the sellers have no interest in continuing to run a business. The firearms private sellers advertise will in most states have no documentation to trace its owner if the gun changed hands more than once. Once the new gun was sold, where it goes afterward is not tracked -- thus no way to enforce the UBC requirement.
You're too used to the Hawaii permit and registration BS. That's at the state level. UBC on a national scale is the issue. They won't have a registry to track gun ownership and transfers without which the whole 'common sense" unenforceable law will solve no actual problems.
We may have to agree to disagree but it seems pretty pointless to have a very regulated way to purchase firearms and then a very unregulated way to purchase firearms. Of course the people up to no good are going to avoid the system with checks and records and look towards private sales all things else being equal.
The idea I have in mind is to take elements of Hawaii's permit to purchase system and use that with certain rules to implement a form of background check without a registry. It isn't a fully formed idea yet nor is it comprehensive but I think with some tweaks it could be a workable plan that achieves a form of UBC while also addressing the concerns of gun owners who don't want a national registry.
-
We may have to agree to disagree but it seems pretty pointless to have a very regulated way to purchase firearms and then a very unregulated way to purchase firearms. Of course the people up to no good are going to avoid the system with checks and records and look towards private sales all things else being equal.
The idea I have in mind is to take elements of Hawaii's permit to purchase system and use that with certain rules to implement a form of background check without a registry. It isn't a fully formed idea yet nor is it comprehensive but I think with some tweaks it could be a workable plan that achieves a form of UBC while also addressing the concerns of gun owners who don't want a national registry.
That is the flaw. People like you conjure up these laws and the only people that follow them are the law-abiding citizens - not affecting those that do not follow the law (duh). Legislators are quick to take away something from us but less inclined to empower us.
-
We may have to agree to disagree but it seems pretty pointless to have a very regulated way to purchase firearms and then a very unregulated way to purchase firearms. Of course the people up to no good are going to avoid the system with checks and records and look towards private sales all things else being equal.
The idea I have in mind is to take elements of Hawaii's permit to purchase system and use that with certain rules to implement a form of background check without a registry. It isn't a fully formed idea yet nor is it comprehensive but I think with some tweaks it could be a workable plan that achieves a form of UBC while also addressing the concerns of gun owners who don't want a national registry.
That's the first thing you've said that is true -- and it demonstrates that you're arguing for an idea that we've already proven can't work in reality.
Show me one state that does background checks for all private gun sales and does not require 100% registration after all transfers.
You don't have a fully formed idea, because coming up with one which (1) works, and (2) doesn't require a registry is an impossible task.
Why are you so adamant about a UBC that's mandated? You seem more concerned that YOU as a seller have no way to know if your buyer is prohibited or not. Why not start small -- set up a way for private sellers to run a background check. Just ask for a pic of your buyer's ID and shoot that off to NICS along with your credit card or banking info.
Of course, the FBI has already told states (like NV) that they don't have the funding to do private sales checks. Also, to law requires that all NICS applications be submitted by an FFL or LE.
FFLs don't have the profit margin to start doing this for every single private sale in the state. They already make next to nothing for out-of-state firearm transfers they do. FFLs are not supposed to be a source of free labor for the ATF. They follow the law for the guns they buy and sell. Facilitating private buyers and sellers isn't part of their business.
The big problem with people like you is you're all for new laws that sound like they will stop some people from getting guns, but as you admitted, you never think about the actual implementation, it's potential effectiveness, and how that law impacts all the law abiding gun owners who just want to legally sell/buy their own personal property.
Name another product in the US that requires a government investigation and their permission before an owner can give or sell it to another person.
-
Sometimes the proposals violate the constitution and sometimes they don't make logical sense but I don't think all their ideas violate one or both. Some think any gun control laws at all are a violation of the constitution.
Sorry but I don't know who you are referring to when you ask what if MDA proposes a law. Mom's demand action?
(Whataboutism has nothing to do with "what ifs" BTW)
If cartels are using straw purchasers that is still a violation of the law...
