Why its not JUST A FORM

Voluntarily... not a manditory requirement.

 

But the form itself does nothing to stop prohibited persons from buying a gun. Look at the Texas church shooter. He passed several background checks after filling out the forms, despite being a prohibited person.

 

Nor did it stop the Texas church shooter (who actually was a prohibited person).

 

But it was an attempt to fix the bigger problem which is that not all prohibited persons are listed as such in the NICS database. I thought you guys liked compromise?

 

Evidence for that contention.

 

He's not advocating for ending background checks. He's advocating for a more robust system to conduct background checks. One that will more easily separate out the prohibited people from the law-abiding. Ron, please read for comprehension.

 

Walmart actually goes above and beyond the law in terms of background checks. Nobody is advocating getting rid of background checks. The complaint the earlier poster had was that the current background check system is too slow.

 

Most of the mass shooters in recent history passed background checks, so, no, UBC wouldn't do much.

 

No, it's because laws really only affect law-abiding citizens and only inconveniences us, it does little to criminals. They are buying them from illegal sources.

 

UBC would be harassment, as it would require me to go to a gun dealer and have him conduct a background check so that I could transfer a family heirloom shotgun to my 19 year old son. I agree the NICS check is not harassment. UBC would be. Many NICS checks? How many guns have you tried to buy?

 

Actually, he was. He was anti-communism. That said, socialism almost always devolves into totalitarianism. Ironically, Animal Farm, while supposedly pro-socialist, is very anti-socialist.

You mean socialism that is backed by a rich petro-state.

 

If you don't know what problem we are even talking about you are part of the problem

 

Try to transfer that car you want to pass down in your family without a trip to the DMV

 

Then you don't understand animal farm

 

Motor vehicles are not protected by the constitution, nor is their operation a constitutional right.

 

Are you in favor of eliminating laws then? LOL

 

Of course I do. The revolutionaries (pigs) who overthrew the corrupt government (the farmer) became indistinguishable from the corrupt government(the other farmers) after time. I think it might be you that doesn't understand the book.

 

Most gun control laws I do think are unnecessary. I can live with the NICS background check and other current laws as a compromise, but I don't think they actually do anything useful except as a symbol of compromise.

 

That's not what I asked. You said:

No, it's because laws really only affect law-abiding citizens and only inconveniences us, it does little to criminals.

So why have laws. You said very clearly what they ONLY do.

 

Yes a lifelong socialist wrote a anti socialist book. That must be it. LOL

 

It's called an unintended consequence.

 

Its called misinterpretation

 

Nothing I said contradicts the other. If I had my druthers, and didn't have to worry about political ramifications, I would get rid of all gun laws. However, I can live with the slight inconvenience of current gun laws as a political compromise, despite the fact that they are essentially useless in stopping criminals from obtaining guns.

 

Then please explain Animal Farm to me as a pro-socialist book? I've done my one sentence explanation of it as an anti-socialist book. Or simply show me where my interpretation is wrong?

here is my one sentence explanation:

The revolutionaries (pigs) who overthrew the corrupt government (the farmer) became indistinguishable from the corrupt government(the other farmers) after time.

 

It shows how socialism works perfectly until a totalitarian comes in and destroys it. It shows the absolute beauty of socialism and how it must be guarded thru a democratic process. It is very pro socialist as was Orwell.