HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I was in a conversation w...

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:29 PM

I was in a conversation with a particularly ardent "2nd Amendment Defender" ...

(how he referred to his position).

We got around to the Universal Background Check proposal ... He was absolutely opposed to it as unworkable; "How is the average Joe gun owner going to conduct a background check?"

I responded, "If that's the hold up, there's an easy fix, though I suspect you will find it repugnant. Just outlaw private sales of fire-arms!"

As suspected the "2nd Amendment Defender" lost it ... "You can restrict private sales of private property"

I responded, "Why not ... it's done every day, with any number of privately owned things ... You can lawful possess alcohol, assuming you pass the initial ID-check screen; but you can't take that lawfully possessed alcohol and turn around and sell it to anyone else. What's the difference?"

I'm still waiting on a response that addresses the fix ... other than "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?"

9 replies, 921 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply I was in a conversation with a particularly ardent "2nd Amendment Defender" ... (Original post)
1StrongBlackMan Feb 2013 OP
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #1
markpkessinger Feb 2013 #2
Electric Monk Feb 2013 #3
madinmaryland Feb 2013 #8
Bandit Feb 2013 #4
el_bryanto Feb 2013 #5
Lizzie Poppet Feb 2013 #6
slackmaster Feb 2013 #7
HockeyMom Feb 2013 #9

Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:34 PM

1. Let's go to the instant replay on that amendment, shall we Bob?

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.


No, I don't see anything in there about the right to "sell" arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:37 PM

2. You might also ask . . .

. . . why he hasn't been out there demanding that the long-standing ban on automatic weapons be lifted. On the other hand, probably best not to give him any ideas . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 05:40 PM

3. Ash him what well regulated militia he belongs to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Electric Monk (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:30 PM

8. Probably the one that he pays $40 bucks for an all day training session at the...

Rudy's Paint Ball Excursion!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:06 PM

4. There is an easy fix for that dilemma.

Make anyone owning or wanting to own a firearm get a federal license. Once a person shows you his license, you can legally sell that person a firearm without any background checks....To get a federal license one must go through a serious background check...And make it so that license has to be renewed every five or ten years......Pretty simple if you ask me.. Would close numerous loop holes..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:09 PM

5. Are you serious? Those teen-agers said it was totally legal to sell them my six-pack.

Liars.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:10 PM

6. "Ardent 2nd Amendment defender" here, too.

And I strongly support universal background checks...

I don't think it's necessary to prohibit private sales, though. For one thing, this is analogous to the military maxim taught to young officers: never give an order you know will be disobeyed. A complete prohibition on private firearms sales would receive massive non-compliance, a scenario with multiple negative effects.

I think it's better to open ip the NICS system to individual use, via a simple webpage. I particularly like the idea another DU'er has proposed as a possible tie-in to such a system: a national "Firearms Operator's License." This would indicate that the person has passed a background check, possibly that they have undergone at least basic instruction and familiarization with the laws regarding use of deadly force, instruction on proper firearms security, etc. The seller could use this ID to verify that the person was still in compliance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:11 PM

7. There is no reason the law couldn't be amended to allow non-FFL holders to use the existing check...

 

...system, or NICS.

There would have to be some safeguards built in to prevent it from being used for other than the intended purpose. For example, an automatic notification by snail mail to the person whose background was checked, giving the name, address, and SSN of the person who requested the check.

Just a technical hurdle, and not a difficult one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Original post)

Wed Feb 6, 2013, 06:32 PM

9. How many "average Joe's" own a computer?

When we wanted to rent our condo, we did a background check online with a personal computer on a potential renter. We found out that he was a wanted FELON who had fled the police for an assault.

Individuals cannot do background checks? Welcome to 21st Century Technology!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread