How do you know those were all legal gun transfers on an online survey and would you rather go with Bernie's 40%?
Who would admit to a crime in a survey? I don't care what the numbers are, "universal" background checks are ineffective and unenforceable.
I don't know that they needed to admit to a crime in the survey. You are assuming they were all legal transfers. All new guns start with a legal owner but from there it's the wild west. What ought to be done is all transfers of ownership should have a NICS and 4473 filed. This could be done online. To enforce it, any use of the firearm illegally and the proper transfer was not done then the last legal owner could be held liable, if not reported stolen.
gun banners constantly want to increase burdens and liabilities on non-criminals while being so reticent to actually want to punish real criminals. why? because being a gun owner and advocate for gun rights is the real crime to the anti gun left. the federal government doesn't have any power to demand what you want and it is only designed to harass lawful owners
Gun banners like @edna kawabata don’t seem to understand that the constitution only gives congress powers to make certain laws, and laws requiring what they suggested are not among those small set of powers.
yep, and my favorite idiotic argument is this--if we can own all sorts of firearms, that allows the government to ban some of them. they never understand that the federal government doesn't suddenly gain powers with the addition of more things people can own
"No" - US Constitution Why do you people refuse to understand the enshrinement of constitutional rights - necessarily and intentionally - takes certain policy choices off the table?
Why would criminals do this? Straw purchasers won't. The black market won't. Thieves won't. It won't affect the millions of guns out there now.
It's worse than that. Most people don't understand that you don't gain any rights just because you formed a mob to feed hungry children, or to pave a road, or to build a bridge, or to fund education, or to subsidize the electrical power monopolies or form a post office. Equal rights are non transferrable.
Did I say it was a magic bullet? It won't effect everything on your list, but it would inhibit legal firearms (where they all start) from passing into illegal hands. Isn't that an issue?
Why do you people refuse to understand the enshrinement of constitutional rights - necessarily and intentionally - takes certain policy choices off the table?
They simply said that background checks for private sales, which is what you're describing, would be ineffective and unenforceable
Yes, it would be ineffective if it were unenforceable, that is why the legal gun owner needs to be found liable if it was passed into criminal hands and not reported stolen. The legal gun owner should have the responsibility to pass his gun to a person who can legally own that gun, which is not being done now.
Straw purchasers pass a gun to a prohibited person now, and they've been getting away with it for decades.
Colorado has had UBCs since 1 2013. The homicide rate increases, unlike in Wyoming. Where does the government get the authority to limit gun numbers?
In order for such a system to be effective, it would necessarily have to begin with a complete and accurate registry of every single legally owned gun and its owner. The illegality of such a registry aside, how do you propose to compile this "complete and accurate" registry? Would you expect gun owners to voluntarily bend over and comply with a system that does absolutely nothing for them, but target them for fines and/or jail? If you are going to depend on voluntary compliance to compile the registry anyway, then why do you need all the threat of violence to make it work? Holding someone who acted in good faith liable for the unlawful actions of another is not something that will be tolerated by The People for very long. Lawful gun owners don't want to sell their guns to criminals. Give them ANONYMOUS and instant access to the NICS, and they will gladly use it. Give private buyers access to the stolen gun registry so they know a gun they're buying is legitimate. That's all you need to do to close off the vast majority of transfers from legal private sellers to prohibited persons. Besides, most guns used by criminals are stolen anyway, and they aren't affected by your quaint UBC proposals at all. UBCs are unconstitutional, and cannot be practically implemented, nor effectively enforced. And, even if they could somehow be enacted and enforced, they only address a tiny fraction of the overall problem.
Don't believe for a second they don't know this, or that this isn't exactly what they hope to achieve.
Well, to be fair, not all of them know this. They just run around screaming "UBC! is common sense gun control!!!" with no clue what exactly would have to happen before UBCs could possibly be implemented. Turns out, common sense isn't all that common after all.
