FTFA: "When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.

Criminals have two main methods of acquiring guns. The first is they purchase privately from an unaware, but law-abiding citizen. The second is they purchase their gun from another criminal. Universal background checks will have a big, direct impact on the first method. Universal background checks will also have lasting, indirect effects on the second method to due attrition of guns flowing into the criminal black market. Guns flow out of the criminal black market normally either by being sold back to a private, law-abiding citizen, by being police confiscation, or being dumped in the trash to hide the evidence of a crime. Universal background checks means that there will be fewer ways for guns to enter the black market, meaning fewer guns to go around for those who deserve them the least.

In conclusion, Wayne LaPierre is an asshole.

Why bother owning guns? They can't protect you against every possible threat...

Eshman: In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?

Quick to anger

Frequently lacking in basic facts

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints.

Hell...there's a guy in this very thread (likely his 400th or so post in the past 15 days defending his law-abiding gun ownership) declaring that if the law were changed requiring some sort of registration he would deliberately disobey that law.

These seem to be common traits among many (most?) of Fark's gun lovers and passionate defenders of their "rights". Funny that these are the very people who insist that they are responsible law abiding gun owners when the obvious reality is that they are angry low-average men who have issues with authority -- the very people who you wouldn't want to be armed and whose vehement and passionate defences of their weapons fetishes are about as helpful to their cause as Mr LaPierre's myopic mumblings.

Guess we should all stop using condoms, too, because those little spermie buggers that want to get through, they're not going to submit to the latex. So why bother with the whole thing, anyway?

And don't bother frisking me at the airport, if a terrorist REALLY wants to get the bomb on the plane, he's going to.

/insert more sarcastic examples
//like guns, detest the NRA

Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

In apposing background checks the NRA is showing their hand. This is clear proof that they only care about gun sales. They don't care about gun owners, only the manufacturers.

Ow! That was my feelings!: Again, you are talking about registration here. So, it's not just the background check that you want, it's also the firearm registration that comes with it. I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.

You wouldn't believe the training I have to undergo and the forms I have to fill out to use tiny amounts of radioactivity. You know why I have to do it? Because radioactivity might hurt people! Whoa.

Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?

I love the term "Law Abiding Gun Owners." If I'm not mistaken the orange haired idiot who shot up the theater in Colorado was a law abiding gun owner, until he wasn't.

It's ingenious to be able, by definition, to exclude any former law abiding gun owners who's actions contradict your claims about gun safety.

I'm starting to think these guys house the criminally insane much in the same way the Catholic Church houses child molesters and pedophiles.

Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

vicioushobbit: Guess we should all stop using condoms, too, because those little spermie buggers that want to get through, they're not going to submit to the latex. So why bother with the whole thing, anyway?

And don't bother frisking me at the airport, if a terrorist REALLY wants to get the bomb on the plane, he's going to.

/insert more sarcastic examples
//like guns, detest the NRA

Why prohibit bombs, guns and knives (and water bottles) on airplanes if attempting to take them through security was a felony punishable by 10 years in prison but 99.95% of those attempting it were sent on their way without even an arrest on their record?

What is the point in a law that is never enforced? Or used like the Sullivan Act was originally, as a political weapon?
Either enforce the law or take it off the books. Doing otherwise only reinforces the fact that the Department of Just Us is a farce.

LaPierre's only goal is to sell more guns, whether they end up in the hands of felons or insane people, it's all good to him and the gun industry that he lobbies for.

The only reason why a good person would need gun for personal defense is because the NRA has made damn sure that the bad people have easy access to them.

That is the exact same argument that liberals use to whine about sending illegals back to Mexico...we can't get them all so why bother with any of them? Let's just make the legal!

Gun free zones = juicy target for criminals because there's no guns

Houses with guns = juicy target for criminals because there's guns

Gun threads are very educational.

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Dimensio: lennavan: Firethorn: You need to double check your stats. Right now the #1 source for guns is apparently straw purchase - where a non-convicted criminal legally buys the firearms and provides them to the criminals.

This is a great argument for requiring gun owners to register their guns.

