This is Why ‘Universal Background Checks’ Are a Really Bad Idea

Gun Show loophole universal background checks

Name one mass shooter who got their weapon at a gun show. We’ll wait. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

As is the case with every further restriction the anti-gun left promotes, when it comes to enacting “universal background checks,” the most demonic devil is always in the details.

National Review‘s Charles C.W. Cooke, an escaped Brit who’s a tireless defender of Second Amendment rights, tears into a recent Bloomberg editorial advocating UBCs.

The Bloomberg editors insist that our present “two-tiered system” — by which they mean that we run background checks on commercial and interstate transfers, but not on private intrastate transfers — “is an insult to common sense and undermines public safety.” But that two-tiered system is exactly what one would expect to see given that the federal government is permitted to superintend interstate commerce, but is not permitted to superintend private transactions within the same state.

Moreover, it is far, far easier to write a law that applies mandatory background checks to commercial sales than it is to write a law that applies them to private transfers, because, while there is no argument as to what constitutes a commercial sale (that’s any gun transferred to a person by an FFL, via form 4473), there is a raging argument as what constitutes a private transfer.

Does loaning a gun to someone for a month count? Does giving your wife a gift count? Is there a difference between handing someone a gun at a range and handing someone a gun in your property? Should we limit the definition to transfers that take place at gun shows and via public notices, as Toomey-Manchin sought to do, or should we expand it beyond that? And who should be exempt? Your brother? Your cousin? Nobody? Only people with concealed-carry permits?

And how should the government ensure compliance? The traditional answer to this is, “by setting up a registry.” Or, at the very least, “by forcing the commercial entities that would be charged with running the checks to keep records that could be made available to the police.” (That’s apparently “not a registry.”) But if we do that, we’re not just talking about extending background checks; we’re talking about reversing a decades-long prohibition on gun registries, too. How does that play into the dynamic? …

The headline on the Bloomberg editorial is “Mass shootings show need for gun buyer background checks.” Nothing could be further from the truth. If the Bloomberg editors can find a single mass shooter from the last decade who obtained his firearm via a post-sale private transfer in a state that lacked “universal background checks,” I will be all ears. But they can’t, of course. Which is why there is no mention of such a person in their plea.

– Charles C.W. Cooke in Actually, Bloomberg, It’s Not That Simple

comments

  1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Not to mention unConstitutional,on more than 2 nd. amendment grounds!

  2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    The Demoncrats want UBCs for two purposes. First they desperately want a gun registry so they can have a ready list of everyone in the country who possesses a firearm. There’s only one purpose this could possibly serve and that’s so they’ll know where to go when they feel the time is right to go and confiscate all the privately held weapons (for the children of course). The second is to set up another trap for law abiding citizens to get ensnared and punished severely for the slightest misunderstanding of the law. To make the legal risks of owning firearms so high that most people won’t risk owning a gun at all, thereby making it easier for them to confiscate all privately held firearms in the country. Now, why do you suppose they’d want a society with no weapons in private hands? The master can’t allow the slaves to have weapons or they won’t be slaves for long.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “to set up another trap for law abiding citizens to get ensnared and punished severely for the slightest misunderstanding of the law.”

      We’re already at that point in CA. Even LEOs don’t understand our laws. Cops are still (mistakenly) confiscating 10+ round mags from people, even though a Federal Judge blocked CA’s ban on them several months ago.

      And let’s not forget the whole bag of confusion over AR rifles, AR pistols, “Assault Weapons” vs. featureless, etc.

      1. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

        Handing the Neo-Communist left political power (electing them) is like handing matches and gasoline to a pyromaniac! If they win big enough in 2020 they are going to light the fires of civil war in this country and the resulting mess will plague us for the rest of our natural lives.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          As if we are not in a mess now. At least there will be less tyrants on this Earth.

          I’m not afraid. I know most of them are pretenders, they’re weak.

        2. avatar Mark Webb says:

          Maybe that’s what is needed…..

        3. avatar Will says:

          Thats kinda like saying you do not want chemo because of the side effects.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Thats kinda like saying you do not want chemo because of the side effects.”

          Not actually. Chemo treatment is not your avowed, implacable enemy with the sole purpose to destroy others. Additionally, despite the side effects there is a measurable chance you will survive. Not so with elected Dimwitocrats.

        5. avatar Huntmaster says:

          The war has already started. The attack on Congressman Scalise is but one of many examples. Antics and their antics another.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        The mag confiscation case you mention resulted in the return of the mags to the owner and an apology from the chief of police, along with a promise to ensure that his officers were aware of the injunction.

        But the AR laws are a mess. Often times, particularly for officers who are not gunnies, the police have to take the weapon back to the station and ask for expert advice as to whether or not it is an “assault weapon,” and whether it is illegal by reason of not being registered or by being used in violation of the laws that control the use of such weapons. In the field the officers are usually clueless.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Yes, I know, Mark. But the point is that the LEOs detained and confiscated in the first place. Should never have happened, regardless of the eventual outcome. That’s the point.

        2. avatar SKP5885 says:

          To “I Haz”

          Exactly! It would be like having a cop pull you over and impound your car until they could get a mechanic to verify that the catalytic converters was installed. In my opinion (and I believe many others here) if no victim exists then cops should not involve them selves. Enforcing rules for the sake of enforcing rules is not my idea of protecting and serving.

      3. avatar William Burke says:

        If you’re the last one there please turn out the lights. Except your own and the ones you need at the moment.

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      You must have missed all those interviews and speeches Trump gave about passing common sense meaningful background checks.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        Tyranny is not exclusive to the Demoncrat party. Also, Trump likes to say stuff to look like he’s willing to work with the Demoncrats knowing that they won’t compromise with Republicans and they’ll look like the unreasonable ones. He also talks out of his ass quite a bit.

        Not sure, but have any of these state UBC laws been passed by a Republican controlled chamber or signed by a Republican govorner?

        1. avatar KenW says:

          If pink slip rick AKA batboy from the National Enquirer were still our Governor I’m sure he would sign them.

    3. avatar Southern Cross says:

      The various proposed UBC laws have been so badly written that many common practices would be illegal because of the definitions of a transfer.

      One common practice is a beginner being loaned a gun under supervision to learn and try the sport. Under the proposed UBC laws the person would have to be background checked to briefly use the gun and the owner background checked to have the gun returned to them, even though they are the official owner.

      Another is someone trying a gun they wish to buy at a range by firing a few rounds at range under loan from someone who owns such a gun. Again under the proposed UBC laws there would have to be a background check to loan the gun and another to return it to the owner.

      Bureaucracy gone mad.

      Is this an unintended byproduct or by design?

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        Oh, it gets much worse than that, through the magic of “constructive possession.” Does your live-in girlfriend know the combination to your gun safe? Then every time you leave her alone in the house, for instance going to work before she does, you’re transferring ALL your guns to her. If you get home first, she’s then transferring them ALL back to you.

  3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Carol Bowne in New Jersey is still waiting to receive government permission to buy a gun in her home state.
    The jewish lawmaker Loretta Weinberg, the proud homosexual lawmaker Tom Ammiano, and the christian conservatives who have sex in the missionary position with the lights turned out, Pat Toomey and Joe Manchin, all four agree.

    “Miss Bowne should have to wait to get a gun.”
    “For as long as we say so.”

    Now I hope I have made everyone equally angry.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      You had me at New Jersey

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      You lost me at New Jersey.

    3. avatar Draven says:

      You lost me at there being conservatives in New Jersey.

    4. avatar Mark N. says:

      Manchin is from West Virginia.
      But the main question is, how long has she been waiting? There is actually a law in NJ, traditionally ignored, requiring action on a permit application in 30 days. (Thee was a great piece of hidden camera work where the permits officer denied the existence of/knowing of the existence of the law.) ONe would think that the local pd would be more aware of their obligations after that woman was stabbed to death on her front walkway by the ex-boyfriend against whom she had a restraining order, who was unable to defend herself because police had not acted on her application to buy a handgun.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        The four politicians I listed are just as evil as the man who stabbed Carol Bowne to death. They will always have guns protecting them. They prevent desperate innocent people from getting a gun.

        “Bowne finally decided she needed more protection in her life so she applied for a Permit to Purchase a Pistol. New Jersey law states that a Pistol Permit is to be issued or denied within a 30 day time period. 42 days after applying for a Pistol Permit, Bowne was slaughtered by Michael Eitel in her driveway.”

        https://www.ammoland.com/2018/03/carol-bowne-open-letter-assembly-new-jersey/#axzz5wpDPVcCp

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…Bowne was slaughtered by Michael Eitel in her driveway.”

          Well, now. As a supporter of complete gun confiscation (except, of course, guns in crime-ridden neighborhoods), I would have to say that even if Browne had her pistol, she would have had it taken by her attacker, and been killed with it. Women should have equal rights and privileges with men, but they are too fragile, small, undersized to actually compete with men. Women with guns are a danger mostly to themselves, and their households. So…all things considered, the outcome would be the same, with or without a personal gun.

        2. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

          Sam I:
          You forgot the sarcasm token.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You forgot the sarcasm token.”

          Yeah. Looking at it again, it is probably just a tad too realistic.

  4. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Finally , some real proof of what “Red Flag Laws/Extreme Risk Protection Orders are, and what THEY will be used for…Reported by You Tube channel Salty Cracker…”Google uses ERPO to Red Flag and SWAT Google/YouTube Whistle blower! ”

    https://youtu.be/w9B428zWvZ4

    1. avatar TFred says:

      What happened? Did Google recover the evidence, or did it make it to the DoJ?

  5. avatar J says:

    Hypothetic question for everyone here:
    If there was a system that citizens privately selling/gifting guns could use to background check potential buyers that was free and did not keep records, would you support laws requiring those background checks on every sale?
    I know this system does not exist and probably couldn’t, but for the sake of argument, would you support universal background checks with such a system in place? Why or why not?

    1. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

      NO! This is something else that could be very easily abused!

      Want to have your coworker, neighbor, some jerk who works for Google spying on you? All they have to do with your system is to pretend to want to sell you a gun.