Don't get me wrong, you are great at pointing out the problems that come with gun regulations but waiting on a suggestion on how we should handle the problem we have with gun violence in this country.
Majority of the time if a proposal is coming from someone like Newson , CA , or HI, it would be almost all bad and violate the constitution.
Yes, MDA means Moms Demand Action, all of their proposals are bad or violate the constitution.
Yes, straw purchases are violating the law, thanks for stating the obvious. The comment about cartels using clean record people was about how they would circumvent any background checks and it being almost unenforceable, unless cops go knocking on buyers doors every week for the rest of their lives.
I gave you part of my suggestion on how to make gun violence less, when I suggested MDA and like orgs work with gun groups and obey the constitution. Anther idea is to allocate more money for the prison system and keep career criminals behind bars. Then keep illegals out of the country, more $ allocated for mental health help. That's why I brought up all the $ anti 2a orgs spend to push banning stuff, instead of helping the problem. That $ should be redirected if they truly cared.
But bascially, we have more than enough gun laws, so to answer you question, I suggest no additional gun laws. And in fact, delete some like suppressors law, bump stock law, PTA law, CCW/OC laws, mag limit law, etc...
-
The idea I have in mind is to take elements of Hawaii's permit to purchase system and use that with certain rules to implement a form of background check without a registry. It isn't a fully formed idea yet nor is it comprehensive but I think with some tweaks it could be a workable plan that achieves a form of UBC while also addressing the concerns of gun owners who don't want a national registry.
There is a reason why ONLY HI does what they do for gun purchases./transfers. Our tiny population allows it and no one is willing to challenge it, until now.
Imagine if a state like CA had all gun owners do the exact thing HI does to buy/transfer a gun. They would need about 20,000 more police staff to do so. And even then, the wait times would be longer than HI's 2 weeks and thus subject to lawsuit.
U should look up the HI AG"s stats and how great bringing in the gun is for catching law breakers with regard to registration. Like on avg; 24,000 guns are registered annually and like 3-5 are illegal. Go back 10 years and you will get the picture. Then look up how many PTA are denied, compared to those approved. This is another reason why other anti 2a states like CA won't want to spend the $ to do what HI does. It will take up too much resources for too little results. I mean if a few thousand or even a few hundred were denied then maybe it might be worth all the efforts, but it's not even close to that.
-
There is a reason why ONLY HI does what they do for gun purchases./transfers. Our tiny population allows it and no one is willing to challenge it, until now.
Imagine if a state like CA had all gun owners do the exact thing HI does to buy/transfer a gun. They would need about 20,000 more police staff to do so. And even then, the wait times would be longer than HI's 2 weeks and thus subject to lawsuit.
U should look up the HI AG"s stats and how great bringing in the gun is for catching law breakers with regard to registration. Like on avg; 24,000 guns are registered annually and like 3-5 are illegal. Go back 10 years and you will get the picture. Then look up how many PTA are denied, compared to those approved. This is another reason why other anti 2a states like CA won't want to spend the $ to do what HI does. It will take up too much resources for too little results. I mean if a few thousand or even a few hundred were denied then maybe it might be worth all the efforts, but it's not even close to that.
Not to mention, if someone is prohibited and/or planning to commit a crime, if they can't or won't use an FFL, then they can't/won't use a law-abiding person selling privately.
The guy's girlfriend or buddy could just as easily pass the background check for him and make a straw purchase. if the gun is discovered in the wrong hands, they can just say their friend must have stolen it the last time they visited.
Not all criminals are masterminds, and not all criminals are idiots. They will find ways to bypass any background check system keeping them from their firearms. In the end, zero gun crimes will have been prevented.
Buyer: You still have that Glock for sale?
Seller: Sure. It's $650. Just fill out this 4473 and show me your ID, and i'll run your background check.
Buyer: Here's $1,650 if we can do the "express check-out."
Seller: You look like a fine, upstanding gentleman. Need any ammo?