I am open to a registration requirement, if the legal requirement includes specific language that mandates the complete destruction of the registry (and any copies) and nullifies the requirement for registration should any legislation that would have the effect of banning from civilian ownership any currently legal civilian firearm model pass both houses of Congress. The clause would also be applicable for any legislation attempting to repeal the clause itself.

What the fark, dude? The registry will just get dumped on WikiLeaks anyway.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your car, via their handy-dandy vehicle registries? No? Then why be worried about guns?

I am aware of no government that has utilized an automobile registry for confiscation. I am aware of multiple governments that have utilized a firearm registry for confiscation.

Mrbogey: Bill_Wick's_Friend: Eshman: In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?

Quick to anger

Frequently lacking in basic facts

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints.

Hell...there's a guy in this very thread (likely his 400th or so post in the past 15 days defending his law-abiding gun ownership) declaring that if the law were changed requiring some sort of registration he would deliberately disobey that law.

These seem to be common traits among many (most?) of Fark's gun lovers and passionate defenders of their "rights". Funny that these are the very people who insist that they are responsible law abiding gun owners when the obvious reality is that they are angry low-average men who have issues with authority -- the very people who you wouldn't want to be armed and whose vehement and passionate defences of their weapons fetishes are about as helpful to their cause as Mr LaPierre's myopic mumblings.

Let's see.. in your post we have-

Quick to anger

Frequently lacking in basic facts

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints.

Gun control advocates and their boosters just can't help themselves.

Quick to anger: I didn't catch that anger in his post. But then, I'm not a sensitive pansy.

Frequently lacking in basic facts: The only person here lacking basic facts is you. (No really, you've been using sensationalist language in favor of any sort of meaningful facts [hint: calling people "lying scumbags" is subjective])

Openly abusive to opposing viewpoints: and I quote: "All gun control advocates are lying scumbags".

Poor little guy. It'll get better *pats head*. Those meanie government thugs will get what's coming to them thanks to valiant patriots like you.

vicioushobbit: Guess we should all stop using condoms, too, because those little spermie buggers that want to get through, they're not going to submit to the latex. So why bother with the whole thing, anyway?

And don't bother frisking me at the airport, if a terrorist REALLY wants to get the bomb on the plane, he's going to.

/insert more sarcastic examples
//like guns, detest the NRA

Murder laws don't stop all murders, so we should legalize murder. The drop in the crime rate from no murders being a cime would be a bonus.

This is why the NRA will fail.

This is why when the NRA fails, a defender of guns right for reasonable law abiding citizens, (not just the American gun cartel), is necessary.

/And you will still have people arguing a ar-15 with a 30 round clip is useful for suburban home defense, just because they can.
//I need fragmentation hand grenades for home defense.

Make the background checks as tough as you want. I have nothing to fear. Just keep them quick.

spongeboob: Ow! That was my feelings!: spongeboob: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

No but how about every seller?


If you can't sell alcohol, tobacco, prescription medications, etc without a licenses why should you be able to sell firearms?

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one, I know, but we are debating a resale of a legal product here. I have sold a grand total of 2 firearms in 20 years of adult gun ownership. It would be an excessive burden on me to have to have a "dealers license" for such a rare event. Background check, ok, dealer's license, no.

Okay instead of having to maintain a license in order to sale a firearm how about if you sale a firearm you simply go with the purchaser to a licensed firearms dealer and fill out the appropriate forms?

I know this is probably too onerous, I mean the NRA is against making it mandatory in PA to report stolen firearms.

Ok, I would support that.

Eshman: Mrbogey: Eshman: Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?

Well any explanation would be overly simplistic but here you go little kid-

"The people who demand a gun registry are liars who want to, by and large, confiscate guns. So a registry is just a first step towards that. There hasn't been any movement to ban cars so it's hard to compare the two."

Most gun control legislation gets friction because gun control advocates tend to be liars who just want to shift the Overton window.

So instead of explaining to me why creating a registry of guns is more of an infringement of your fetish rights than registering your automobile, you fall back on hyperbole. ... In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?

He's a conspiracy nut. What did you expect?

Mrbogey: Eshman: Can one of our conservative friends please explain something to me? Like I'm 5 years old please:

How is creating a registry of gun ownership any more intrusive/ineefective than the system we currently have in place for automobiles?

Well any explanation would be overly simplistic but here you go little kid-

"The people who demand a gun registry are liars who want to, by and large, confiscate guns. So a registry is just a first step towards that. There hasn't been any movement to ban cars so it's hard to compare the two."

Most gun control legislation gets friction because gun control advocates tend to be liars who just want to shift the Overton window.

So instead of explaining to me why creating a registry of guns is more of an infringement of your fetish rights than registering your automobile, you fall back on hyperbole. ... In a condescending way at that. Jesus, you guys can't tone down the derp for one second to have a rational conversation, can you?

Ow! That was my feelings!: Will you register your firearms if a registration law is passed?

Undecided. Devil's in the details on those kinda laws.

Wow, so you'd break that law too. Holy fark I had no idea how much gun owners loved their guns. I mean, you don't hear people biatching about how you have to register your newborn baby with the government nearly as much as you do about guns. And I would argue people are more important than guns. It seems you might disagree with that.

The NRA is a terrorist organization.

Dave Lister: MyEnamine: In apposing background checks the NRA is showing their hand. This is clear proof that they only care about gun sales. They don't care about gun owners, only the manufacturers.

I have never understood this argument. Used firearms are transacted at many times the rate of new ones (no I don't have evidence, simply an observation), but the NRA's only purpose is to sell new ones.

None of my firearms were purchased new, to the direct benefit of no manufacturer.

Ever known someone to sell a gun in order to buy a gun?

Ow! That was my feelings!: Tigger:

You are required to notify the government about ownership of lots of things. What's different about a gun.

(HINT: Because 2nd Amendment is not a valid answer)

I am? Vehicles if I use a public roadway, I guess, what else am I required to notify the government about owning?

How about land, or other things that the government charges taxes on owning?

gilgigamesh: Ow! That was my feelings!: Somacandra: Ow! That was my feelings!: We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

I bought a car in cash from a colleague privately awhile back. We went to the local DMV and did the whole title transfer thing, brought in the state paperwork and paid a few bucks for the title and transfer. Not really a hassle, and it was good to have a public record to protect both him and I. Even if a parent gives their car to their kid, there is a title transfer involved whether or not the fee was waved. Don't see why anyone should have a problem.

Again, you are talking about registration here. So, it's not just the background check that you want, it's also the firearm registration that comes with it. I explained upthread how to handle these checks without registration, which I would support. Registration? no farking way.

You aren't required to have a license plate on a car that doesn't travel on a public road, but if you own a car it is registered to you with the state.

Ah, that might be where I failed. licensing =/= registration

Shaggy_C: Funny, this same "banning things doesn't work" argument gets used time and time again in marijuana legalization threads. I guess it all depends on whether the potentially banned item is near and dear to your heart or not, eh?

How do you people manage to get "universal background checks" and "ban" confused every day?

Shhhhh... everyone calm down and just watch the NRA. They're finally coming out and publicly making big bold comments for everyone to see.
Just like their GOP friends who are leading the charge! Give then a little while and they'll spin into the derposphere soon enough too.

Friend of my dad once got pulled over, started complaining to the cop about how there were other drivers speeding and while he was the one who got pulled over. Cop replied "Ever been fishing?" Guy said yes, cop said, "You catch all the fish?"

Lack of perfection is a bullshiat/lazy/whinging reason to not try.

Philip Francis Queeg: Ow! That was my feelings!: Tigger:

You are required to notify the government about ownership of lots of things. What's different about a gun.

(HINT: Because 2nd Amendment is not a valid answer)

I am? Vehicles if I use a public roadway, I guess, what else am I required to notify the government about owning?

Let's start with your property itself.

Boats, planes, businesses, children...

Everything that the NRA indicated they'd be open to in lieu of model regulation was a complete lie.

