See how it cannot answer a question as a normal human would ? Limited automated responses set up by a programmer. Not even a true AI, just a simplistic bot.
Nothing but fallacy for your Cause; i got it. Why do Persons who are not well regulated, believe they are not the unorganized militia?
Just clueless and Causeless with nothing but fallacy to prove it in the public domain. i got it. - - - Updated - - - Gun lovers who are not well regulated are the unorganized militia.
Why shouldn't a County have a register of potential posse, for comitatus purposes? We could lower our Tax burden by ending our War on Crime.
A very small number. Which does not negate the value and purpose of background checks. Background checks create opportunities for prosecutions. A low number of prosecutions is addressed by focusing on factors hindering prosecutions. The benefit is that they were screened and denied, making it more difficult for them to obtain a gun. You think it's more beneficial to let them buy guns whenever and wherever they want than to prevent them being able to buy a gun whenever and wherever they want? Seriously?! A lack of prosecutions is caused by factors hindering prosecutions. If you're really so interested to know, why haven't you made the effort to answer the question for yourself - to find out what these factors are? There is no reason to suppose that most people - most being law-abiding citizens - would not or do not comply. I have already pointed out that registration is not a necessity, as evidenced by states with private background checks and no registry. As you continue to disregard this fact, I presume it's an inconvenient fact. Because that would not be "logic." It would be a logical fallacy. More specifically, a reductio ad absurdum/straw man argument. Another reductio ad absurdum/straw man argument. But, at least you have come out and said it in plain English: "without prosecutions... screening potential purchasers does no good." So, making it easy for criminals to buy guns would be better - do more "good"? Again, referencing anomalies is not evidence of a system "failing at all levels". Again, given your concern with the low number of prosecutions, it's surprising that you have made no effort whatsoever to find out for yourself "why" this might be - what factors are hindering prosecution. They include lack of resources, lack of reporting, lack of prosecutorial zeal, etc. "Five minutes effort", "small monetary gain"? Purely subjective/speculative. And nonsensical - again, arguing that we may as well just let criminals buy guns from regular sources. You're the one that stated it's complicated - without providing any evidence. So, why don't you just search for relevant guidance pages provided by those states requiring private-party background checks (which I have already listed for you) and see if you personally find the requirements easy to understand or not. For myself, I don't find anything complicated about a law that says, for example, that I have to go to an FFL with my prospective buyer, who will perform a background check, or that my buyer has to present me with such, etc. Oh, so because a law can't achieve the impossible - completely eliminate a problem - it's pointless? Has no benefits at all? Please apply this standard to every other law. Of course it is. That's why we have background checks. Of course there isn't any way to 100% prevent a criminal from obtaining a gun - or breaking any law for that matter. The very idea that it is, or should be possible is naive and out of touch with reality to say the very least, and not a reason to abolish laws - any law. Nor is it a reason to facilitate criminal access to guns via law-abiding private citizen and FFLS. To suggest it is is absurd.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus Gun lovers should be required to be "commandeered" first.
Depending on who is asked, and who is to believed, the primary factor responsible for a lack of prosecutions is a lack of the necessary resources for addressing a sheer number of crimes committed. That means the united states department of justice is impotent to do anything about the number of crimes being committed, and cannot address the backlog even if every prosecution they could bring forth is addressed through plea bargains that result in no prison time. So pray tell what is the purpose of proceeding with implementing policy decisions that will result in more crimes being committed that cannot be prosecuted due to the lack of resources necessary for such? What is the benefit of the risk of prosecution dropping from an already abysmal two percent down to one percent or even lower? More difficult than what precisely? The fact that they must employ a front man to purchase the firearm for them somehow makes the situation better than if they were able to purchase it directly? The primary factor is that the united states justice system was never set up to handle the sheer magnitude of crimes that would have to be addressed; to do such would be an impossibility. Some ninety seven percent of all crimes nationwide, not simply those that involve firearms, end in a plea bargain to expedite a conviction on reduced charges. There are nowhere near enough prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, judges, court houses, jails and prisons, or funding necessary. And the illegal downloading of digital entertainment media does not suggest that the people of the united states do not hold much respect for the law? It is disregarded because it does not match up with what has been observed pertaining to basic human nature; particularly in the united states. Respect and support for government is at an all time low. There is no evidence to support the notion that the law is being complied with, when there is no evidence of the law actually being enforced. Would documentation of them committing criminal acts do more to aid in potential prosecutions, rather than relying on simple testimony of possible witnesses who may or may not have witnessed the crime being committed? Then why implement policy changes that result in more crimes that will go without prosecution? Eventually one must recognize the futility of continuing with failed policies. If the war on drugs is to be classified as a failure, the same should apply concerning felons having access to firearms. The guilty parties face no repercussions for their actions, meaning nothing is being done, meaning there is no point in continuing with failed efforts simply to claim that something is being attempted. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2380/text Pray tell how many of the numbered subsections would you need to cross reference to have an accurate understanding of just what precisely is being said? How many references to federal statutes do you recognize without turning to a search engine? You cannot even demonstrate how the proposed law could adequately address even one tenth of the problem. Realistically, what is being discussed? Two or three additional prosecutions, in the form of plea bargains with no jail time? The available statistics would suggest otherwise. And to suggest that increasing the number of crimes that cannot be prosecuted is equally absurd.