-
Sometimes the proposals violate the constitution and sometimes they don't make logical sense but I don't think all their ideas violate one or both. Some think any gun control laws at all are a violation of the constitution.
Sorry but I don't know who you are referring to when you ask what if MDA proposes a law. Mom's demand action?
(Whataboutism has nothing to do with "what ifs" BTW)
If cartels are using straw purchasers that is still a violation of the law...
Don't get me wrong, you are great at pointing out the problems that come with gun regulations but waiting on a suggestion on how we should handle the problem we have with gun violence in this country.
"Don't get me wrong, you are great at pointing out the problems that come with gun regulations but waiting on a suggestion on how we should handle the problem we have with gun violence in this country."
Brother, or Bra, it isn't gun violence, it is people violence.
-
"Don't get me wrong, you are great at pointing out the problems that come with gun regulations but waiting on a suggestion on how we should handle the problem we have with gun violence in this country."
Brother, or Bra, it isn't gun violence, it is people violence.
He thinks doing something that will not work is better than doing nothing to fix am ill-defined, complex behavioral problem.
We've offered workable solutions, such as armed teachers and volunteer resource officers, national concealed carry reciprocity, etc. But, that doesn't fit the "common sense gun control law" narrative and mindset.
-
That is the flaw. People like you conjure up these laws and the only people that follow them are the law-abiding citizens - not affecting those that do not follow the law (duh). Legislators are quick to take away something from us but less inclined to empower us.
Hence why you make a system which doesn't work through voluntary cooperation by the bad guys. Rules about firearms on planes aren't simply rules hoping people will comply, you have mechanisms like metal detectors.
-
That's the first thing you've said that is true -- and it demonstrates that you're arguing for an idea that we've already proven can't work in reality.
Show me one state that does background checks for all private gun sales and does not require 100% registration after all transfers.
You don't have a fully formed idea, because coming up with one which (1) works, and (2) doesn't require a registry is an impossible task.
Why are you so adamant about a UBC that's mandated? You seem more concerned that YOU as a seller have no way to know if your buyer is prohibited or not. Why not start small -- set up a way for private sellers to run a background check. Just ask for a pic of your buyer's ID and shoot that off to NICS along with your credit card or banking info.
Of course, the FBI has already told states (like NV) that they don't have the funding to do private sales checks. Also, to law requires that all NICS applications be submitted by an FFL or LE.
FFLs don't have the profit margin to start doing this for every single private sale in the state. They already make next to nothing for out-of-state firearm transfers they do. FFLs are not supposed to be a source of free labor for the ATF. They follow the law for the guns they buy and sell. Facilitating private buyers and sellers isn't part of their business.
The big problem with people like you is you're all for new laws that sound like they will stop some people from getting guns, but as you admitted, you never think about the actual implementation, it's potential effectiveness, and how that law impacts all the law abiding gun owners who just want to legally sell/buy their own personal property.
Name another product in the US that requires a government investigation and their permission before an owner can give or sell it to another person.
Incorrect, I have mentioned this particular idea in multiple conversations on this forum. You haven't proven it cannot work in reality, you have only claimed it cannot.
Your second argument amounts to basically "because other people haven't done it, you won't be able to either" which, if everyone accepted, wouldn't ever invent new better things or ways to do things.
I have repeatedly asked you guys for better suggestions for programs to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands but so far I haven't heard any better ideas.
-
Hence why you make a system which doesn't work through voluntary cooperation by the bad guys. Rules about firearms on planes aren't simply rules hoping people will comply, you have mechanisms like metal detectors.
That's a completely non-sequitur comparison.
Air travel is a highly regulated activity that includes public and private agencies and organizations. Private airline companies can't sell tickets if safety isn't a top priority. They are also going to be the target of lawsuits if they don't have metal detectors, full body scanners, hand pat-downs, and multiple screening stations. They use luggage handling machines and procedures to increase safety. The airport, the contracted support companies, the TSA, the FAA, the airline staff, the flight and ground crews -- all are part of a closed system that works to make sure a gun or other unauthorized weapons doesn't makes it into the passenger cabin.
You can't compare such a highly controlled environment with the one in which buyers and sellers freely transfer personally owned firearms.
To consider your comparison, it would require that you impose the same level of control onto the entire gun-owning population which airports employ.
Your comment is no different than saying, "We can put a man on the moon, so why we can't keep guns out of the wrong hands?" One has nothing to do with the other.
-
There is a reason why ONLY HI does what they do for gun purchases./transfers. Our tiny population allows it and no one is willing to challenge it, until now.
Imagine if a state like CA had all gun owners do the exact thing HI does to buy/transfer a gun. They would need about 20,000 more police staff to do so. And even then, the wait times would be longer than HI's 2 weeks and thus subject to lawsuit.
U should look up the HI AG"s stats and how great bringing in the gun is for catching law breakers with regard to registration. Like on avg; 24,000 guns are registered annually and like 3-5 are illegal. Go back 10 years and you will get the picture. Then look up how many PTA are denied, compared to those approved. This is another reason why other anti 2a states like CA won't want to spend the $ to do what HI does. It will take up too much resources for too little results. I mean if a few thousand or even a few hundred were denied then maybe it might be worth all the efforts, but it's not even close to that.
I don't think we need more gun laws but we could certainly swap out less effective ones with more effective ones.
I agree California would need to spend way more but given out isolation geographically, in all fairness, they would have a bigger hurdle to overcome than we do.
I am just not content with the whole stance that there is nothing we can do to stop bad people from owning firearms so lets give up trying. I want to find ways that increase that effectiveness while still respecting the 2nd amendment. Like I pointed out earlier, if we don't participate in the solution then they will just pass their own things and we will surely be worse off then.
Yes longer sentences for certain types of offenders would help and more mental health services would also help but even those bring with them constitutional issues which make them not very popular among the gun rights crowd either.
-
t isn't gun violence, it is people violence.
You are 100% correct, problem is that guns make us much better at being violent.
-
That's a completely non-sequitur comparison.
Air travel is a highly regulated activity that includes public and private agencies and organizations. Private airline companies can't sell tickets if safety isn't a top priority. They are also going to be the target of lawsuits if they don't have metal detectors, full body scanners, hand pat-downs, and multiple screening stations. They use luggage handling machines and procedures to increase safety. The airport, the contracted support companies, the TSA, the FAA, the airline staff, the flight and ground crews -- all are part of a closed system that works to make sure a gun or other unauthorized weapons doesn't makes it into the passenger cabin.
You can't compare such a highly controlled environment with the one in which buyers and sellers freely transfer personally owned firearms.
To consider your comparison, it would require that you impose the same level of control onto the entire gun-owning population which airports employ.
Your comment is no different than saying, "We can put a man on the moon, so why we can't keep guns out of the wrong hands?" One has nothing to do with the other.
I think you missed the point because you are taking my comparison too literally. The whole point was that merely having a rule isn't enough on its own, you have to have some sort of mechanism for making checks to make sure people follow the rule. Speed limits wouldn't be followed very often if police never gave tickets to speeders. Just as cops could never check every private transaction they could never enforce all traffic rules everywhere all at once either but if they do it often enough people will know the cops are there and gives a reason for people to comply.
You might not offer an express checkout price if you think the buyer might be an undercover cop right?
-
I think you missed the point because you are taking my comparison too literally. The whole point was that merely having a rule isn't enough on its own, you have to have some sort of mechanism for making checks to make sure people follow the rule. Speed limits wouldn't be followed very often if police never gave tickets to speeders. Just as cops could never check every private transaction they could never enforce all traffic rules everywhere all at once either but if they do it often enough people will know the cops are there and gives a reason for people to comply.
You might not offer an express checkout price if you think the buyer might be an undercover cop right?
No, you're trying to use an example of keeping guns away from commercial aircraft to convince us that a completely unrelated system -- UBC -- is also possible.
Period.
And if you're worried about an undercover sting for your firearm sale, then you'll weigh the risk (Arrest) with reward (Sale + $1,000 bonus).
If the risk is too high, you'll opt for going with the background check. If you need the money and have no other interested buyers, you might take the chance.
You still think human behavior is controlled by passing laws. Yet, people commit serious crimes every single day.
How many more resources and money needs to be allotted for undercover Cops to ferret out illegal private gun sales? How much will be spent prosecuting and jailing people for not following a purely administrative law? At what cost will you finally admit the stated purpose of the law is no longer worth the cost given its measurable results?
Australia passed a massive gun ban. Over the next decade, there was a massive spike in gun crimes.
The crimes were for violating the ban. Gun violence was about the same as before the ban.
Congratulate the Aussies for creating a new population of criminals.
-
"I have repeatedly asked you guys for better suggestions for programs to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands but so far I haven't heard any better ideas."
That is easy, don't let Democrats have guns.
:thumbsup:
-
"I have repeatedly asked you guys for better suggestions for programs to try to keep guns out of the wrong hands but so far I haven't heard any better ideas."
That is easy, don't let Democrats have guns.
:thumbsup:
no ARs for civilian PSD for all politicians. They are only allowed those that are available to the average Joe Citizen
-
How many more resources and money needs to be allotted for undercover Cops to ferret out illegal private gun sales? How much will be spent prosecuting and jailing people for not following a purely administrative law? At what cost will you finally admit the stated purpose of the law is no longer worth the cost given its measurable results?
This is why I posted when asked what my solution is, but it won't work due to $ and staff issues. Which brought be to the if MDA and other anti 2A org's spent their $ on this, then maybe it would have a chance. But they won't, so my idea won't work.
-
I don't think we need more gun laws but we could certainly swap out less effective ones with more effective ones.
I agree California would need to spend way more but given out isolation geographically, in all fairness, they would have a bigger hurdle to overcome than we do.
I am just not content with the whole stance that there is nothing we can do to stop bad people from owning firearms so lets give up trying. I want to find ways that increase that effectiveness while still respecting the 2nd amendment. Like I pointed out earlier, if we don't participate in the solution then they will just pass their own things and we will surely be worse off then.
Yes longer sentences for certain types of offenders would help and more mental health services would also help but even those bring with them constitutional issues which make them not very popular among the gun rights crowd either.
Wow. Oxymoron all over.
So lets just begin with the lat sentence. What constitutional issues do u see? I mean if someone robs someone with a gun and they get a 10 year sentence and did all 10 years, that would be much better than a catch and release operation that we currently have. How would gun rights crowd be opposed to this? Or someone has 20 convictions (career criminal), and they are held in jail for longer, than the catch and release program we have now.
The only way seeking mental help would be opposed by the gun rights crowd would be if the nation does what HI does. This means one loses their 2a right until a clearance letter is issued. But if more funding was provided for more professionals, then I don't see how the gun rights crowd would oppose this.
You last sentence is making a problem where there isn't one.
"I am just not content with the whole stance that there is nothing we can do to stop bad people from owning firearms so lets give up trying. I want to find ways that increase that effectiveness while still respecting the 2nd amendment. Like I pointed out earlier, if we don't participate in the solution then they will just pass their own things and we will surely be worse off then. "
Many 2a org's have been vocal about catch and release. It's just that those in power want to take the guns away from law abiding citizens, then have stricter punishments for criminals.
"I agree California would need to spend way more but given out isolation geographically, in all fairness, they would have a bigger hurdle to overcome than we do. "
What's the hurdle? I mean are you saying HI's registration doesn't work? So if CA implemented registration for all guns, including 5 days for all incoming guns. Are you saying needing to go to the police station to apply to buy a gun doesn't work either? The only accurate part of your sentence is that CA would have to spend way more $.