Since any negotiation with them or the politicians they own will be in bad faith, the only prudent thing to do is steamroll them and all of their members.

violentsalvation: "When it comes to the issue of background checks, let's be honest - background checks will never be 'universal' - because criminals will never submit to them," LaPierre's testimony reads.

So where's he wrong? And where did he say to do away with all background checks altogether? Oh wait he isn't, and he didn't. He is asking people like subtard to be realistic with their expectations for gun-violence reduction before knee jerking useless laws into place.

But no, OOGABOOGA NRA HERPADERP! Right, subtard?

The only real answer to gun violence is killing gun owners, that's the NRA position.

Shaggy_C: Funny, this same "banning things doesn't work" argument gets used time and time again in marijuana legalization threads. I guess it all depends on whether the potentially banned item is near and dear to your heart or not, eh?

You're so right. That's why all those senseless marijuana deaths will continue.

Why bother having babies? We're all going to die.

Ow! That was my feelings!

Your gonna be relying on individual's 'voluntarily' submitting to the system. I would suggest to anyone that supports this idea to make the checks as easy, simple, and cheap as possible.
An example:
I wish to sell a firearm to John Doe. I pick up the phone and call the number, give to the Cop on the other end his name, dob, ssn, whatever. The Cop checks John Doe, finds nothing, says "OK to sell"

In my experience, background checks usually take all of fifteen minutes, max. It would require a little more money, but I imagine we could make that process available to private sellers as well, as you seem to be suggesting.

Do any anti-firearm people here see any huge problem with this idea?

Ow! That was my feelings!: I have a fourth amendment right to privacy. What I own is none of your or the governments business. It's not a hard concept

I suppose you don't own a car then, seeing as how you have to register that thing you own with the government.

Darth_Lukecash: Ow! That was my feelings!: vernonFL: Ow! That was my feelings!: How do you enforce universal background checks?

Well, for one thing, you make sure all gun sellers have licenses, and you make them keep records and you audit them to see who they are selling to.

Right now we don't even do that.

We are talking about two private individuals conducting a transaction. So, every gun owner needs a sellers license?

There should be a fee that the buyer pays for the government to run a background check.

Regulation on a dangerous equipment should not be considered an infringement.

Your gonna be relying on individual's 'voluntarily' submitting to the system. I would suggest to anyone that supports this idea to make the checks as easy, simple, and cheap as possible.
An example:
I wish to sell a firearm to John Doe. I pick up the phone and call the number, give to the Cop on the other end his name, dob, ssn, whatever. The Cop checks John Doe, finds nothing, says "OK to sell"

THAT'S IT!!!! That is all you need. Trying to turn universal checks into a registration scheme is gonna guarantee low compliance. In fact, that might be the poison pill that kills it in Congress.

The GOP: If it doesn't work perfectly, don't even attempt to do something.
The Democrats: Let's at least try it.

Sorry 'C'-onservatives, you're starting to lose this fight.

Remember, think of the children. Y'know, the ones that are already dead.

Saiga410: justtray: stoli n coke: Saiga410: He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

"If they've done nothing wrong, they've got nothing to worry about."

-Conservatives before 1/20/09

I will guess that you bother were against such reasoning back before 09 so you will join me in giving the govt the finger when they want to enter into a privacy issue.

Sure, we'll defend privacy.

Your criminal history, however, is not "private."

He does have a very good point. He is not against the background checks mandated by FFL purchases... his is one of being against P2P needing background checks. The added regulatory hurdle is more intrusive than the benefit of removing the small amount of people who may get caught because criminals will still buy around this with their standard end arounds they use now which is not the traditional p2p. They will use their strawmen and universal background will not stop that.

We can't stop 100% of nuclear bomb denotations, so why should we even try?

jake_lex: Wait, the NRA is against even the most basic and reasonable restrictions on who may own a firearm?

I'll be damned.

Well, think about it. 3 million released convicts are allowed to buy guns, gun sales increase.

Then the gun companies start running ads based on how many felons have guns, gun sales increase more.

gilgigamesh: Once you consider that LaPierre's sole motive is to ensure that his gun manufacturer masters maximize sales of their product, it makes sense.

Who runs the NRA?