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

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.

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:

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?     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?