      1. avatar Five says:

        Also, you say ‘free’. Nothing is free. Who is going to pay for the system, users, tax payers, both? Is it State level, Federal level, across which jurisdictions? A free and effective background check system is a fallacy. Even the current background check system has failed repeatedly (when it should have worked) as shown in several high profile shootings.

        On background checks, rather that trying for new laws and requirements, how about trying to fix the current system first?

        1. avatar Biatec says:

          The current system doesn’t work so we should just get rid of it not fix it. It’s like how we keep throwing money at public schools. Why the hell am I paying for that. I don’t care if my neighbors kids go to school or not.

    2. avatar Five says:

      So, I buy a gun for my wife, which I’m about to do. Do I then need to run a background check on my wife?

      Say I bought a G42 and she previously bought a G19, let’s say she likes my G42 better and we decide to trade, do we need to run additional background checks on each other?

      The inanity of the situations the law creates (the law as in a body of law) dictates that there will be many ridiculous situations with gun laws and the more laws there are, the worse a more inane the contradictions will become.

      Why aren’t actually criminals, especially those that use firearms to commit crimes handled harsher rather than excusing the soft glove approach on the criminals by trying to take away everyone’s tools? Recent PA shooter as an just the most public most recent example (probably several hundred in ‘local’ news from yesterday as-well).

    3. avatar Heard It All Before says:

      Answer is no.

      Reason: Use illicit drugs as the model.

      I don’t use drugs and live 60 miles from a city of 300,000 but I can find heroin, opium, opiates, “legal” drugs with no required prescription, cocaine and synthetics within 60 minutes then buy all I can afford and so can any school kid. No federal, state or local law enforcement has ever had any impact on the supply of these drugs. After all these years we just can’t seem to figure out how heroine get’s to the drug addict or why we make many times more addictive pain killers than we need? Sure we can but we don’t stop it. Smuggling is tax free money!.

      Whenever a product is in demand someone will supply it.

      It will be the same with guns.

    4. avatar Reason says:

      No, what I would support is swift and decisive action on someone that misuses a firearm. 1st degree murder (for all not just with a gun) = death penalty only way to get an appeal would to find new evidence exonerating. say within 2 years. otherwise carry out the execution.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Pretty sure you meant 2 months, although that seems excessively long.

    5. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Try listening to yourself. If no record is kept of who requested a BC on whom, or on what particular firearm, then how do you “require” anyone to make such a check? If such a law were passed, it would not even go into effect before someone miraculously “discovered” this flaw, which would then be easily corrected by means of a registry, which is STILL the only thing which is the actual goal of all these meaningless and useless laws.

      One of our political morons asserted, the other day, that we shouldn’t worry about current proposals for UBC resulting in a registry, since assembling a registry is against Federal law. As if that person was not perfectly aware that passing a law requiring a registry would void any law prohibiting one which was passed earlier. They simply have zero compunctions about lying to us.

    6. avatar D Y says:

      If you arent keeping track of who went through the process, and the serial numbers involved, then how would you ever enforce it?

      I cant go to the DMV and ensure the used car I’m going to buy from a private seller isnt stolen (because it’s not my information) why am I expected to do more than the government will…because, guns?

      1. avatar David from Mill City says:

        How about this method. The seller goes to a government run web site. He prints out a blank 4473 for the buyer to complete. When complete he takes a photo of the buyer and the ID the buyer uses. Then via the web site the seller provides the check system with, the location of the transaction, the buyers name and either SSN or Drivers License number and any 3 consecutive digits from the firearms serial number. That can be the first 3 last 3 or 3 out of the middle, as long as they are consecutive it does not matter.

        The check is conducted if the transaction is OK the seller is provided with a confirmation number which he records on the 4473. The seller also provides the confirmation number to the buyer as the The transaction is completed. The only record retained by the government is the date of the check, the confirmation number and the 3 digits from the serial number. The seller then prints out the two pictures and staples them to the 4473. The seller then can either retain the 4473 or send it to an authorized 3rd party record depository, say with the NRA for example, where it is filed by the seller’s last name.

        If the Check comes back negative, the system notifies local law enforcement to respond to the location provided to start an investigation,30 minutes before giving the seller the negative result.

        Should there be a need to run a check on a recovered firearm, the BATF starts with the manufacturer, goes to the distributor to the FFL holder to the first buy and on down the chain. When they get to you, you inform them that you sold and either provide them with a copy of the 4473 and attachments or direct them to the 3rd party records depository.

        Should any question about whether a check had been made, entering the confirmation number into the data base would provide the transaction date and enough of the firearm’s serial number to confirm that it was the firearm for which the check was conducted.

        This system makes it possible for non-FFL holders to conduct a check, and be able to confirm they did so, without providing the government with a de facto registry.

        Thoughts comments suggested refinements are welcome

        1. avatar Ulf Fwatling says:

          I’ve proposed this system elsewhere before:

          Smartphone app (since everybody’s got one these days.)

          Search is triggered by a picture of the ID AND the buyer. (MUST have BOTH!)
          NO firearm information is entered (so yes, you could even run yourself on this, if you feel the need to check and see if you have a “false negative” appearing.)
          System takes fifteen minutes to respond – yes/no/maybe.
          YES – System gives a control number of one format, sale proceeds. Control number gets recorded on receipt written by seller, buyer gets copy, seller retains copy. Record gets transferred to F Troop on death of seller (just as with cessation of FFL operation.)
          NO – System gives control number of second format, sale halted. Control number recorded as “failed check,” and system tells /why/ the failure (gives buyer the opportunity to appeal the failure. If you’re trying to buy a firearm legally, you probably are thinking that you’re going to pass. So a No would be a surprise all around. Report to local LE to begin appeal.
          MAYBE – System gives control number of third format, sale delayed for 72 hours pending review. YES or NO result given at the end of 72 hours, both MAYBE and YES/NO control numbers recorded.

          NO firearm information is recorded in/by the system, since it’s none of their damn business. The fact of the background check occurring is enough to be recorded, .gov doesn’t need any more information than that. No registry is thus created, no record of transfer of firearms is created. And, since anyone can run record checks on themselves (as a “pre-check” before they go in to buy, say,) the government can’t even be sure that every “NICS check” through this system will result in a sale in the first place!

          NICS checks cost enough through FFLs, that should fund the database use by non-FFLs as well.

    7. avatar enuf says:

      Not every problem can be solved by the same solution. If background checks were supported by full reporting of required data by all agencies into the NICS, and if denials triggered a local law enforcement dispatch to investigate, then I could support the system we have now. We do not have that, we have a dysfunctional shit show. So that’s it on background checks.

      Private sales requiring background checks implies the necessity of a registry. Otherwise there is no way to know that anyone violated the law by not putting their private purchase thru a background check. A law that begins requiring all person to person, in state sales be run thru NICS will put a spotlight on the massive scofflaw’ing that must result, leading to demands to add a registry.

      Registries are bad.

      Now then, if someone selling a gun is feeling the need to be extra sure the buyer is not a bad guy, I think there should be FFL’s willing to handle that transfer same as if they were doing it in an online sale form an out of state seller to a local buyer. Charge the same fee, maybe get a new customer for ammo or accessories. I do not see any law needed on this one. All a seller has to do is call around to FFL’s to see who will handle a transfer, and pay the fee.

    8. avatar WARFAB says:

      Exactly what would the law requiring the use of such a system accomplish?

      If the system were available just to use for the people who want it, then aside from the cost to the taxpayers it wouldn’t be a big deal either way. Might be nice for some people to have.

      But to make a law requiring it’s use….. would accomplish what? Without a way to track or enforce such a law, it’s pointless. Those intent on doing harm aren’t going to be stopped by it whether there’s a way to enforce it or not. All it would do is add another charge after the fact. In the mass shooting scenarios that get all the hype these days, that would likely result in another charge against a corpse.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        California solves that problem by requiring all sales to be handled through an FFL However, if the buyer fails to pass the BGC, the dealer has to run a BCG on the seller in order to return the firearm. That is $25 DROS for each transaction plus $10 for the FFL.

        They’ve been doing this since 2000. Effect on crime? Not measurable, according to a recent study.

        1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          Damn. Last time I bought a gun from a CA FFL was in the ’90s, then swore I’d never to it again once the Feinstein-authored updates to our state gun laws were going to take effect in 2000. Didn’t know we’ve been that screwed up for so long.

    9. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “Hypothetic question for everyone here:”

      {Background check laws on private sales}

      How about this for a ‘system’ –

      Let’s say the cops pull someone over and the computer at HQ says the driver *is* a prohibited person. Knowing this, the deputy frisks the driver and does a quick search of the vehicle and finds a gun. Driver is arrested, and gets to explain themselves to a judge at arraignment the next morning. (Usually.)

      It’s a simple system, the cops leave the non-prohibited citizens and their guns alone, the prohibited person people get to explain to a judge why they are in possession of a gun.

      (Oh, and guns seized by the cops are returned to the rightful owners if reported stolen, all the others are auctioned off to local FFLs…)

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Not good enough. Simply being someone designated by Big Brother as being prohibited from something doesn’t provide reasonable cause in and of itself to search person and/or vehicle.

        My brother-in-law was caught up on a technicality here in CA and accepted a plea deal that resulted in a felony “conviction” on the books. He’s now prohibited from possessing a gun for the rest of his life.

        This doesn’t mean he can be pulled over for a burnt tail light bulb and then frisked by one cop while the other rummages through his vehicle simply because there’s a felony on his BGC from years ago. Doesn’t work that way.

        1. avatar paul says:

          It does as long he is on probation or parole. That is the point, create a class of second class citizens that can be discriminated against. This keeps the rest of the gun owning(or even chronic pain patients) on their toes.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          True, but Geoff didn’t mention active probation or parole. He only said “prohibited”.

  6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Here is what I posted yesterday:

    Universal background checks do NOT stop criminals from:
    (1) Stealing firearms.
    (2) Buying firearms without a background check from accomplices.
    (3) Manufacturing their own firearms.
    (4) Smuggling firearms.

    1. avatar Devil's Advocate says:

      But they WOULD stop a prohibited person from going on armslist and buying a long gun in a private sale, which is by far the easiest way for a felon to get a gun.

      By the way, I’m against universal background checks too, Just pointing out the factor I think you are ignoring that we should honestly address.

      1. avatar Craig in IA says:

        I don’t come around here much anymore since the chorus of preaching to the chior does absolutely nothing for maintaining or improving anyone’s rights or situation, however…

        “But they [background checks] WOULD stop a prohibited person from going on armslist and buying a long gun in a private sale, which is by far the easiest way for a felon to get a gun.”

        Not sure about your state laws, but in many, including mine, I always risk becoming a felon myself if I sell or in some manner provide a firearm to any person who is prohibited from owning or purchasing a firearm by either state or federal law AT THE TIME of the sale, trade, or other transaction that would move posession of said firearm from me to that person. If I don’t ask for some sort of ID (and I record the ID and subsequent number) when selling any firearm, it’ll be on me should said buyer later turn out to be a prohibited person. I ask specifically for an IA Permit to Carry or Permit to Acquire. If the prospect can’t or won’t produce one, they will not buy from me- firearm of any type nor ammo.

        Everyone may have a “right” to purchase a firearm but I, as prospective seller, have the right to “cancel their right” if they can/will not provide protection from prosecution to me for the sale. Do as you wish around here, but I recommend others act accordingly.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Wait…Iowa requires a “Permit to Acquire”? Wut?

          One of my relatives was recently considering moving to North Carolina, then discovered that they have a law that requires a citizen to apply for a Permit to Possess for handguns. You have to ask permission from your local Sheriff to even possess a pistol, and if you move to another county, you need to apply all over again. If your grandfather passes away and bequeaths a 1911 to you, you can’t take possession of it unless your Sheriff says okay. Can we say infringement? I didn’t believe this at first, but confirmed it upon consulting the NC Gov law myself.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Haz, that’s fascinating. I can’t help being amazed, considering my Texas license to carry is valid in all counties of NC. How the hell can those 2 facts coexist in a sane world? Shouldn’t I at least have to stop in at every sheriff’s office to get his approval as I drive through the state with my EDC?

        3. avatar Craig in IA says:

          Permit to Acquire Handguns and Revolvers. We (and that means IA’s NRA affiliate) created this when it was obvious that the Brady Act would be passed, regardless of what NRA, GOA, SAF (who usually works with NRA), the NAGRs, the Knox and Dorr family bomb throwers and any other person or group you can name would do to prevent it.

          Upon receipt of the Permit to Acquire, the holder is not again submitted to a NICS check for any firearms purchase, Class III/NFA exempted (of course). No call in for rifles, handguns or shotguns. Fill out the 4473, record the permit number and go. Ditto for CCW holders. While the purists around here will piss and moan about any paperwork or permitting process, it is far superior to my other state of residence, MN, where there are similar permits yet NICS is still called each time any firearm is purchased, and where a permit to purchase handguns is also necessary to purchase any rifle or shotgun having a vertical hand grip. The permit is good statewide and lasts 5 years, I believe. I’ve not had one in years, the CCW permit accomplishes this and more, obviously.

          Unless one buys from an ad (as to the post I replied to), friend, relative or even a thug on the street corner, there is inevitable paperwork and/or a NICS check, hand guns or long guns. Our state law requires NICS be fulfilled only once during the length of time of the permit. The permits also allow me to sell a firearm without fear of discovering later the nice, clean cut person I sold a Glock to 3 months ago was either crazy, a felon, or both.

        4. avatar UpInArms says:

          ” North Carolina, then discovered that they have a law that requires a citizen to apply for a Permit to Possess for handguns ”

          Well, it’s been 9 years since I moved out of NC, but this was not the case when I lived there.

          Purchase Permits were required. These were obtained from the local Sheriff, and a permit was required for each handgun purchased. I used to buy 3 or 4 at a time and use them as needed. Each permit cost $5.

          I did not have a Permit to Possess. As far as I know, unless this is a recent development, nobody does. They didn’t exist.

      2. avatar Five says:

        Any of the mass shooter in the news get their weapon off of armslist?

        Besides, what armslist does can be done on facebook, twitter, the town square, newspaper classified, church, the office break room, the street corner. It’s just a communications platform.

        Now on gun broker, you can buy, but pretty much everything I see there will only ship to a FFL to do the transfer (which means background check or equivalent)

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        But they WOULD stop a prohibited person from going on armslist and buying a long gun in a private sale, which is by far the easiest way for a felon to get a gun.

        I do not agree with your claim. Where are your sources to back up that statement?

        Your assertion is the same as claiming that the only easy way for felons to acquire illegal narcotics is through online brokers, which makes no sense at all since felons simply reach out to their network of personal contacts to acquire illegal narcotics. Of course felons reach out to their network of personal contacts to acquire just about anything they want, including firearms.

        At the absolute best, universal background checks could slightly increase the cost that felons would have to pay for “illicit” firearms through straw-purchasers (presumably to offset the added risk to straw-purchasers). Note that universal background checks would not noticeably change the inherent “black market” price of stolen firearms, smuggled firearms, and self-manufactured firearms. Of course universal background checks would do nothing to stop spree killers from acquiring firearms if they have no previous criminal record.

        Since universal background checks show little if any ability to reduce violent crime, and yet they add significant risk and burdens to “good people”, we should categorically reject universal background check legislation and policies.

        1. avatar Craig in IA says:

          I second this. I’ve been working gun shows for 35+ years and it’s obvious, at least at our shows that crooks don’t come around to make purchases, let alone be seen where there are 5-8 uniformed cops at the entrance, exit, and other fire exits. Crooks get their guns from other crooks- it’s merely a tool with no nostalgic or collector value once the job has been committed. That’s why they often end up in the river…

      4. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “But they WOULD stop a prohibited person from going on armslist and buying a long gun in a private sale, which is by far the easiest way for a felon to get a gun.”

        *WRONG*

        By far, the *easiest* way a prohibited person gets their hands on a gun, is for them to ask around locally from another prohibited person (a criminal, by definition) where other criminals hang out at. (Personal relationships, dirt bars, etc.).

        Crooks get the vast majority of their guns from other crooks, or steal them themselves.

        No law is going to stop that. Thinking that a law will stop crooks from acquiring guns is a prime example of the naive thinking Democrats do all to frequently.

        Murder is against the law. Murder still happens…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “No law is going to stop that.”

          You are talking macro, but if any law saves just one? Just one tiny one? One teensey weensey, itty bitty one?

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “You are talking macro, but if any law saves just one? Just one tiny one? One teensey weensey, itty bitty one?”

          (A repost of a comment I made yesterday to ‘Diane’. But Sam, I would like your feedback on how effective this could be as a sledgehammer response…)

          “One innocent is one too many.”

          Ahhh, now we’re getting somewhere. Let’s dive down this hole…

          If you believe the lives lost by guns is unacceptably high, are you actively trying to get passenger vehicles banned as well? They kill roughly the same numbers annually, Diane.

          Oh, you’re now going to tell me that “Cars aren’t designed to kill people.”

          Diane, that makes it even *worse*. Automakers spend literally *billions* yearly trying to improve safety, and yet they still kill tens of thousands annually. About the same numbers as guns do.

          Now, here’s where it gets interesting – We can *easily* save ten thousand lives lost in crashes every year. We really can!

          Deaths in cars happens most because of what happens to the human body when cars crash. Bones break, organs get crushed. It’s not a nice way to go. (I got a taste of a crush injury last year when a car hit me while I was bike riding. Not fun.)

          Here’s how to save thousands of lives yearly. Drastically lower the speed limit. Make the maximum national speed limit in America 30 MPH, *strictly* enforced.

          That is a *guaranteed* way to save thousands of lives annually, Diane. The only cost will be that it takes you a few minuets more a day to get where you are going. That’s a perfectly reasonable trade for thousands of lives saved, don’t you think?

          Remember, Diane, you were the one that said “One innocent is one too many.”.

          Or are you so fucking selfish that getting where you are going a few lousy minutes sooner is more important than thousands of lives annually?

          Answer the question, Diane. Is ten minuets out of your busy day more important than 10 thousand innocents a year dead?

          Well?

          (Someone a far better writer than I could hone that argument into a really vicious one that could make Diane literally cry. If someone could improve on it, please do, and let me see it. I’m sick and fucking tired of the “One innocent is one too many.” card being played without a devastating rebuttal… 😉 )

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I would like your feedback…”

          WARNING: TL/don’t read

          The paras you constructed would count as a conclusive ripost….to me and POTG. As it happens, you and Diane are not actually in the same conversation. Which is the primary reason pro and anti gun forces cannot ever have a meeting of the minds.

          Now, I long held forth that the nation is at near parity regarding privately owned guns, and that there are not enough unicorns in the middle to decisively sway the mood our way. But why is that? And I come back to the conclusion that neither side is actually in conversation with the other. Emotional people abhor other persons who are not anchored in feelings. Rational people cannot come to grips with any theory of life that is based solely on emotional responses to adverse effects.

          My BIL is a rabid leftist. He is fun to spin up, but it does get somewhat tiresome. BIL and I discussed the “only one” meme. The first halt was when I asked him to define “innocent life”. Of course, I helped confuse him by asking ever more questions about his definitions. Eventually, I asked how many innocent lives (“innocent” by whatever definition he liked) he felt were the tolerable, irreducible minimum of lives lost due to the use of firearms. He actually said “zero” (which was the trap I laid).

          I moved at an angle and asked how many of his immediate family was he willing to sacrifice to an attack by a gun-wielding home invader. There was remarkable silence. BIL noted that he wanted none of his family killed by a home invader. I asked for his plan to prevent their deaths; confused slogans an babble ensued for a moment. Then I asked how many ordinary, law-abiding citizens on the street would he sacrifice in order to save that one “innocent”. After more sloganeering, I pointed out that his vaunted government had an interesting statistic about innocents and them being killed by an armed attacker at a mall, a club, a social venue, just walking the dog. That statistic, CDC statistic, recorded that at least 250,000 defensive gun uses happen every year. Under his idea that private citizens should be unarmed, more than one innocent person who had defended themselves would be dead. How many of those 250,000 innocents who would otherwise have been killed by their attacker was an acceptable number? And did he believe that the “innocents” for whom he had such compassion were killed only by stray bullets, and accidents at home? That once out in the general population, those “innocents” he wanted protected became non-“innocent” outside the home?

          Ultimately, BIL declared the CDC was blatantly wrong about self-defense use of firearms because he had never read about a single one (he always discarded the articles I sent about DGU). Thus, those DGUs didn’t happen, and could not be used to justify allowing the populace to own whatever firearm they wanted.

          Now, all that above was just to illustrate that it is impossible to convert a committed anti-gunner (onsie-twosie conversions among friends don’t make for a rule). The two sides are not engaged in the same conversation. One side says, “It is what I believe, and nothing will change my mind.” The other side is saying, “Show me the data, the results, the proof that disarmament reduces violence against “innocents”, then I will consider your argument.”

    2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      quote————————Universal background checks do NOT stop criminals from:
      (1) Stealing firearms.
      (2) Buying firearms without a background check from accomplices.
      (3) Manufacturing their own firearms.
      (4) Smuggling firearms.——————–quote

      History has already proven you mostly wrong on all counts. See my post below. Also European countries have strict safe storage laws which cut way down on theft. Some have security alarm laws as well which again cuts down on theft. Again no laws is perfect but by taking your idiotic approach and not doing a damned thing the crooks can steal guns easily out of homes that do not lock guns up and can buy anything they want second hand. Its pure lunacy.

      Although a small amount of guns could be smuggled gun running rings usually are shut down very quickly and its far more difficult to smuggle guns than dope. Smuggling guns in large quantities always requires complicity of a foreign government that is hostile to the country they intend on smuggling guns to. Countries that are engaging in good trade relations crack down quickly on people within their own countries smuggling guns to a friendly foreign country. And guns are not as easily and secretly manufactured like drugs are. A good example of this is when people try and make silencers and sell them. It does not take long at all before they are caught and shut down.

      And lastly smuggled guns usually are very expensive and the average guy simply wanting to buy a gun for his own reasons usually is not in the financial position to pay exorbitant amounts of money for an item he knows he can never take out and shoot or even re-sell without great risk of being caught.

      Draconian gun laws work as even the Japanese Mafia that does have guns rarely use them because of such laws and nut cases in Japan do not get their hands on any guns let alone weapons of mass destruction like assault rifles which are outlawed. The nut case shooters in Dayton and Texas were just young mentally disturbed kids who would have had difficulty paying for or even finding smuggled guns that probably would not have been sold to them anyway because sophisticated gun smuggling operations that have limited stock sell to the high dollar crime rings not to crazed punks that will commit mass murder and lead a trail right back to their operation.

      As far as buying guns second hand from accomplices. When you reduce the main supply of second hand guns by preventing second hand gun sales between law abiding citizens you reduce the supply of such weapons to a mere trickle which also drives up the sale of the few left to astronomical levels often way out of the reach of crazed lunatics.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        “Not doing a damned thing” is not on my agenda. What I will do is shoot the sumbitch who’s trying to steal my guns. What I will NOT do is tolerate your tyrannical and unjustified laws, you can kiss my ass. Feel free to go live in a country whose laws you like better than ours.

      2. avatar Baldwin says:

        @ Vlad…I know, I know, don’t feed the trolls. I can’t help it. If a mosquito bites my ass I’m gonna swat it. Vlad, where do you reside? If the answer is some location overseas, then I’m so sorry for your loss. If it is somewhere in the U.S., then stop biting the hand that feeds you. Just go some other blog to stir up your stink. (Yes, your stuff stinks.)

        1. avatar rt66paul says:

          Vlad, you still don’t get it. Why would anyone who owns a gun for protection from break ins, rape, robbery, want to keep that gun in “strict safe storage” because of “laws which cut way down on theft. Some have security alarm laws as well which again cuts down on theft.” These laws do not protect you at all, just the criminal.

          Remember that when danger is seconds away, 911 will get LEOs to your door in 10 min or so. Locking our protection away in a second location or even in a hidden safe just makes it harder for us to protect ourselves and loved ones. Those that live in the inner city need protection from their neighbors as much as folks out in suburbia or in urban areas

      3. avatar Dani in WA says:

        History has already proven Vlad completely wrong on all counts.

        “…weapons of mass destruction like assault rifles…”

        LoL

  7. avatar Kendahl says:

    My state requires a permit, issued by the county sheriff, to acquire a handgun. All it shows is your eligibility to acquire one. The government never sees what you acquire. The permit is good for 3 years, costs $5, and takes 5 minutes unless there is a problem with your background check. Exceptions are made for gifts between close relatives, rentals as long as you stay on the premises, and loans as long as you stay in sight of each other. Gun clubs require this permit (or a CCW permit) to screen out prohibited persons. Many private sellers require them for CYA. The worst thing about the permit is that it doesn’t exempt you from a NICS check when buying from an FFL. (A CCW permit does. It’s why I made the extra effort to get mine.)

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Its nice you’ve accepted a host of infringements. At what point will you object to new rules and what do you think they will say back to you?

    2. avatar MEDIC says:

      Someone above mentioned that Iowa had a voluntary version for the same.

      The mandatory issue is exactly why I’ve marked North Carolina down on the same list as CA, NY, etc.etc.etc.

      And yes, you are the only non-obvious state to require that.

  8. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    The rationale for Universal Background Checks is fundamentally flawed. That rationale: society can stop criminals from acquiring firearms for nefarious purposes if we control ONE distribution channel.

    It should be glaringly obvious that controlling just ONE distribution channel in a free and open nation will utterly and totally fail to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms for nefarious purposes.

    Look at our nation’s “war on drugs”. Our government has spent several decades and countless billions (and possibly upwards of one trillion) dollars on this “war” and what do we have to show for it? Heroin is more readily available and less expensive today (especially when you account for inflation) than at any point since the “war on drugs” started. Why is that? Because our nation’s strategy has been trying to stop distribution channels in a free and open nation. It is a never-ending game of “wack a mole”. Close one distribution channel and enterprising “criminals” open another. Attempting to control firearms will be no different, especially as technologies (such as 3-D printing) make it ever easier for everyday people to manufacture their own firearms.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      Quote================Look at our nation’s “war on drugs”. Our government has spent several decades and countless billions (and possibly upwards of one trillion) dollars on this “war” and what do we have to show for it? Heroin is more readily available and less expensive today===============quote

      Your analogy is not only flawed but wrong both on drugs and on guns. In regards to drugs many European Nations treat drugs as a medical problem and have decriminalized them.Contrary to the Neanderthals on the Far Right most people on drugs want to get off of them. When an addicted person can get drugs for free from the Government and most importantly receive government free treatment this has been proven much cheaper than spending trillions on law enforcement chasing their tales going after drug pushers who are driven out of business when people addicted to drugs can get them from the government for free. And the U.S. Republicans have constantly refused to fund programs for drug treatment because to them the troglodyte worker drones are expendable.

      Your warped analogy comparing drugs to guns is flawed from the beginning. People on drugs are physically addicted to them and are driven to keep buying them because they are addicted. People who have guns or want them have no biological driven craving causing extreme pain and withdrawal systems. In other words they are physically and mentally still in control of rational thought. Drugs and Guns are two entirely different societal problems and comparing the two problems is pure idiocy.

      Lastly History has proven you wrong, very wrong about both drugs an guns. European solutions to drugs and guns have been far more successful than Americas massive failure to do anything about either problem. When in Europe they have only suffered 2 mass shootings in the last several years and in the U.S. we have now had 248 mass shootings and even if you argue over what constitutes a mass shooting the U.S. is still miles ahead in the death and carnage as compared to Europe. And decriminalizing drugs if far cheaper for a Country to implement and treatment programs far cheaper to implement than what the U.S. is doing chasing their tails on drug enforcement and letting people die like dogs in the street because they will not fund treatment programs.

      Still think the U.S. is the best country in the world to live in???? Don’t leave home without hour bullet proof vest on.

      1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

        Funny, leaving home without a “bullet proof” vest (not the proper term, you know) my entire life has somehow not resulted in my death so far. Or anyone else I know.

        Nice try, Vladskie/Pg1.5/TTAG/whoever-you-are.

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Watching the the multi profile user (guesty/geoff/knute, et al) playing good cop/bad cop with a troll bot profile…priceless. You cant get this entertainment many other places online.

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Watching the the multi profile user (guesty/geoff/knute, et al) playing good cop/bad cop with a troll bot profile…”

          You know, it really isn’t fair or very nice to make fun of someone exhibiting clear signs of actual mental illness (like paranoia), but holy fuck, do you ever make it easy!

          Pg2, this is dedicated to *YOU*… 😉

        3. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

          LOL, now you’re pulling Knute(ken) into this, huh? You mean the guy who confronted TTAG over your own admin-level behind-the-scenes multi-profile trollery?

          You owe Knute an apology, though I have a feeling you don’t understand what I just said, so I’ll settle for the confused dumbass look you have on your face right now.

        4. avatar Pg2 says:

          You prove my point with every post guesty/Geoff/Knute. Pretty comical stuff.

      2. avatar Five says:

        Only 2 mass shootings … Europe sees plenty of mass casualty events, and a fair number of those are shootings. It seems that despite their strict gun laws, terrorists and nut cases still get ahold of weapons.

        And you do basically acknowledge that as long a firearms exist, a distribution channel will exist to get them into the hands of nefarious people, which implies the only way to actually keep firearms out of criminal’s hand is to eliminate them completely. Good luck with that, Brazil’s black market gun manufacturers have turn out plenty of fire arms and it’ll be the same anywhere else.

      3. avatar Baldwin says:

        @ Vlad…”Still think the U.S. is the best country in the world to live in???? ” Yeah. Pretty much. I’ve been to over two dozen other countries on business and pleasure. We have the absolute best place to live. We ain’t perfect but we sure do keep on trying to do the right thing.
        And Vlad…your stuff still stinks.

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Agree, once we lose our rights here, there is no place to run to. This is it.

      4. avatar Dani in WA says:

        “Drugs and Guns are two entirely different societal problems…”

        But guns are not a societal problem.

  9. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

    THE ARTICLE IS COMPLETE BULLSHIT FOR TWO REASONS.

    1. This article is nothing more than a scare mongering tactic screaming it will lead to registration. Sorry liar the Brandy Bill which vets new guns has been in effect for decades and “not registered one gun”. Now lets suppose a certain type of firearm were outlawed and yours was not registered. So what! You could never take it out and shoot it without fear of being turned into the police for having it and if you were caught possessing one the penalties would be so severe it would bankrupt you and imprison you so in reality the registration bogey man fools only the uneducated, in realty its totally irrelevant for the law abiding citizen.

    2. Any Moron knows that second hand sales funnel tens of thousands of hand guns into States with tough gun laws and tens of thousands of crooks and nut cases get their guns from second hand sales so ALL SALES INCLUDING PRIVATE ONES SHOULD BE VETTED NO EXCEPTIONS. The Chicago Study proved that guns used in crimes were on average 11 years old and had been through many hands before being sold to criminals. Just about every industrialized nation on earth has vetted second hand gun sales for years and yes guns are still owned by people in those countries.

    No law ever passed is totally 100 per cent effective but does that mean since this is true we should do away with all laws including laws against murder and theft and child abuse. The facts remain the Brady Bill every year prevents thousands of criminals and nut cases from getting new guns and vetting second hand guns would do the same.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Moron. You don’t understand the substitution effect. Just because a criminal may use private sales to acquire guns does not mean he has no other alternative. I think we can both agree that drug gangs can acquire firearms outside any legal regime you can build. That means that there is no effective way to keep guns out criminal hands. The people who important drugs can just as easily import firearms. So if you contract one channel, you will just expand other channels.

      And UBC without a gun registry can’t work since a private seller can still sell to a criminal without it being traced back to him. As usual you are incapable of thinking beyond the first order

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        quote———————-And UBC without a gun registry can’t work since a private seller can still sell to a criminal without it being traced back to him. As usual you are incapable of thinking beyond the first order————–quote

        You are the one without the ability to think logically or live in the world of reality. If you had an unregistered gun and sold it to a criminal and the criminal were caught he would lead them right back to you in a plea bargain. With today’s ever expanding technology coming on line there are many ways they can find you and prove you sold him the gun. In other words the majority of people would obey the law requiring them to go through a dealer to sell their gun to another person thereby cutting down to a mere trickle the supply of second hand guns being sold without vetting.

        Lets face facts when it becomes illegal to sell guns without back ground checks at gun shows and it becomes illegal to advertise on the internet private sales between individuals the amount of opportunities for such transactions is vastly curtailed.

        No system can ever be fool proof but registering guns, and vetted checks have shown that these laws do work to keep guns out of the hands of the majority of criminals and nut cases. Even without registering the amount of good the laws accomplishes and the effectiveness of it has already been proven long ago in many other countries. History is not on your side.

        1. avatar Baldwin says:

          “No system can ever be fool proof but registering guns, and vetted checks have shown that these laws do work to keep guns out of the hands of the majority of criminals and nut cases.” Out of the hands of the “…majority…” of cases? Got any actual facts to back that up? And unless you’re Joe Biden, treat facts and truth as one in the same.

        2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          to baldwin

          quote”””””””””””””””””””””””’“No system can ever be fool proof but registering guns, and vetted checks have shown that these laws do work to keep guns out of the hands of the majority of criminals and nut cases.” Out of the hands of the “…majority…” of cases? Got any actual facts to back that up? And unless you’re Joe Biden, treat facts and truth as one in the same.=================quote

          Unlike you I have History to back me up on that. Its been very successful in other countries. All one has to do is compare them to the U.S. the comparison is shocking to say the least.

        3. avatar GS650G says:

          Yeah Vlad, Venezuela is a fine example.

        4. avatar tdiinva says:

          Moron, if there is no record of me owning the gun then I can just deny it. Prove I sold it to him. You can’t. And since I am involved in the criminal activity ratting me out is signing your own death warrant. Not going to happen. It’s a moronic argument but, well, you are a moron.

          It has been shown time and time again that prohibited persons do not buy guns at gun shows for the simple reason that there is no gun show loophole. The GAO debunked the criminals buying off the internet meme a couple of years ago when they found no one would sell to them when they implied that they were prohibited persons.. They even tried the dark web and found that they eerr more likely to get ripped off then actually come up with a gun.

          If you cannot trace who possessed the firearm, then backgrounds are useless for tracing illegal firearms transactions. It requires a registry so you can trace ownership. When drug gangs diversify their business they won’t be doing background checks. And when drug gangs get involved they won’t be selling commercial ARs. They will sell real assault rifles, you know, like they do in Mexico? Criminals will always get the guns they need. Gun control is about disarming the law abiding citizens not criminals.

        5. avatar tdiinva says:

          Moron, in your original post you were claiming that calling UBC registration was a lie yet in your response you say it is. Make up your mind

        6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Vlad Tepes,

          No system can ever be fool proof but registering guns, and vetted checks have shown that these laws do work to keep guns out of the hands of the majority of criminals and nut cases.

          Contradict yourself much?

          In your comments above:

          (1) You tell us that registration is not necessary at all. (Police will confiscate banned firearms when owners reveal them and felons will give-up their firearm source in plea bargains.) Then you tell us that registration is necessary.

          (2) You tell us that controls on sales to felons do not work (people funnel thousands of hand guns to felons in states with “tough” gun laws”). Then you tell us that controls on sales to felons do work.

          How do you function in life with so many contradictions in your mind?

        7. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “If you had an unregistered gun and sold it to a criminal and the criminal were caught he would lead them right back to you in a plea bargain.”

          That’s not how it works, ‘vlad’.

          Criminals know if they snitch on another crook they have gust signed their own death warrant, or at the very least, a beat-down so total they need a hospital.

          “Snitches get stitches” isn’t just a cute saying, it’s cold reality… 😉

        8. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          to Geof

          quote—————————-“If you had an unregistered gun and sold it to a criminal and the criminal were caught he would lead them right back to you in a plea bargain.”

          That’s not how it works, ‘vlad’.

          Criminals know if they snitch on another crook they have gust signed their own death warrant, or at the very least, a beat-down so total they need a hospital.

          “Snitches get stitches” isn’t just a cute saying, it’s cold reality————-quote

          Wrong again Geof we are speaking of a time before either party is even in prison and criminals plea bargain all the time. Where to you live in a cave?????

        9. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          tdiinva says:
          August 16, 2019 at 12:11
          quote——————–Moron, in your original post you were claiming that calling UBC registration was a lie yet in your response you say it is. Make up your mind————-quote

          Have your wife read my post to you and explain it to you. Your reading comprehension is laughable.

        10. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          to Uncommon Sense

          quote—————–(1) You tell us that registration is not necessary at all. (Police will confiscate banned firearms when owners reveal them and felons will give-up their firearm source in plea bargains.) Then you tell us that registration is necessary.—————————————-quote

          I often wonder if people like you even realize what fools you make of yourself when you broad cast to the world that your reading comprehension is about at absolute zero.

          Now pay attention I am only going to say it one more time. Registration only speeds up the process of confiscation and lack of registration does not prevent confiscation when a law is passed outlawing a certain type of weapon. I cannot make it more simple than that.

        11. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          to
          tdiinva
          ————————quote————–It has been shown time and time again that prohibited persons do not buy guns at gun shows for the simple reason that there is no gun show loophole. The GAO debunked the criminals buying off the internet meme a couple of years ago when they found no one would sell to them when they implied that they were prohibited persons.. They even tried the dark web and found that they eerr more likely to get ripped off then actually come up with a gun.—————-quote

          All of your above post is completely false. Close to my own home town a guy bought a gun at a gun show and later shot and crippled for life an innocent man trying to protect his own home from vandalism.

          And your statement of felons announcing they were prohibited persons and then trying to buy a gun on line is laughable. Of course if they were trying to buy a gun they would not announce on the internet that they were a prohibited person. Your clearly on drugs today. Places like the Gun List promote face to face encounters where guns change hands with no paperwork and only a wink and and a nod as cash rules and morality is non existent.

      2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        to uncommon sense.

        Quote—————–(2) You tell us that controls on sales to felons do not work (people funnel thousands of hand guns to felons in states with “tough” gun laws”). Then you tell us that controls on sales to felons do work.

        How do you function in life with so many contradictions in your mind?————–quote

        How do you Uncommon Sense get through life with no reading comprehension????????

        Felons get guns because of a lack of a Federal law that would stop states with lax laws from funneling guns into states with tough laws. In other words a tough Federal Law would mandate all states follow the same gun control laws. Quit trying to twist what I originally posted.

      3. avatar David from Mill City says:

        Actually you can operate a UBC system without a firearm registry. As a part of the check any 3 consecutive digits from the firearm’s serial number are provided. That can be the first 3, last 3, or 3 out of the middle, as long as they are consecutive it does not matter. If the check is OK the seller is provided with a confirmation number. The only record retained by the government is the date of the check, the confirmation number and the 3 digits from the serial number.

        Should any question about whether a check had been made, entering the confirmation number into the data base would provide the transaction date and enough of the firearm’s serial number to confirm that it was the firearm for which the check was conducted.

    2. avatar Baldwin says:

      @Vlad…”…we should do away with all laws including laws against… theft…”. Yes, do away with ALL laws and regulations that steal our rights!

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Vlad Tepes,

      2. Any Moron knows that second hand sales funnel tens of thousands of hand guns into States with tough gun laws and tens of thousands of crooks and nut cases get their guns from second hand sales so ALL SALES INCLUDING PRIVATE ONES SHOULD BE VETTED NO EXCEPTIONS.