and that study did not take into account the costs of the background checks - - - Updated - - - what I have been saying for months. It will migrate to another board and start the program over
I have said in other posts, there are many gun owners that are concerned about their guns ending up n the wrong hands if they sell a firearm. Many, myself included, do some level of vetting, requiring identification, provide a bill of sale, have a covert means of interrogation, etc. before selling a gun and many like me have declined sales. When buying a gun from a private seller I require ID and a bill of sale and have my means of vetting the seller as well. However, if I am required to go to a FFL and I or a buyer/seller is required to pay a fee for a transfer I won't go through the additional expense or have a third party involved. If a voluntary background check process is made available to all citizens, I would use it, and I suspect large numbers of private buyers and sellers would use it; it wouldn't mean that all private buyers and sellers would volunteer to use it, but it would provide a means for vetting a transaction we don't have now. Those making a decision to sell guns to those that shouldn't hav them or buy guns being dumped that have been potentially used in a crime will do so no matter what. I have trouble understanding why the ability to perform background checks are not extended to private sellers unless the cost to have a system that can handle the volume and one that doesn't become overloaded making it inconvenient and impractical. But, if that is the case, how would a required background check for all sales handle the load anyway. The more barriers and the greater the inconvenience, the more likely gun owners will continue to say stuff it. The moment gun owners feel permanent records are being kept, again, the more likely they will say stuff it.
You could always limit private sales to folks with CCW. Felons will likely balk at showing you ID and allowing you to photocopy it.
I would like to take this time and opportunity to thank those of the opposing view for ceding the point and the argument they could not manufacture for this purpose. There are no "civilians" in the US, you are the militia, either well regulated or unorganized. It really is that simple, except to the gun lovers.
A great example of the government ignoring the constitution. And yet it's been done before. People tend to segregate themselves by choice, this can be seen all over America. We have Chinatowns and Filipino communities all over the US, would you consider them to be targets of racism? If racism were the issue people think it is in this country, the slaves would have never been freed, and the people of this country would never have elected a black president. We wouldn't have black CEO's, secretaries of state, members of government, etc. Thanks for your example. I can give you plenty of my own personal examples of white people sterotyping other whites, blacks being racist towards other black people, and every combination possible. Racism and bias exists in this country, as it does in every country in the world. Even homogeneous societies discriminate against each other in many ways. Trying to suggest "Christian extremism" is even a thing is a far stretch. Trying to compare it to muslim extremism takes you into the realm of ridiculousness. I haven't seen much that you have posted that shows much of an understanding about any of the topics discussed and you are regularly shown to be wrong in your interpretation. This stance you are taking on the Constitution is the most glaring of all, in my opinion. The entire reason for the Constitution was to limit the powers of government over the people. I'd suggest you pick up a book and read that the people who wrote the Constitution wanted to ensure limited government intervention by giving only SPECIFIC powers to the government, SPECIFIC powers it was prevented from doing, and everything else goes to the states and people respectively. To imply that our system of government was meant to limit the power of the people in this country implies a complete and fundamental lack of understanding on your part I'm afraid. Also to suggest that if you are born in this country because your parents are here illegally should make you a US citizen is ridiculous. I have no problems with LEGAL immigration. My WIFE legally immigrated here. To suggest someone can hop a fence, drop a baby, and that we are now financially responsible for that child is the height of governmental ineptitude.
Your link to a statute is disingenuous. You know as well as I do that it's not at all necessary to read an actual statute in order to know what one's legal obligations are. "Plain English" digests are widely disseminated on just about every law, via related agencies, state websites, newspaper articles, interest groups - and on gun laws in particular, given the high profile and sensitivity of the issue. And your example of non-compliance with copyright laws means what? Again, that they may as well be abolished? How about downloading child pornography? Should that be legalized too, given that people do it anyway? This line of thinking betrays a fundamental misunderstanding - yet again - of the role and purpose of law. Indeed, everything you say is simply a variation on the same theme, founded on the same premises: that background checks laws are pointless unless they guarantee 100% compliance, guarantee 100% punishment, and completely eliminate the problem they seek to address - a complaint which is not only severely detached from the reality of law, and only "succeeds" in relation to a subjective standard that (through naivete or lack of intellectual honesty) is impossible to meet, but can be leveled at any law, and is therefore tantamount to advocating complete anarchy. That is, a society devoid of any expected standards of behavior; a country in which our legislators ask themselves, "can we guarantee that everyone will follow this law?", "can we guarantee that everyone will be punished?", "can we guarantee that this law will completely eliminate the problem?", and on answering "no" - as they would necessarily have to do with any law - decide, "oh well, let's not bother." In short, it doesn't matter how many different ways you make the same arguments, the fact that they support an insupportable tenet makes them redundant.
