 |
Each state has a different way of dealing with it. But I can provide a link to the base of which the laws come from. That would be the Brady Bill and the Gun Control Act of 1968.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Ref
(Background checks)
Background Check
(gun control act of 1968)
FIREARMS AND FEDERAL LAW: THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdad
Here are 2 more links to help uderstand the issue we are talking about.
Ref:
Felony Gun Laws - FelonyGuide
Federal Gun Laws for Convicted Felons | eHow.com
Hello again, dad:
The above from your link on eHow. That ISN'T the law. It's somebody's VIEWPOINT of the law. I'll say it again. Federal law precludes POSSESSION of a firearm. I don't know what YOUR link is saying. From a legal perspective, what does "having contact" mean? It means ANYTHING somebody wants it to mean, and that's how your link came up with HIS conclusion..Quote:
Federal gun laws prohibit felons from having any contact with firearms and ammunition.
Secondarily, the law the government is considering won't effect state laws, so how state laws are worded is not relevant. It's the FEDERAL proscription that's relevant.
Nonetheless, all this is subterfuge. I suspect it's meant to show how IMPORTANT it is to go after felons who ATTEMPTED to buy a gun, but were DENIED - rather than preventing MORE felons from being able to buy guns in the first place. I just can't grasp the logic behind that...
Excon
The ehow link was provided to understand the process of buying a gun. It provides understanding as to what is currently going on in many states in a nutshell. The correct process varies by state. In some there is a waiting period and others you can have one in minutes. Again it's the states law that is predominent to the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I think what the portion of the argument curently being thown out there is that laws are already on the books. I don't think the analysis is always valid as a denial doesn't mean a felon attempted to buy a gun because there are any number of reasons that a denial can occur.
Im not against local background checks where the check documentation is destroyed after confirmation. But I am against universal registration. The difference being one has a permanent record with it (universal registration) and the other does not. (background check)
Im mostly trying to dispel the rumors and get to the facts so we can keep the debate honest. Having the information at hand allows us to make informed decisions which is where we all need to be on the subject.
Hello again, dad:
So do I. That's why you won't mind a minor correction that has BROAD implications..Quote:
Im not against local background checks where the check documentation is destroyed after confirmation.
Im mostly trying to dispel the rumors and get to the facts so we can keep the debate honest.
Today, under present law, the application that gun buyers fill out is NOT destroyed. The gun shop keeps it, and that's NOT registration. Under a universal background check, the gun shop would keep THAT piece of paper too, and that won't be registration either.
I'm NOT for banning private sales, or loans of guns to friends, or leaving town (that's for tom)... I don't know HOW any of that can be enforced anyway. I'm for closing the GUN SHOW loophole. From what I've seen, as many guns change hands through PRIVATE sellers at gun shows, as those that do from the dealers..
Since licensed gun dealers are ALREADY equipped to do background checks, we can require that a private sale go THROUGH a dealer. That would PREVENT people like ME from going to gun shows and buying ANY gun we want.
Personally, I'd LIKE that. I don't know why you don't. There are some pretty mean felons out there and I'd rather they not have guns..
Now, there's the view expressed by the NRA that criminals won't go through the background check... Well, if he'd FAIL, he's RIGHT. And, that's the POINT.
What La Pierre is suggesting is that somehow every one of us is a member of the exconvict club, so we AUTOMATICALLY know where to buy guns illegally. So, the background check is only for SUCKERS...
Well, I'm here to tell you, that's as stupid as I made it out to be...
Excon
Here is the problem in what your stating. For one thing there is no provision that I have seen for the destruction of the background check under the universal theme. So to me that is federal level gun registation. Yes I am aware that FFL holders keep the paperwork not the government. Im not against instant checks even for private sales. It protects all sides including the buyer. In many cases guns traded or sold at guns shows can be stolen so without any type of check it is buyer beware.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
To me it is not the governments business what I have in my home beyond those already regulated by a class 3 compliance. Other then that the government doesn't have a need to know nor a reason to keep a list.
By keeping it at the FFL level they don't "share" the information. The FFL holder does NOT have the ability to do an approved back ground check. They only handle the paperwork and the actual check is done by a third party (big brother).
It won't stop straw purchses but you could prosecute for the crime if someone is doing so. The straw purchase is knowingly selling to someone. Not just a private sale. Also I have been to many gun shows and can assure you from the ones I went to that most of the sales are taking place inside and through FFL holders.
Yes, Schumer's plan is a defacto gun registration, and as I've said before makes most gun transfers a felony if not done through an FFL holder. Leave your house and guns with your roomie for 8 days without a transfer? Felony.
All the more reason why there should be an armory
MSNBC, a real news organization, has gotten to the bottom of the push back against Bloomberg's $12 million attempt to mold America in his nannyish image - antisemitism.
To be honest I didn't even know he was Jewish. Is it really that hard to believe we just think the guy that believes he "should infringe on your freedom" once in a while should butt out?Quote:
According to MSNBC contributors Mike Barnicle and Al Sharpton, opposition to New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun-control push is partly the result of anti-Semitism. “Let’s get down to it, Mike Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, there’s a level of anti-Semitism in this thing directed towards Bloomberg,” Barnicle argued on Morning Joe, “It’s out there.” “No doubt about that,” Sharpton responded.
“If he was not a big-city Jewish man and was from another ethnic group, in some parts, I think it would be different,” Sharpton continued.
"Bloomberg"? Really? :)Quote:
I didn't even know he was Jewish
Dude, there aren't just a lot of "bergs" where I live. We don't think about it here, everyone is Smith, Jones or Rodriquez.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
This came from Al Sharpton who had all kinds of nice things to say about NY Jews .