"I don't think we need more gun laws but we could certainly swap out less effective ones with more effective ones. "
Can you provide an example? I mean HRS134 was gut and replaced this year. And none of it makes it harder for criminals to get a gun or impacts them.
-
I don't think we need more gun laws but we could certainly swap out less effective ones with more effective ones.
I agree California would need to spend way more but given out isolation geographically, in all fairness, they would have a bigger hurdle to overcome than we do.
I am just not content with the whole stance that there is nothing we can do to stop bad people from owning firearms so lets give up trying. I want to find ways that increase that effectiveness while still respecting the 2nd amendment. Like I pointed out earlier, if we don't participate in the solution then they will just pass their own things and we will surely be worse off then.
Yes longer sentences for certain types of offenders would help and more mental health services would also help but even those bring with them constitutional issues which make them not very popular among the gun rights crowd either.
Show me where anyone here said we should stop trying to think of solutions.
The issue isn't that we don't want any new laws. The issue is most of the laws proposed have been tried and have failed, have no logical chance of being effective, are unenforceable, and/or only serve to make legal gun ownership more burdensome and expensive.
The flaw in that statement is you don't stop to delve into all the ramifications and consequences of the laws you support.
It's like you're proposing we build a nuclear reactor on Oahu, but you have no thought as to how to handle the radioactive waste, prevent disasters caused by hurricanes or earthquakes, and so on. You just want to build it and the see what happens - because you think trying a bad idea is better than doing nothing.
That's a childish and naive way of looking at a problem. And the problem for which you are suggesting "solutions" requires much more than just passing a law. The enforcement of a UBC requirement will necessarily demand a full firearm registration nationwide. You said i haven't proven that to be true. Then why does every state that forces residents to have a permit or license for a firearm transfer also have mandatory registrations?
Many states have passed laws prohibiting the registration of firearms. Please explain why they would pass such laws if registration doesn't need to exist for certain "common sense gun laws' to work? Surely they didn't pass a law for no reason.
-
No, you're trying to use an example of keeping guns away from commercial aircraft to convince us that a completely unrelated system -- UBC -- is also possible.
Period.
False. Period.
And if you're worried about an undercover sting for your firearm sale, then you'll weigh the risk (Arrest) with reward (Sale + $1,000 bonus).
If the risk is too high, you'll opt for going with the background check. If you need the money and have no other interested buyers, you might take the chance.
Yes, you might take the chance. Thats true of breaking any law. You can't stop someone from breaking the law, the only think to can do is provide disincentives.
You still think human behavior is controlled by passing laws. Yet, people commit serious crimes every single day.
So what? Sounds like an argument to abolish all laws.
How many more resources and money needs to be allotted for undercover Cops to ferret out illegal private gun sales?
Not that much.
-
So lets just begin with the lat sentence. What constitutional issues do u see?
A frequent response from gun rights activists in answer to the problem of people like mass shooters is more mental health funding. I fully agree with that idea but I find it a rather disingenuous suggestion considering that people on the same side are also resistant to what would be done with more mental health funding.
In order words, our side is not known to support government health care, we are not known for supporting red flag laws, we are not known for mental health type background checks/disqualifications. (All aspects of mental health relating to firearms and all ones the gun rights crowd would make constitutional arguments agianst)
If we say more mental health but then resist all mental health programs, are we really for mental health care? Do you support government provided mental health care?
Entertain this hypothetical if you will:
Imagine there is an individual with a serious mental health issue known to law enforcement that would justify denying this person the right to own a firearm. In Hawaii, with all purchases requiring a background check you effectively limit the way this person could obtain a firearm to illegal methods like theft, straw purchase, black market. However in a state with no background checks this person could easily just get a gun from a legal private sale. What good is the background check at all if this individual can just go to a private sale?
I mean if someone robs someone with a gun and they get a 10 year sentence and did all 10 years, that would be much better than a catch and release operation that we currently have. How would gun rights crowd be opposed to this? Or someone has 20 convictions (career criminal), and they are held in jail for longer, than the catch and release program we have now.
