Also please explain to how many mass shootings were the result of a background check loophole?
I know, I know, we have to do something right? Look a crime happened, throw somebody in jail, anybody. Same mentality.
Please explain why you think a criminal would obey any new guns laws when they ignore current laws (hint: there is a reason why they are called criminals).
Please explain why you think a criminal would obey any new guns laws when they ignore current laws (hint: there is a reason why they are called criminals).
That makes perfect sense. Let's just get rid of all laws because criminals obviously won't obey them. Let's have absolutely no rules upon society. And since there's no laws, lets get rid of law enforcement. And since there's no law enforcement, there's no consequences for bad actions! You've solved the problem, bravo!
Explain why adding laws that do the exact same thing as existing laws will do something new and amazing then?
Explain how infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens will do something to stop these events from occurring in the future?
Democrats aren't very smart, you have to explain things over and over. They don't understand that laws prevent nothing, that the most they can do is prescribe punishment when a crime has been committed.
Explain why adding laws that do the exact same thing as existing laws will do something new and amazing then?
Explain how infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens will do something to stop these events from occurring in the future?
The only way this could possibly be correct is if you believe that all laws have exactly zero deterrent effect. This is pretty easily shown to be false by criminal justice research.
The fact that you included this in a post where you called other people stupid is pretty awesome.
No one in any of the gun control threads has yet to explain in what way expanded background checks infringes on rights. They haven't because the checks don't infringe on rights. And it's not adding laws that do the same thing as existing laws, it's expanding the reach of existing laws to try to eliminate work arounds.
The reason has been given to you over and over.
Background checks that include gun registration infringe. No gun registration or tracking and they don't infringe. Simple as that.
The only way this could possibly be correct is if you believe that all laws have exactly zero deterrent effect. This is pretty easily shown to be false by criminal justice research.
The fact that you included this in a post where you called other people stupid is pretty awesome.
Sure, I'd agree. But seeing as this bill explicitly prohibits the creation of a registry. Try again.
So did our representative republic work just fine when it passed the health care bill?
If laws prevent crime, then no laws beyond making murder illegal are required.
Did it when it passed DOMA?
Mass retardation, lol.Amazing that this is the first time I'm seeing this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec
No, it doesn't. Current background checks use form 4473. The bill would have forced private citizens to use FFL dealers for transfers if they wanted to follow the law. Which means filling out a 4473 and registering the transfer of the gun. I have no idea where you are getting that the bill explicitly prohibits registry because it does not.
Same reason you did. To prove a point.
The guys that wrote it say it bans it.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...kground-checks-senate-manchin-toomey/2070099/
Federal law already prohibits it.
http://factcheck.org/2013/01/nra-misfires-on-federal-gun-registry/
Republican Senator adamantly opposed to the bill admit it doesn't create a registry.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/ted-cruz-national-gun-registry.php
Boy you really seem to like being proven wrong by me.
Boy you seem to not know how things really work do you?
The 4473 MUST record the the serial number and the gun information being sold. As well as quite a bit of personal info of the person buying it and their physical description. Of course the personal info must be done to do a background check.
However, while there is no official "registry" those records are stored. Indefinitely. Sure the ability to have a program pull an SQL query for a quick access to the information won't be available, but that does not mean the information can not be tracked down. That's how it works today. Did you not know during hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, the major of the city made police go DOOR TO DOOR, without warrants or anything, to bust down doors and confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens? The local government there did that. They used to records that must be kept from FFL transactions to know who own what and where. Much of those guns have still not been properly returned to their legal owners to this day.
THAT is what the fight is about. You can try to paint it a different color and say one thing, but it's still all lipstick on a pig.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina
Go read and educate yourself.
What point do you think you proved?
Well, let's apply a little logic.
You asked a person you assumed was a conservative if their representative republic worked ok when it passed PPACA. The implication being that it passed something he wouldn't support.
I did the same with you. I presume you are a liberal and would not support DOMA.
So if we use your argument a registry already exists and this bill STILL doesn't create one and thus doesn't do anything that violates the 2nd Amendment. So you STILL have no leg to stand on calling this bill unconstitutional.