"If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." (Al Sharpton)
Confusing isn't it?
Back in the Crown Heights days ,Sharpton referred to rich Jews as 'diamond merchants' .
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...ond%20merchant
Or Patel...Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Or Leblanc or Tremblay?
No, but Nguyen or Phongvonsa sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I don't usually like Jim Carrey but we should thank him for his contribution to the debate
The video is embedded in this article
Jim Carrey airs his anti-gun views in comedy song 'Cold Dead Hand' | News.com.au
I think I prefer this video instead ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I Like Guns - Steve Lee - YouTube
I think it makes a point
Wow, someone liked that stupid Carrey video? Posted on a site called "Funny or DIE" no less. Anyway...
Juan Williams brings up a good point:
Well, you know family values are so yesterday and who needs a dad anyway?Quote:
"The Justice Department reports that between 1980 and 2008, "blacks were six times more likely than whites to be homicide victims and seven times more likely than whites to commit homicide."
...
Almost 50 years ago, when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, the national out-of-wedlock birthrate was 7%. Today it is over 40%. According to the CDC, the out-of-wedlock birthrate for white children was just 2% in the 1960s. Today it is 30%. Among black children, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has skyrocketed from 20% in the 1960s to a heartbreaking 72% today. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock rate, which has been measured for a much shorter period, was below 40% in 1990 and stands at more than 50% as of the 2010 census.
Come on guys, gun control is not the answer.
That depends upon what question you are asking? Obviously existing measures aren't adequate to stop massacresQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Kids need a mom and a dad.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Kids need two loving adults in their lives. Heterosexuals have done a nasty number on marriage (cheating, divorce, broken families, living together and producing children, etc.), so maybe there is another way to stabilize families.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Well for once we are in agreement, the attempts of the homosexuals, let's call them what they are and avoid being PC, to subvert everything to their warped view of life have thus far failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The society we have is in a mess because we have listened to the namby, pamby views of a minority, in fact more than one minority and tried to accommodate them because they feel "hurt". Well tough, "life", as a famous right wing politician in my part of the world said; "isn't meant to be easy"
If someone discriminates against you it is tough, but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger
They seek inclusion as first class citizens, and the youth are not as weirded out by the centuries of dogma, tradition, and discriminations which has made gay people stronger as they seek equal protection under the law, and reject the separate but equal closet they have been forced to live in.
Bigotry, and the laws that promote that bigotry have no place in the American society.
Apparently none in your family have dared come out of the closet.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Homosexuals are a very small percentage of the population and seem to gravitate to their havens in large cities, those that don't maintain a low profile, which means they live in peace but without us having to argue their issues too frequently. Even our athiestic Prime Minister doesn't agree with homosexual "marriage". We hope you will "legalise" Homosexual "marriage" then they will migrate as most of them did from New Zealand when they became unpopular thereQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
As to my family they live in hetrosexual relationships and I haven't seen any signs of them playing for the other side
Since it's biology and a done deal at birth, at least we know they didn't choose to be this way. Many families I am friends with have a son or daughter or niece or nephew or uncle or aunt or cousin who is gay. My sil last year married her partner of 30+ years, and my mid-20s niece recently told us she is a lesbian. You can run, but you can't hide!Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Ideological programming by our school system does not show a real change in attitude. Why do you think that the word "gay" has such a bad meaning amongst the youth ? If it were so accepted and embraced it wouldn't be a pejorative.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
From statistics available it is apparent that a far greater percentage of the US population identify as homosexual than do the population of my nation. Short of speculation, I don't know any homosexuals and am unaware of any in my family. It is possible that the child of a one time siI might be living in such a relationship but that is hearsay. I have come across very few individuals who might have been homosexual in my lifetime and I don't frequent places where they might be found. You may find this strangeQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Must be something in our water...Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I'm guessing they are all around you.
Get past the ideology ,which has been taught a lot longer than the public school and we have people.
Just because they haven't made themselves public as yet doesn't mean they don't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I think it is the airQuote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Well then, I had better get a gun, do they come out at night? I wondered what has been scampering across my roof. I would say the representation of guns in our society exceeds the representation of homosexuals and as an interesting corrolation, you have both more guns and more homosexuals, must be something about that macho attitude
Speaking of macho attitudes, there weren't any homosexuals in India either until recently when the world environment got more accepting.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
This isn't a question of acceptance, it is a question of reality. I can't say why you have more than we do, I haven't heard of a homo bashing in years here and as I say they tend to gravitate to the city. Can't deny there are places where they represent a high proportion of the population but not where I live
You know they haven't made it compulsory here yet
No, the research is clear, kids fare better with a mom and dad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Hello again, Steve:
How CLEAR can it be when I can find research that contradicts it? You show me YOUR links, and I'll show you mine.Quote:
No, the research is clear, kids fare better with a mom and dad.
But, BEYOND this... If DOMA goes down, and it's Going to, do you think the gay agenda has won, and there'll be JILLIONS of brand new homosexuals coming down the pike?
You DO, don't you, because you believe homosexuality is a CHOICE, even though YOU didn't choose ANYTHING... Uhhh, doesn't common sense EVER trump religious dogma??
Over to you, wingers?
Excon
Anyone can find research that contradicts research, but when you get me 30 years of studying children with two moms that isn't geared toward influencing LBGT public policy I'm ready.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Anecdotal evidence from me that includes a lesbian sil's adoption of a male baby is that gays as parents has no influence on the children's sexual orientation. You are born gay or straight and don't veer from either course.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:22 AM. |