Posted on 08/06/2013 2:41:31 PM PDT by marktwain
I think they’re just as pointless as restrictions on what free men can own guns.
Guns are 14th century technology.
Anyone with moderate intelligence and 14th century intelligence can make a gun.
So long as guns are not registered, guns can be bought or sold privately.
using leftist logic, a background check is racist
That seems better
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Seems simple enough for me.
Even if they are registered, they can still be stolen and manufactured.
/johnny
Not too long ago, I remember how the parts kit for a Sten Gun was being sold. There used to be ads in Shotgun News. The kit contained everything but the receiver tube had been torched, rendering it ineffective. Then some entrepreneurial type started selling metal tubes with a stencil glued to it that showed where the appropriate holes went. Anybody that wanted a cheap submachine gun could put one together for less than $200.
(If you didn't mind a little visit from the BATFE)
I should have added those to the list, but I wanted to get it out there...
Maybe I could elaborate on the corrupt policeman.
But I like the general “smuggle them” line, especially if done by a state sanctioned actor..
That version is slightly better than what exists today, but it doesn't make improper retention of information by government physically impossible. There is a way to do so and insure truly anonymous background checks (and I actually wouldn't object to universal background checks if done that way) but if they wouldn't even go for that one, they obviously wouldn't go for a real one. Since, when you offer them what they claim they want (UBC) without the thing they say they don't (back door registration) and they reject it, you know they're lying. Course, they're politicians, so that's just to be assumed.
I’m pretty sure No. 1 is a flat out lie. Most criminals buy stolen guns from either the criminal who stole it or another criminal who bought it from the criminal who stole it. Oh, and there’s no background check.
The guy who killed firemen in NY state on Christmas morning used a straw buyer.
Personally I would have never let him out of prison after he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer but I’m funny that way.
Because of the many ways that background checks can be evaded, background checks are not a viable method of reducing crime.
Anyone who's at all seriously concerned about crime ignores guns and concentrates on the root cause of crime: criminals.
How hard was that to figure out?
There, fixed it.
/johnny
I’ve been walking around with an unregistered penis for years and haven’t raped anyone.
“I’m pretty sure No. 1 is a flat out lie. Most criminals buy stolen guns from either the criminal who stole it or another criminal who bought it from the criminal who stole it. Oh, and there’s no background check.”
I suspect, but have not checked (there was not a link to the full study), that the BATFE figures include all guns traced. Guns traced are not crime guns, in the way that most people would think of it. There is also an enormous difference in guns included as crime guns for simple possession by a person without any criminal record.
Most people would not count those guns as “crime guns” either.
If we only looked at guns used in violent crimes, I think we would obtain significantly different figures.
Any man too dangerous to own a gun is a man too dangerous to walk the streets. Seems simple to me.
Hell we used to hand guns back over to people when they got out of jail for anything less than a hanging offense.
But even felons that have served their sentence have a right to self defense.
/johnny
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.