Aguila Blanca
Staff
Recycled bullet said:
Nah. It would never work. [Quod erat demonstrandum]
Background check loopholes
- Thread starter cdoc42
- Start date
Nah. It would never work. [Quod erat demonstrandum]
Such a law would absolutely work, just as the same law against murder we've been using since the Code of Hammurabi works. Legal justification for the punishment.
What does NOT work is the idea that the law's threat of punishment WILL prevent the crime. It does not. Never has.
Even total disarmament won't stop human on human violence. Never has, anywhere I've ever heard of. The idea that it will is another "Big Lie"....
What does NOT work is the idea that the law's threat of punishment WILL prevent the crime. It does not. Never has.
Even total disarmament won't stop human on human violence. Never has, anywhere I've ever heard of. The idea that it will is another "Big Lie"....
Recycled bullet
New member
Preventing the crime starts in your childhood- your parents teaching you how to act respectfully for yourself, and for others.
NOT in a FBI NCIC check, NOT in the courtroom when you're a grown man because you crippled somebody 'cause he was rude and your ego could not handle the injury from an insult so you beat him with your hands then got arrested yourself.
When you mature you realize agency for your own actions and words and you complete who you want to be .
When I see an adult male screaming in his car because the car in front of him won't go faster a background check won't prevent him from committing vehicular homicide.
He is unwell.
These mass murderers we see on TV are unwell to say the least!!!
We carry arms because a percentage of people never learned how to act. A background check does not inspect the dark parts of your heart for evil, it only looks if you've been successfully arrested and charged on file.
We understand the whole point of legislation or prohibition around criminality or anti social behavior is probably rooted in a desire for a safer community.
What I don't understand is the constructive ignorance surrounding politics and politicians who seemingly go out of their way to avoid addressing the problems society faces.
NOT in a FBI NCIC check, NOT in the courtroom when you're a grown man because you crippled somebody 'cause he was rude and your ego could not handle the injury from an insult so you beat him with your hands then got arrested yourself.
When you mature you realize agency for your own actions and words and you complete who you want to be .
When I see an adult male screaming in his car because the car in front of him won't go faster a background check won't prevent him from committing vehicular homicide.
He is unwell.
These mass murderers we see on TV are unwell to say the least!!!
We carry arms because a percentage of people never learned how to act. A background check does not inspect the dark parts of your heart for evil, it only looks if you've been successfully arrested and charged on file.
We understand the whole point of legislation or prohibition around criminality or anti social behavior is probably rooted in a desire for a safer community.
What I don't understand is the constructive ignorance surrounding politics and politicians who seemingly go out of their way to avoid addressing the problems society faces.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I had a very long, lawyerly response laid out to the OP, but I really couldn't have said it any better than 44 AMP did. If I'm accused of getting through a "loophole" in the law, that probably means that whatever I did was legal. If it wasn't, I'd be accused of breaking the law.
And just so we're all clear: There is no "gun show loophole" under federal law. Most basic (as in non-NFA) firearms transfers are covered by 18 USC 922, which makes no mention of gun shows. If I buy a gun from an FFL, it doesn't matter if it's at the gun show, in his place of business, or out on the back 40. A NICS check is required. If I buy a gun from a private party, at the federal level, no NICS check is needed. State law may vary.
Recycled bullet
New member
I want to consider incompetence as opposed to malice.You might consider the possibility that, if the politicians actually FIXED something, then we wouldn't need them anymore.....
I have to occasionally avoid newspapers, for example anytime there's any election or protest or civil unrest, to maintain a healthy and even stress level about crime and legislative stupidity.
The absolute worst thing one person can do to another is to cause to another, pain and unnecessary death, and it's happening constantly.
Actually I think it is more of a "only the people on our side are allowed weapons" meaning.
There you go, people they PAY to carry guns are allowed, often with far less security checks than an ordinary citizen has to pass.
Sure, there's checks even deep ones in SOME cases, before they get the job, but after that? Is there ANY kind of check done before they are issued a weapon? I private citizen has to undergo a check that takes months (usually) before they can possess a full auto firearm. What does the security agent have to do, stand in line at the arms room....and they hand him one "for the mission".
I held a "Q" clearance for over a decade, to get that there is a detailed "enhanced" background check that goes much further than just checking for "wants and warrants", what are the "enhanced background check" pushers wanting? Damn few, if any of them, know. IT just sounds important and effective.
Are they going to require investigation into your political affiliations? Your associates? Your bank records?? What your ex-wife says about you??
THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE, and so they cannot tell the people who will be expected to run those checks what to do, what to look at, or for, and what to ignore (fwiw I've had actual FBI people doing my clearance checks tell me that while they do talk to your ex, they don't put weight into what they say)
My state passed a law requiring "enhanced" background checks to allow the purchase of "semiautomatic assault rifles" (yes the law made that their legal name) also requiring a special training class, and access to medical records. In the years since that law passed NO LEO is doing the "enhanced" checks, because the STATE has not provided ANY guidance (or funds) informing them what the checks are to be. Also no special training classes have been set up again because the state has not said what they are to be (and again, no money for them) and FFL dealers are accepting any training class as sufficient to meet the law. And as far as I know, to date, the state has not demanded access to medical (mental health) records, and generally DRs and med professionals are unaware of that requirement of the law.
I expect when the state does get around to demanding them there will be a legal fecal storm of tremendous proportions. I sincerely hope so.
Point here is the people yelling for background checks have put full faith and creedence in a LIE, and most simply refuse to believe they have or see reality for what it actually is.
Sure, there's checks even deep ones in SOME cases, before they get the job, but after that? Is there ANY kind of check done before they are issued a weapon? I private citizen has to undergo a check that takes months (usually) before they can possess a full auto firearm. What does the security agent have to do, stand in line at the arms room....and they hand him one "for the mission".
I held a "Q" clearance for over a decade, to get that there is a detailed "enhanced" background check that goes much further than just checking for "wants and warrants", what are the "enhanced background check" pushers wanting? Damn few, if any of them, know. IT just sounds important and effective.
Are they going to require investigation into your political affiliations? Your associates? Your bank records?? What your ex-wife says about you??
THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE, and so they cannot tell the people who will be expected to run those checks what to do, what to look at, or for, and what to ignore (fwiw I've had actual FBI people doing my clearance checks tell me that while they do talk to your ex, they don't put weight into what they say)
My state passed a law requiring "enhanced" background checks to allow the purchase of "semiautomatic assault rifles" (yes the law made that their legal name
) also requiring a special training class, and access to medical records. In the years since that law passed NO LEO is doing the "enhanced" checks, because the STATE has not provided ANY guidance (or funds) informing them what the checks are to be. Also no special training classes have been set up again because the state has not said what they are to be (and again, no money for them) and FFL dealers are accepting any training class as sufficient to meet the law. And as far as I know, to date, the state has not demanded access to medical (mental health) records, and generally DRs and med professionals are unaware of that requirement of the law.I expect when the state does get around to demanding them there will be a legal fecal storm of tremendous proportions. I sincerely hope so.
Point here is the people yelling for background checks have put full faith and creedence in a LIE, and most simply refuse to believe they have or see reality for what it actually is.
Recycled bullet
New member
An honest accounting is seen as oppression for those accustomed to double standards.There you go, people they PAY to carry guns are allowed, often with far less security checks than an ordinary citizen has to pass.
Sure, there's checks even deep ones in SOME cases, before they get the job, but after that? Is there ANY kind of check done before they are issued a weapon? I private citizen has to undergo a check that takes months (usually) before they can possess a full auto firearm. What does the security agent have to do, stand in line at the arms room....and they hand him one "for the mission".
I held a "Q" clearance for over a decade, to get that there is a detailed "enhanced" background check that goes much further than just checking for "wants and warrants", what are the "enhanced background check" pushers wanting? Damn few, if any of them, know. IT just sounds important and effective.
Are they going to require investigation into your political affiliations? Your associates? Your bank records?? What your ex-wife says about you??
THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE, and so they cannot tell the people who will be expected to run those checks what to do, what to look at, or for, and what to ignore (fwiw I've had actual FBI people doing my clearance checks tell me that while they do talk to your ex, they don't put weight into what they say)
My state passed a law requiring "enhanced" background checks to allow the purchase of "semiautomatic assault rifles" (yes the law made that their legal name
I expect when the state does get around to demanding them there will be a legal fecal storm of tremendous proportions. I sincerely hope so.
Point here is the people yelling for background checks have put full faith and creedence in a LIE, and most simply refuse to believe they have or see reality for what it actually is.
So what if this person bought a fire arm for someone who IS legally able to own a fire arm but they just don't want to buy from a gun store? (doesn't want to do the paperwork and be on the government's list of people who own guns)
I always heard this was illegal too, unless the person selling the gun had not been asked by the guy buying it to go down to the gun store and buy whatever model he is wanting to buy.
If this was not illegal, it would come in handy cause buying exactly what you are looking for sometimes is not available or cannot be found when only doing FTF purchases
.
Last edited: