GUN CONTROL!

[Dyakovo]

Actually, if you sell a firearm to a criminal, you would be a criminal, and you are arguing against having any way to determine whether or not the person you are selling to is a criminal. Also, a criminal record is not the only thing which does/should prohibit someone from owning a firearm. And finally, the presumption of innocence is for criminal trials, the sale of weapons is not a criminal trial.

Currently, the system through which your purchase firearms is incredibly lax.

A schizophrenic killer my friend defended in court took a drive down to ____'s guns in my state's capitol city. She had to fill out a basic questionnaire with only one question pertaining to her mental health. It was a 'yes' or 'no' question in relation to whether or not she had any serious mental problems. What do you think she answered?

She got her Beretta 9mm and a clip of ammunition within the next three weeks and murdered her husband with it.
Funny thing, the store owner remarked that nothing appeared to be wrong with her.

That's partially the fault of the mental health system for giving her pills and hoping she takes them, but a good portion of it falls on the fact that trying to find a loaded firearm(legally) in the U.S is like trying to find water in the Atlantic Ocean.

Addressing the system by saying "Registry will be like X" will only leave loopholes. Your idea, making gun stores and manufacturers guilty for the crimes that are committed with their weapons, is much better. The Arms industry doesn't like publicity, neither do gun stores. They'd cover the loopholes on their own.

When did I advance that idea?

[Hathradic States]

Okay, no objections to any but the last one on that list.

I got charged with that when I got into a fight with my brother.

Which goes a long ways in explaining why you do not want universal background checks.

Did you miss the whole "expunged" thing?

[Spirit of Hope]

I actually don't agree with the dishonorable discharge, or persons who have renounced there citizenship.

As I recall, it takes quite a bit to actually get dishonourably discharged, so it's probably a justifiable disqualification.
Personally, I don't really agree with "users of controlled substances". Known addiction, that seems fine, which can be lifted upon being certified (or however it's done) as "clean".

Thats a good point, and I think more saying if the discharge was for any of the other reasons to be disallowed.

[Imperializt Russia]

If you sell something it's your job to make sure that the transaction is legal. If you sell someone alcohol you have to make sure he's of legal age and allowed to buy it.

If you're a licensed seller, yes.

You've never been to an underage house party?

[Tel]

I must have misunderstood you, Dyakovo. Sorry about that, I'll unquote you.

[Spirit of Hope]

If you sell something it's your job to make sure that the transaction is legal. If you sell someone alcohol you have to make sure he's of legal age and allowed to buy it.

If you're a licensed seller, yes.

You've never been to an underage house party?

Or any house party?

Honestly when it comes to guns I can understand every transaction having a background check. I just think the checks should be free and fast. Which isn't hard.

[Dyakovo]

Which goes a long ways in explaining why you do not want universal background checks.

Did you miss the whole "expunged" thing?

Nope, just ignored it as not being applicable since I recall you bragging about the guns you had prior to August.

[Imperializt Russia]

If you're a licensed seller, yes.

You've never been to an underage house party?

Or any house party?

Honestly when it comes to guns I can understand every transaction having a background check. I just think the checks should be free and fast. Which isn't hard.

Well, if everyone's above drinking age, there's no issue in the house party, is there

[Hathradic States]

If you're a licensed seller, yes.

You've never been to an underage house party?

Or any house party?

Honestly when it comes to guns I can understand every transaction having a background check. I just think the checks should be free and fast. Which isn't hard.

I will cede that point. A free, quick background check being available would make me much more likely to support it for private sales.

[Hathradic States]

Did you miss the whole "expunged" thing?

Nope, just ignored it as not being applicable since I recall you bragging about the guns you had prior to August.

Yep. Locked up in a safe, untouched and unused, and no longer mine.

A year without using them really screwed up my once awesome aim, too.

[Len Hyet]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blnoguns.htm

I actually don't agree with the dishonorable discharge, or persons who have renounced there citizenship.

Dishonorable Discharges are the result of a General Court Martial finding a member of the Armed Forces Guilty of a serious crime such as Murder, Sexual Assault, theft, drug-related crimes, forgery, perjury and maiming, among others.

So yeah, a Dishonorable Discharge should exclude you from owning a gun.

[Tel]

If you're a licensed seller, yes.

You've never been to an underage house party?

Or any house party?

Honestly when it comes to guns I can understand every transaction having a background check. I just think the checks should be free and fast. Which isn't hard.

...You're selling someone a weapon that can kill six or more people in under a minute.

There should be nothing 'fast' about it. Slow, methodical and investigative should be how they're carried out.

[Big Jim P]

If you're a licensed seller, yes.

You've never been to an underage house party?

Or any house party?

Honestly when it comes to guns I can understand every transaction having a background check. I just think the checks should be free and fast. Which isn't hard.

A long time ago (actually earlier this year I believe) I proposed the idea of marking the ID's of people who are prohibited from firearms ownership distinctively, thus putting the burden where it belongs: On the government and/or the prohibited individual. Like most reasonable compromises, BOTH sides of the issue rejected it.

[Hathradic States]

Or any house party?

Honestly when it comes to guns I can understand every transaction having a background check. I just think the checks should be free and fast. Which isn't hard.

A long time ago (actually earlier this year I believe) I proposed the idea of marking the ID's of people who are prohibited from firearms ownership distinctively, thus putting the burden where it belongs: On the government and/or the prohibited individual. Like most reasonable compromises, BOTH sides of the issue rejected it.