      Thank you for proving my point that criminals will seek and provide an alternate distribution channel (“funnel tens of thousands of hand guns into States with tough gun laws”) if government somehow manages to close another distribution channel (felons purchasing firearms at retail outlets).

      And how on God’s green Earth are you going to convince accomplices (straw purchasers) to run a background check on second-hand sales/transfers to associates when those accomplices already know that their associates are felons and it is illegal to transfer a gun to them right now even without universal background checks?

      Remember, we are talking about accomplices (straw purchasers) who knowingly, right now, violate existing laws to facilitate funneling hand guns into states with “tough gun laws”.

      At the absolute best, all universal background checks would do is prevent sellers (with good intentions) from unwittingly selling firearms to buyers who the sellers did not know were felons. And in those cases, felons would simply walk away and enlist the help of a sympathetic associate who would not implement a background check.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Vlad watches too much TV. He thinks that cops make deals with criminals to get to the black market retailer. If that were true then we wouldn’t have a problem with illegal gun sales because the authorities would be busting illegal dealers every day. Real life isn’t so easy.

    4. avatar Anymouse says:

      Moron. El Paso, Gilroy, and Dayton killers all got and passed their background checks. They had no disqualifying criteria, except perhaps for unreported illegal drug use for which they weren’t arrest or convicted. If we have to “do something” about these killings, how about suggesting something that would have affected them.

    5. avatar Dani in WA says:

      “The facts remain the Brady Bill every year prevents thousands of criminals and nut cases from getting new guns and vetting second hand guns would do the same.”

      No it wouldn’t.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I dunno, I might expect it to do the same, but I have major problems with all the supposed benefits of the Brady Bill in the first place. WTF makes anybody believe that it has accomplished anything whatsoever? It has been a very expensive excursion into harassment of law-abiding citizens without any benefit. All the claims of preventing hundreds of millions of convicted felons from acquiring firearms are simply hogwash, as evidenced by the near complete absence of successful prosecutions. Attempting to manufacture “evidence” of its success fools only those with extremely weak minds. Thinking you can then use that manufactured evidence to expand the useless program is just insane.

  10. avatar John Galt says:

    Registration leads to confiscation. Always. Period. (To be trite)

    With over a hundred million people killed by their governments in the last 100 years it is AMAZING to watch the demoretards push gun control and confiscation along side socialism / communism…….and watch the gop blather about compromise.

    This election is the president’s and the gop’s to loose. Continueing to ‘F gun owners and 2A / BOR citizens is a great way to do it.

    If YOU allow and tolerate legislation that registers and confiscates firearms, YOU are delivering YOUR children what they deserve….in your name……

    How about this idea?…….NO. NEVER, F OFF!,

    Torches, pitchforks and auto rifles!!!!!!!

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      In one episode of the TV show ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, there’s a flashback sequence showing some of the first clampdowns of the turncoat military/police forces that have successfully couped the nation. Protesters are yelling at uniformed cops as the two face off on a bridge. The cops then up the ante by rolling up some MRAPs, and then two men walk out to the front line with M243-looking guns leveled at the protesters. Then they simply open fire and begin mowing down the crowd. As I watched this scene, my first thought was “gee, it would only take a couple of civilians with hunting rifles from a moderate distance to successfully wipe out some of the turncoat cops and stop the massacre.

      But I guess that possibility didn’t fit into the show’s script writing.

  11. avatar Will Drider says:

    If universal background checks make it illegal to “allow short term loaning of firearms” like familiarizing a new/novice person with an interest in shooting, it kills off the majority of potential new enthusiasts. Formal gun rental will not fill this void. People are much more likely to trust people with their interests at heart than a stranger in an unfamiliar environment.

    If I can’t lend a revolver to friend that has a threatening stalker, she could be dead or victimized by the time a universal background check is completed. She could be dead and buried long before a FOID card is issued and now there is a push to extend FFL Holds for Pending NICS. Restraining Orders are like gun laws and determined criminals ignore them. The numbers of victims killed by persons subject to restraining orders goes up every day!

    There’s a lot more wrong with universal background checks but these are my top two.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Another thing I keep hearing advocated is eliminating the automatic approval after 72 hours, which apparently allows millions of murderers to buy firearms legally each year according to these liars. Problem is, for me, all that’s needed after that is to shut down the NICS entirely, defund it, and reassign everyone who works there, and BINGO, there will never again be a firearm sold in this country, with UBC by anyone. So we hear “but, but, but” from the grabbers, these background checks are so important, and what about the children? Problem there is, if you cannot get the check results back in a timely manner, then expand the resources you assign to it, take the money from congressional salaries, that will be fine by me. But the time limit must not be extended, remember that our opponents do not negotiate in good faith.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Another thing I keep hearing advocated is eliminating the automatic approval after 72 hours,…”

        We are seeing/hearing claims that 72hrs (even ten days) are not enough to do a “thorough”, “meaningful”, “robust” background check. Of course none of those terms are defined. Curious, that.

    2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

      “If universal background checks make it illegal to “allow short term loaning of firearms” like familiarizing a new/novice person with an interest in shooting, it kills off the majority of potential new enthusiasts”

      And that makes it a *feature*, and not a bug to the side that wants so very badly to do to guns (and by default, their owners) what they did to cigarettes…

  12. avatar DerryM says:

    The IRON PIPELINE [Black Market in Firearms sold to prohibited persons in places like Chicago] already takes advantage of the “Private Sales” exclusion of the current failed background check system to obtain firearms in States where Private Sales are not infringed by State Law. Additional firearms are obtained by theft and funneled into the Iron Pipeline. It is illegal to sell firearms privately to prohibited persons. Breaking one law or several does not currently dissuade those engaged in this criminal activity, so implementing UBC’s will not affect said criminal activity, either. UBC’s will only penalize the vast majority of law-abiding Citizens, and possibly funnel even more firearms into the Iron Pipeline.

    Compounding one bad idea with another will never keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but puts the law-abiding Citizens at risk of not being able to defend themselves from criminal predators and further infringes their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear Arms.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Sounds like a poor novel. Listen, a prohibited person buying a firearm in a private sale should be a crime for the prohibited person, not for the seller, don’t be ridiculous! Would it reduce burglaries if we made it a crime to be burglarized? There are honest citizens, and there are criminals. This variety of stupid law is creating a society where everyone is a criminal. Some states are making it a criminal act to have a firearm stolen. That will certainly reduce the number of *reported* thefts. Try to think a little bit!

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        No, Larry, it IS a crime to knowingly sell to a prohibited person and Black Market gun sellers KNOW full well they are committing a Federal crime per GCA 1968. Both the seller and the buyer are prosecutable in that situation, and both know it at the time sales are made. In States, like Illinois it violates State Law, as well.

        The Iron Pipeline is a genuine criminal enterprise supplying “straw” purchased and stolen guns to street gangs, convicted Felons and underaged persons on a regular basis.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Derry, you missed my point. The difference is the word “knowingly” in your post, remove it and you’ll get the difference. They’re trying to make it an actual crime to sell a firearm to a prohibited person (or “allow” him to steal it) UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. Normal people do not have the facilities to check someone’s background back to birth, but they want to throw you in prison forever due to a mistake, which may not even be your mistake. “Knowingly” works for me just fine, it is also a crime to accompany the prohibited person as he commits more crimes, or to assist him in further murders in any other way, I’m all for it.

        2. avatar DerryM says:

          So, exchange “knowingly” for “intentionally” and perhaps that clarifies it for both of us. If you read the ATF’s statement, they are saying the responsibility to “identify” the buyer is not a prohibited person is on the seller. Agreed that private sellers do not have the means beyond taking the buyer’s word for it that the buyer is not a prohibited person and if the buyer lies, the seller inadvertently puts himself at risk of prosecution. My post was focused on the Black Market sellers who know and intend to sell guns to legally prohibited buyers, which makes their act criminal from the get-go, which those sellers also know full well.

          Unfortunately, a seller who mistakenly sells to a prohibited buyer can be prosecuted per the ATF guidelines for failing to properly vet the buyer. He or she can be acquitted by a trial Jury if his/her Defense attorney can convince a Jury that the seller made an “honest mistake”. It’s a crapshoot and can cost the defendant a bundle of cash.

          The Iron Pipeline is a very real problem and Law Enforcement does not or cannot put enough resources into it to effectively stop it. Politicians cry about it indirectly to call for more “gun control laws”, but do not call for more enforcement to deal with the Iron Pipeline, which ends-up hurting the vast majority of legal gun owners and can snare the private sellers who make honest mistakes.

          The nationwide implementation of UBC’s will not stop the Black Market unless more Law Enforcement is directed specifically at it. No one is “trying” to ensnare the mistaken seller, he/she is already at risk under current Law (GCA 1968), which is unfair, but a fact of life. Meanwhile the Black Marketeers in illegal gun sales thrive and poison the streets with guns sold to prohibited persons who often knowingly and intentionally purchase them for the purpose of committing other criminal acts.

          I think we are mostly on the same page, just looking at it from slightly different angles.

  13. avatar Derringer Dave says:

    Here in the People’s Republic of New Jersey, for every handgun you intend on purchasing, you have to buy a “Permit to Purchase a Handgun” (PPHG) from the state, is in addition to your “Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FPID). Aside from the multiple hoops you have to jump through to get this permit (see details below), the worst part is that this PPHG is also a “Form of Registration”, so every gun you buy using your state-mandated PPHG is registered with the police — and remains registered with the police FOREVER, even after you’ve sold that gun (or even returned if you never took possession of the gun because they shipped the wrong gun to your FFL dealer by mistake — that happened to me once).

    This means every gun owner in New Jersey has a police record, and if you’re a gun collector, or if you’re the type of guy who changes his mind (e.g. you used to like pistols, but now you prefer revolvers), or you like to upgrade your guns frequently (sell the old Kel-Tec, buy the new Sig Sauer!), you end up with a police record a mile long! One big problem is that the police keep adding guns to your record, but they never remove the old ones when you sell them.
    Even though you might have 10 guns, your police record might say you own 50 guns, because they don’t know that over your lifetime, you sold the other 40 guns because you kept changing your mind or upgrading to better models (sell the Kel-Tec, buy the Sig-Sauer, or whatever).