I agree with this suggestion, and the soft on crime democrats are proving how stupid their ideas are here but this is only one aspect of the problem. It will do nothing to stop the mass shooters but would reduce gang crime and career criminals I think.
What's the hurdle? I mean are you saying HI's registration doesn't work? So if CA implemented registration for all guns, including 5 days for all incoming guns. Are you saying needing to go to the police station to apply to buy a gun doesn't work either? The only accurate part of your sentence is that CA would have to spend way more $.
I mean that moving guns in and out of California is much easier than doing so in Hawaii. California would also be starting from nothing whereas we already have something in place so initially of course California would have to spend more.
Can you provide an example? I mean HRS134 was gut and replaced this year. And none of it makes it harder for criminals to get a gun or impacts them.
Not off the top of my head, I was making a general statement about removing bad/ineffective laws.
I am currently reading a book about a deep dive study into mass shooters. Only about half way through so I can't summarize their conclusions yet but I am hoping they will have some valuable insights. They interviewed dozens of shooters and their family members/friends to find out what made these people tick. They are a unique crowd where strong on gun crime laws would have zero effect. I will post about it when I finish
-
You still think human behavior is controlled by passing laws. Yet, people commit serious crimes every single day.
So what? Sounds like an argument to abolish all laws.
"Sounds"' like a strawman argument.
Show me where anyone ever said abolish all laws. Otherwise, try arguing the issue at hand instead of debating something nobody said.
I do get tired of repeating this, but here it is for the ten thousandth time;
Laws are not capable of preventing crime. Laws can only punish the law breakers and provide a set of guidelines for society that limits everyone's behavior for the good of the public at large. Guidelines are not barriers. They require effective, constant, consistent and fair enforcement.
If you want to prevent crime, you need to watch the movie Minority Report (again?). Short of arresting violent criminals before they commit the crime, there is no way to prevent what they are going to do. Only the would-be-law-breaker can prevent themselves from committing a crime, and unfortunately morality has become relative -- it's not illegal if you don't get caught.
Take a few mass shootings as examples where the shooter was reported to police for odd behavior. The police could not do anything because the soon-to-be-mass-murderer had not broken the law. Hence, they could not arrest and incarcerate him.
in the case of UBC, there can be no enforcement without knowledge the law was about to be broken. So, someone has to inform the cops, the cops have to spend much more than "not much" to operate stings for law breakers, the buyer has to somehow lead the cops back to the seller such as if getting caught with a a gun he said he bought from "some guy", or -- to catch every single seller before they bypass the law -- there needs to be a list of what guns the seller owns. Without it, there is no way to verify a background was run on the buyer before the transfer happened. There's really no way around it. And without it, criminals will still commit violence because the law can't prevent someone from bypassing it.
You must also factor in whether the seller would have bypassed the background check if the cops hadn't literally bribed him to break the law. The seller probably wasn't looking for someone with extra cash so they could do an illegal sale. if a legit buyer answered the ad and filled out the form, the seller would have gone along with the law and sold the gun for the asking price. So the Cops are just creating opportunities to entice otherwise law-abiding sellers to break the law. What good does that do?
If all you're interested in is punishing the people who break your laws, then you have the solution. if you think that is going to stop crimes involving guns, you're delusional.
Imagine a river, with the water flowing at a brisk pace -- nothing in its way, just a steady flow of water from its mouth to wherever it empties into.
Now, imagine placing a large rock in the river. Does the rock stop the river from flowing? Of course not. The water finds the path of least resistance and begins to flow around the rcck.
Add another rock, and another. Each time, the rock causes the water to change its path, but it doesn't stop it from reaching its destination.
The river is human behavior, and the rocks are laws. No matter how substantial and how many rocks you place in the river, the water finds a way around them. Even if you completely block the water from left to right bank, the river will find a way over, between or around the rocks.
This is not my personal analogy. I heard it from a well known lawyer.
-
"Sounds"' like a strawman argument.