Best idea I've heard so far.

EDIT: Rather like how my ID is sideways compared to someone over 21, and has UNDER 21 in big, yellow letters.

[Big Jim P]

A long time ago (actually earlier this year I believe) I proposed the idea of marking the ID's of people who are prohibited from firearms ownership distinctively, thus putting the burden where it belongs: On the government and/or the prohibited individual. Like most reasonable compromises, BOTH sides of the issue rejected it.

Best idea I've heard so far.

I had a few others, but again, both sides rejected them.

[Dyakovo]

Or any house party?

Honestly when it comes to guns I can understand every transaction having a background check. I just think the checks should be free and fast. Which isn't hard.

...You're selling someone a weapon that can kill six or more people in under a minute.

There should be nothing 'fast' about it. Slow, methodical and investigative should be how they're carried out.

I'm fine with "fast" as long as it is still thorough.

[Big Jim P]

A long time ago (actually earlier this year I believe) I proposed the idea of marking the ID's of people who are prohibited from firearms ownership distinctively, thus putting the burden where it belongs: On the government and/or the prohibited individual. Like most reasonable compromises, BOTH sides of the issue rejected it.

Best idea I've heard so far.

EDIT: Rather like how my ID is sideways compared to someone over 21, and has UNDER 21 in big, yellow letters.

Exactly. I proposed a red background.

[Imperializt Russia]

Or any house party?

Honestly when it comes to guns I can understand every transaction having a background check. I just think the checks should be free and fast. Which isn't hard.

...You're selling someone a weapon that can kill six or more people in under a minute.

There should be nothing 'fast' about it. Slow, methodical and investigative should be how they're carried out.

If there's not even a degree of expediency, then what's the point of having the private sales?

The checks could be sped up simply by making the system all-digital and available for relatively public access. NCIS background checks could involve the arbitration of a licensed FFL to actually broker the transfer, which makes perfect sense for internet sales, but may complicate familial transfers. Though would prove familial relation through a basic ID check.

[Spirit of Hope]

Or any house party?

Honestly when it comes to guns I can understand every transaction having a background check. I just think the checks should be free and fast. Which isn't hard.

...You're selling someone a weapon that can kill six or more people in under a minute.

There should be nothing 'fast' about it. Slow, methodical and investigative should be how they're carried out.

And most people don't do that. Plus with modern computers anyone who has been disallowed from gun ownership could be put on a watch list, gun store simply has to check and se if the person is on that list, doesn't even have to say why they are on the list so you could ten make it open access.

Or any house party?

Honestly when it comes to guns I can understand every transaction having a background check. I just think the checks should be free and fast. Which isn't hard.

A long time ago (actually earlier this year I believe) I proposed the idea of marking the ID's of people who are prohibited from firearms ownership distinctively, thus putting the burden where it belongs: On the government and/or the prohibited individual. Like most reasonable compromises, BOTH sides of the issue rejected it.

Actually an interesting idea. I prefer mine for an internet list, makes things a little easier, but your idea has some merit.

[Dyakovo]

...You're selling someone a weapon that can kill six or more people in under a minute.

There should be nothing 'fast' about it. Slow, methodical and investigative should be how they're carried out.

If there's not even a degree of expediency, then what's the point of having the private sales?

The same as now... So private individuals can sell their firearms.

[Imperializt Russia]

Or any house party?

Honestly when it comes to guns I can understand every transaction having a background check. I just think the checks should be free and fast. Which isn't hard.

A long time ago (actually earlier this year I believe) I proposed the idea of marking the ID's of people who are prohibited from firearms ownership distinctively, thus putting the burden where it belongs: On the government and/or the prohibited individual. Like most reasonable compromises, BOTH sides of the issue rejected it.

I think it was actually late last December.
I remember it was very soon after Newtown.

[Imperializt Russia]

I actually don't agree with the dishonorable discharge, or persons who have renounced there citizenship.

Dishonorable Discharges are the result of a General Court Martial finding a member of the Armed Forces Guilty of a serious crime such as Murder, Sexual Assault, theft, drug-related crimes, forgery, perjury and maiming, among others.

So yeah, a Dishonorable Discharge should exclude you from owning a gun.

To me, a crime of murder or rape sounds a touch more serious than a "dishonourable" discharge.

[Hathradic States]

Best idea I've heard so far.

EDIT: Rather like how my ID is sideways compared to someone over 21, and has UNDER 21 in big, yellow letters.

Exactly. I proposed a red background.

Good, but not obvious enough. A red silhouette of a pistol?

[Big Jim P]

A long time ago (actually earlier this year I believe) I proposed the idea of marking the ID's of people who are prohibited from firearms ownership distinctively, thus putting the burden where it belongs: On the government and/or the prohibited individual. Like most reasonable compromises, BOTH sides of the issue rejected it.

I think it was actually late last December.
I remember it was very soon after Newtown.

You are probably right.

[Dyakovo]

Dishonorable Discharges are the result of a General Court Martial finding a member of the Armed Forces Guilty of a serious crime such as Murder, Sexual Assault, theft, drug-related crimes, forgery, perjury and maiming, among others.

So yeah, a Dishonorable Discharge should exclude you from owning a gun.

To me, a crime of murder or rape sounds a touch more serious than a "dishonourable" discharge.

You do not know the full effects of a dishonorable discharge then.