    So, every NJ gun owner has a police record that vastly overstates the number of guns they own, which means if the police come to search your house, and your police record says you own 50 guns but you really only own 10, are they going to want to see records proving that over the past few decades you sold the other 40 guns on Gunbroker? I don’t know the answer to that! I keep my tax records for six years, but do I have to keep my gun sales records for an entire LIFETIME? Most of my records are electronic, otherwise my home would be full of filing cabinets, but will the government accept emails from your Gunbroker sales as proof that you sold the guns? When you sell guns through Gunbroker, you ship the gun to the FFL dealer in the buyer’s state, and the FFL dealer does the background check, so you (the individual seller) don’t have any Form 4473 record of the background check, no proof that you sold it! The buyer has the Form 4473, but you, the seller, don’t have the 4473. Do you have to keep copies of the FFL from the buyer’s FFL dealer, and if so, for how many weeks/months/years/decades?

    It’s bad enough that obtaining a New Jersey Permit to Purchase a Handgun (PPHG) require jumping through lots of flaming hoops:
    fingerprints, letters of reference, background checks, and two in-person visits to your town hall during a limited four-hour window (from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays or something like that) on a weekday making you miss two days of work every time you want to purchase a handgun ( because commuting to work in New Jersey takes hours, so having to go to town hall between 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. means missing a day of work to apply for the permit, and missing another day to pick it up MONTHS LATER when it’s finally approved!)

    It’s even worse that the “Permit to Purchase a handgun” expires in 90 days. But the state uses it as a “registration” form for your handguns, and they only add handguns to your police record but never remove them from your record, ever!

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Canada spent a couple of million dollars on a gun registry that was wildly inaccurate and a total failure. Imagine how costly a US registry would be. It would cost billions and be as in effective as Canada’s failed system

  14. avatar DDay says:

    Charles Cooke is among the best 2A writers in the country. A great, factual writer.

  15. avatar Sam I Am says:

    There should be zero discussion regarding UBC, or anything like it. Not with nobody, not for no reason.

    Political reality: the power of democracy (mob rule) is irresistible; we will have UBC imposed.

    Debate reality: there is nothing that can make UBC achieve its advertised goal (which is different from its real goal). Might as well argue over how many Angels can dance on the head of a thumbtack.

    Don’t compromise with people who “support” UBC – refuse to discuss the matter (uncompromisingly refuse).

  16. avatar GS650G says:

    The registry is a big part of it. The criminalization of gun owners for the myriad of infractions is another since list of people can be compiled who are banned. There is a huge information system just waiting to be deployed as soon as they get what they need to populate it.

  17. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    Vlad can move.We may have a gun culture but that is what built the country and if guns go here, even if it just eliminating semi-automatics which the latest Democratic proposal would do, freedom will disappear too and the U.N. will be running things. Machiavelli said, in Discourses, “The demise of the armed citizen meant the end of civic virtue and with it the end of the people’s control over their destiny”. Just ask the people of Venezuela. Or as Cesare Beccaria in “on Crimes and Punishment”, “False is the idea utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes”. And to paraphrase Ben Franklin,those who surrender freedom for a little safety will not get or deserve either. Again, ask the people of Venezuela. Vlad, ole buddy Europeans are accustomed to living in the total control of a government which is one reason Brits are called subjects and we are called CITIZENS and if you think that is no longer true about Europe what in Sam Hill is the European Union, based in Brussels, and persuaded the Swiss of all people to surrender a considerable degree of their freedom to Brussels in the form of gun control with their firearm records now now in the hands of foreigners EVEN THOUGH SWITZERLAND IS NOT A MEMBER OF THE E.U. Now, son, give me a philosophical reason why a law abiding citizenry should be disarmed. Freedom can have a cost and if think about it amendments 4 through 8, important as they are to our liberty have a cost. Oh, if you are going to disparage firearms ownership what is your intention toward the killers of many more souls than guns, “Planned Parenthood”? What a misnomer, “PLANNED”!! God!!

  18. avatar SoCalJack says:

    The FBI put out an RFP for a social media tool:
    https://wjla.com/news/nation-world/fbi-seeks-tools-to-monitor-social-media-detect-mass-shooters-before-they-strike
    About damn time they’re asking for such a tool. But hey, moving at the speed of government. Hopefully the Dem Politicians won’t slow the funding of the effort due to thier focus on gun control.

  19. avatar Auxwood_rebel says:

    Given the original intent of 2A, has anyone ever argued a conflict of interest with the government implementing gun control? It’s almost as if “shall not be infringed” was put there for a purpose…

  20. avatar aircooled says:

    Looks like everybody is missing the forest for the trees. The gun banners only need 2 things to eliminate legal firearm ownership in 1 or 2 generations.
    1) Mandate UBCs. Force all legal private transactions through NICS.
    2) Elimination of the time limit for NICS processing.
    The plan is obvious. Use the current crisis to get UBS. Use a future crisis to eliminate the NICS time limit. Then next Democrat President directs the ATF to destaff the NICS processing division. Wait 1 generation for the original purchasers to die and then, buy definition, all firearms are contraband.
    UBC’s may seem innocuous to some, but is the most critical law the gun banners need to complete their agenda

  21. avatar Mike B in WI says:

    There is one mass shooting in Brookfield, WI just outside Milwaukee in 2012 that was perpetrated by someone who purchased the handgun from a private party based on an armslist add. Three people were killed, including the shooter’s estranged wife, plus the shooter killed himself. Three killed means this event does not meet the FBI’s definition of a mass shooting, but it is listed as one on many web sites.
    The wife had received a restraining order only a couple weeks prior to the shooting, which made the shooter a prohibited person for purchasing a firearm. He purchased the firearm after the restraining order was issued. That also shows the true value of a restraining order to protect life.
    That is the only “mass shooting” of which I am aware where a privately purchased firearm was used.

  22. avatar Buster Hymen says:

    Everything is turning pretty tribal. History has taught us that even the greatest civilizations fall, is this what we are starting to witness? How scared should we be? Is it time we start masturbating profusely? Oh wait… that’s already being done.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “History has taught us that even the greatest civilizations fall, is this what we are starting to witness?”

      All empires end. We are seeing what the dying looks like before the history books print the story.

  23. avatar Mack The Knife says:

    So, you people have finally woke up to the purpose of the universal background check? Damn you are slow!!!!

  24. avatar Red says:

    Universal Backgrounds Checks will eventually yield a de facto federal gun registry.

    They should be opposed on that ground alone, as that is the biggest objection.

  25. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    Socialism is just a new word for slavery- slaves were provided with free room and board and whatever free education level was deemed appropriate by their “intellectually superior” masters. They were even provided with jobs suited to their skills (as identified by their “superiors”). Slaves aren’t allowed to have guns….

  26. avatar Chuck says:

    UBC’s, ERPO’s and every other phoney panacea will fail like every piece of Gun Legislation on the books has failed to reduce criminal acts committed with firearms. This is why, regardless of what they say, the end goal is Total Civilian Disarmament and Forced Confiscation of all Firearms. That’s their Socialist Utopian dream world the Left wants to see. When that fails, they’ll dream up some other “cause” as a balm for the masses, while one by one our Civil Rights are removed. There are those right now, including a number of the shit at the bottom of the Septic Tank 2020 candidates that already believe and have stated that speech, especially Conservative and Constitutional speech should be restricted. Where’s the outcry over that? The main stream media won’t speak out against it, but they sold their souls for 30 pieces of silver when they joined the primary antagonist that walks among us. Ol’ Joe Goebbals would be right proud of the current propagandists the media uses. Fox joined the rank and file as soon as Disney bought them up, so don’t expect any relief or support from that crew any longer, nor the truth either.
    We won’t have to worry about Federal Confiscations, since State by State we’ll be disarmed either through legisative efforts or our State Police, whose prime purpose is still to carry out the gubernatorial will. Sure, we might have a few States that will be hold outs, but when the new Amendments are issued forth, ratification will occur because there won’t be enough free States to prevent the ratification. In the face of the oppression the free States will be confronted with at every level, they’ll inevitably fall as well.
    Momentous times folks, as our Republic is facing a greater crisis than we faced in 1861. It remains to be seen if we can step far enough back from the brink of the crisis we’re facing in time. Even if we do manage a big enough step, we may still see a number of States secede from the Union (although the loss of Commiefornia may be more of a blessing than a loss). Here in Colorado, we’ve watched as Denver and its satellites have near complete control of the State, and as a result the smaller commuities have been effectively silenced by the Kremlin’s Branch Office. ERPO legislation passed without the support of the non Denver districts, as well as the move to give the Electoral Votes as a winner take all, thus ensuring that Colorado’s votes are decided by Commiefornia and not the residents of the State.
    We’ve decisions to make people as to whether or not we support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies including our domestic ones. The time comes when we either nut up or shut up.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “UBC’s, ERPO’s and every other phoney panacea will fail like every piece of Gun Legislation on the books has failed to reduce criminal acts committed with firearms.”

      One must think of Gulliver, and that famous drawing of him and the Lilliputians.

  27. avatar Aleric says:

    The Left pass massive numbers of gun laws then refuse to enforce or follow sentencing guidelines when it comes to minorities using these guns in crimes.