Show me where anyone ever said abolish all laws. Otherwise, try arguing the issue at hand instead of debating something nobody said.
I do get tired of repeating this, but here it is for the ten thousandth time;
Laws are not capable of preventing crime. Laws can only punish the law breakers and provide a set of guidelines for society that limits everyone's behavior for the good of the public at large. Guidelines are not barriers. They require effective, constant, consistent and fair enforcement.
If you want to prevent crime, you need to watch the movie Minority Report (again?). Short of arresting violent criminals before they commit the crime, there is no way to prevent what they are going to do. Only the would-be-law-breaker can prevent themselves from committing a crime, and unfortunately morality has become relative -- it's not illegal if you don't get caught.
Take a few mass shootings as examples where the shooter was reported to police for odd behavior. The police could not do anything because the soon-to-be-mass-murderer had not broken the law. Hence, they could not arrest and incarcerate him.
in the case of UBC, there can be no enforcement without knowledge the law was about to be broken. So, someone has to inform the cops, the cops have to spend much more than "not much" to operate stings for law breakers, the buyer has to somehow lead the cops back to the seller such as if getting caught with a a gun he said he bought from "some guy", or -- to catch every single seller before they bypass the law -- there needs to be a list of what guns the seller owns. Without it, there is no way to verify a background was run on the buyer before the transfer happened. There's really no way around it. And without it, criminals will still commit violence because the law can't prevent someone from bypassing it.
You must also factor in whether the seller would have bypassed the background check if the cops hadn't literally bribed him to break the law. The seller probably wasn't looking for someone with extra cash so they could do an illegal sale. if a legit buyer answered the ad and filled out the form, the seller would have gone along with the law and sold the gun for the asking price. So the Cops are just creating opportunities to entice otherwise law-abiding sellers to break the law. What good does that do?
If all you're interested in is punishing the people who break your laws, then you have the solution. if you think that is going to stop crimes involving guns, you're delusional.
Imagine a river, with the water flowing at a brisk pace -- nothing in its way, just a steady flow of water from its mouth to wherever it empties into.
Now, imagine placing a large rock in the river. Does the rock stop the river from flowing? Of course not. The water finds the path of least resistance and begins to flow around the rcck.
Add another rock, and another. Each time, the rock causes the water to change its path, but it doesn't stop it from reaching its destination.
The river is human behavior, and the rocks are laws. No matter how substantial and how many rocks you place in the river, the water finds a way around them. Even if you completely block the water from left to right bank, the river will find a way over, between or around the rocks.
This is not my personal analogy. I heard it from a well known lawyer.
If you are saying that words on paper alone are not enough to stop people from doing bad things then sure, you are technically right.
However, if you are saying that no one ever abstains from an activity because it is against the law then you are incorrect.
I have already explained to you how UBC rules could be enforced by law enforcement without a nationwide registry system and you just ignored them.
You talk about needing to catch every one but with a little critical thinking you know darn well that you don't need to catch every single person. Just like you don't need to catch every single speeder to get most drivers to slow down, you wouldn't need to investigate every single private sale.
You point out all the difficulties of a UBC system but then say they should still be in place for licensed dealers. It makes no sense to require one gun seller to do a background check and not another if the goal is to prevent prohibited persons. Liability isn't the reason FFLs are supposed to do background checks, that's not a real justification. All the problems you mention of private sales exist just the same for FFLs.
The goal is to make it more difficult for a legally prohibited person to be able to get a gun. That won't prevent all gun crime of course but it can make a difference.
The rock analogy doesn't fit reality. It assumes, in this case, that no amount of laws could ever prevent a person from getting a firearm, which even if true ignores the fact that people change over time. Case in point, I remember one interview with a man who had plans to shoot up a school but he couldn't get his hands on a gun and never went through with it. The water is always going to be seeking to go downhill, but humans aren't the same way. This man didn't just wait till he was 18 and then buy a gun and shoot up a school, he got over that terrible phase in his life.