  28. avatar Bruce Clark says:

    Haven’t you all figured it out yet? Does someone have to come up to you with a 10 pound hammer and hit you in the head before you understand what’s going on? This isn’t about infringement of anyone’s rights to keep and bear arms, it’s all about another sizable tax that the federal and state governments can steal from the ignorant masses by wrapping it up as something else and putting a pretty bow on it. Those that we have given privilege to lead us are running amok drunk with power looking for another scorce of income from the “Great unwashed”. They couldn’t give a rats-ass about public safety, it’s all about the money folks. Just like Obama Care, which was the single largest tax ever imposed on “We The People” disguised as Health Care. I never paid for it like I’ll never pay for their Universal Background bullshit. DEFINITION: Gun Control. Nothing to do with GUNS, everything to do with CONTROL. Wake up and smell the coffee imbeciles…

    1. avatar Bruce Clark says:

      What you’re witnessing is the gradual end to this once great republic. Which is been going on since the 1970’s. Eventually we as a nation will split up into several waring factions that will control several geographic regional areas. All those that think alike will occupy the area that they most identify with. ANYONE who disagrees with the dogma of the area they currently live in will at first be allowed free safe passage to an area more suited to their personal beliefs. After a grace period you will be forced to get on board with the ideology of where you settle. A sizable portion of the population will want life as it once was in this country to continue and will settle in the area that promises such a life. Where laws will be enforced as it should be. After the grace period ends there will no longer be any immigration allowed. At least 50% of the population made up with predominantly a white population will be in the “Life as it once was” state. The rest of the population will spread out in “states” based on theit ethnic origins or ideological beliefs. I can see this country breaking up into at least 10 “states” instead of the current 50 states we now have. That is the only way we will ever solve the problems that exist in this country. I personally welcome such a change.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        Heinrich Himmler would have put you in charge of his concentration camps but for only the fact that too many U.S. Servicemen fought to keep people like you from ever taking over this country.

        1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          “Heinrich Himmler would have put VLAD (the Impaler) TEPES in charge of his concentration camps but for only the fact that too many U.S. Servicemen fought to keep people like VLAD TEPES from ever taking over this country.”

          FIFY

        2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          Shallnot BeInfringed says:
          quote————————————At least 50% of the population made up with predominantly a white population will be in the “Life as it once was” state. The rest of the population will spread out in “states” based on theit ethnic origins or ideological beliefs.————–quote

          Your post advocated what Hitler did and ranted about and that is what WWII vets fought against , people like you, whether they lived in Nazi Germany or were home grown U.S. Nazis like you. There is no place in this country for Charlottsville torch bearing Nazi’s that agree with everything you just posted.

        3. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          Now that is priceless… especially coming from someone who constantly upbraids others for their lack of reading comprehension!

          First off, you quote words I did not write and attribute them to me, demonstrating that your attention span is shorter than that of a gnat. Secondly, your complete and total lack of reading comprehension means that you didn’t even realize I quoted your exact words and simply changed the subject to YOU, Vlad the Imposter, rather than the previous poster (who, by the way, made a lot of sense.)

          I advocated for absolutely nothing, and I never even mentioned Hitler – where’s that vaunted “reading comprehension” you’re so proud of? All I did was point out that you and your ilk are domestic enemies of this country, as well as its Constitution & Bill of Rights. But then, you wouldn’t understand rights if one of them bit you on the ass, despite that fact that (what passes for) your brains are kept there.

          U.S. servicemen have fought for centuries to retain the freedoms which our Constitution was intended to provide… yet you’re too stupid to realize that you’re on the wrong side of truth and freedom. You ARE the enemy.

          Truly an idiot of the highest caliber. (Caliber, get it? I’m still discussing guns! LOL)

  29. avatar Redbonejohn says:

    Multifire / automatic weapons are a must to keep for the private citizen, to defend themselves against the event of leftist radical communistic (armed mercenaries) takeover of the government of this country. Too many people (veterans) have given their lives and sometimes their fortune to keep this country free of tyrannical rulers that keep even the moderate and lowest wage earner’s under political influence and power. Democrats will continually keep addressing laws that prohibit certain types of Ammunition, clips, until all ammo will be bought on black market along with other accessories. Solution to lone wolf attacks, Allow the individual to have and carry a gun, eliminate gun free zones, Evaluate adolescents with tendencies to demonstrate hate to their peers and LEAVE it on their profile as such into adult hood. Reopen more of the mental health clinics that were in operation in the last century.

    1. avatar Bruce Clark says:

      Redbonejohn, I agree. Every law abiding citizen over the age of 21 years should have access to a fully automatic weapon for fighting for freedom if necessary. But by access I don’t mean in their personal possession at all times. Switzerland does it and also requires everyone over the age of 18 years of mandatory military training in service to their country, with lifetime periodical training with automatic weapons. As does Israel. The Democrat party is bygone political party in this country though, and I refuse to refer to them as such. They are in the Socialist phase of becoming Communists and to refer to them in any other vernacular is dangerous and a disservice to the readers here. We gave up our GOD given RIGHTS to automatic firearms in 1936 based on the criminals at the time having access to them just as the politician’s today are trying to use the same excuse to disarm us today. The politician’s today are basing their hysteria on the infantizmol percentage of murders committed by mass murderers just as it was once back in the 1920’s and 1930’s. 100 people killed every year by the monsters in our society out of a population 330 million people isn’t even a measurable percentage. And over all gun deaths in this country are skewed by suicides, justifiable self defense, and cops killing the monsters that would eventually do the mass killing. That brackets it down to the gang on gang gun murders, which account for 8 to 9 thousand a year which is an infantizmol amount of people based on our population also. More people die each year in this country due to fists and baseball bats than semi-auto rifles.

      1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

        Your living in the past, not only has Switzerland tightened up on its gun laws in recent years but it has declared it will now come on line with all of the gun control laws of the Nato Countries.

        In 2006, the champion Swiss skier Corrinne Rey-Bellet and her brother were murdered by Corinne’s estranged husband, who shot them with his old militia rifle before killing himself.

        Since that incident, gun laws concerning army weapons have tightened. Although it is still possible for a former soldier to buy his firearm after he finishes military service, he must provide a justification for keeping the weapon and apply for a permit.

        When I meet Mathias, a PhD student and serving officer, at his apartment in a snowy suburb of Zurich, I realise the rules have got stricter than I imagined. Mathias keeps his army pistol in the guest room of his home, in a desk drawer hidden under the printer paper. It is a condition of the interview that I don’t give his surname or hint at his address.

        “I do as the army advises and I keep the barrel separately from my pistol,” he explains seriously. “I keep the barrel in the basement so if anyone breaks into my apartment and finds the gun, it’s useless to them.”

        He shakes out the gun holster. “And we don’t get bullets any more,” he adds. “The Army doesn’t give ammunition now – it’s all kept in a central arsenal.” This measure was introduced by Switzerland’s Federal Council in 2007.

        Mathias carefully puts away his pistol and shakes his head firmly when I ask him if he feels safer having a gun at home, explaining that even if he had ammunition, he would not be allowed to use it against an intruder.

        How to buy a gun in Switzerland
        Heavy machine guns and automatic weapons are banned, as are silencers
        In most cases the buyer needs a weapon acquisition permit, issued by the cantonal police
        This will be refused if the applicant has a criminal record, an addiction or a psychiatric problem
        A special permit is needed to carry a gun in public – and is usually issued only to people who work in security, once they have passed theoretical and practical exams
        Twenty-six thousand guns were sold legally in Switzerland in 2012 to sportsmen, hunters and collectors
        Swissinfo: Give me a Kalashnikov

        1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          Blah, blah, blah…. No one reads your copy-and-paste bullshit, you know.

        2. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

          Shallnot BeInfringed says:
          August 17, 2019 at 21:39
          Blah, blah, blah…. No one reads your copy-and-paste bullshit, you know.————-quote

          You do not read it because you wish to remain ignorant for life but educated people do indeed read my posts, they all may not agree with me but they are aware of both sides of the debate. You were never taught the basics of education i.e. you were taught “what to think” not “how to think”.

        3. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          “You were never taught the basics of education i.e. you were taught “what to think” not “how to think”.”

          That’s hilarious! You know absolutely nothing about me, yet you claim to know what I have or have not been taught…. Moron. For all you know, I have multiple Master’s degrees or even a doctorate. What else do you “feel” that you know about a random stranger on the Internet?

          And I noticed that you did not even bother to contradict my factual statement, likely because you know it to be true: No one here reads your copy-and-paste bullshit – most of us have better things to do with our time than immerse ourselves in the ravings of a left-wing lunatic.

  30. avatar George says:

    In my state, as of now, I go to the Big Range in the SKy, my wife can sell all my firearms(mostly rifles) to any other State resident/frien/relative that she has no knowledge of them having any firearms disability.
    Having to transfer each one with the fees involved effectively robs my estate of value .
    I’ve sold knives at the flea market too, In 2017 , 400+ folks were killed with rifles.
    1600 were killed with edged weapons. Which one should really be registered ?

    Hint: Correct answer is nether.

    1. avatar Vlad Tepes says:

      quote———————–Having to transfer each one with the fees involved effectively robs my estate of value —————-quote

      Its people like you who are “the problem” in the U.S. as the guns she sells could very well end up in criminals and or nut case peoples hands because there will be no vetting on the sale of your deadly weapons. But that will change when universal back ground checks are passed and they are coming sooner than you think.

      1. avatar Unrepentant Libertarian says:

        Sorry Vladamire, you are wrong again. The black market says you are. I know that you are a Russian Bot so you are unfamiliar with how things work with the criminal underworld.
        Americans are too independent, unlike you Europeans, so that the hundred million or more firearms out there will not be turned in, there by making all your fantasy plans for gun registration fail.
        You should be more afraid of me if I am carrying a couple gallons of petrol than if I am carrying a gun!

  31. avatar Marcus says:

    Socialists , Fascists and Communists have relentlessly attacked our Constitution and Bill of Rights for over 100 years , Now that We have a Communist Majority in the House of Representatives they are pushing very hard their Agenda of destroying our Constitution and our Country , Asymmetrical Warfare is being waged against the United States , Just like in Europe , Pay attention to what just happened in New Zealand , One False Flag Shooting and the Globalist Marxist Muslin Agent Jacinda Ardern betrayed Her country and is actively Disarming their citizens , This is a fight We The People cannot loose ,The alternative is all out war against the Political and Institutional Left ,The Enemies Within , We are one Communist Democrat away from complete destruction , If that happens the United Nations pf global communism can`t wait to get involved and Mexico will most certainly Invade with the rest of Latin America behind them , With 32 million or more Foreign Criminal Invaders already in place within our borders ? We The People will never have justice and Men will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the Entrails of the Last Communist

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email