SmarterthanYou
rebel
you do understand that private sales were specifically exempted from the brady law for a reason, right?
Thousands more gun dealers now required to run background checks on buyers
- Thread starter archives
- Start date
you do understand that private sales were specifically exempted from the brady law for a reason, right?
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Out of curiosity only, what is the cost for a dealer to conduct a background check?
How much will it increase the cost of buying firearms?
How much will it increase the cost of buying firearms?
That's why it's probably best if America simply abandons all "laws" (bad people gonna break 'em even if they exist) and go back to the good ol' days of Western Movie Style Justice meted out with a gun on an as-needed basis.
Laws are so ineffective that I heard about one dude that now has 88 criminal counts against him yet he's still running for POTUS as if none of it matters. His followers actually LIKE IT when he gets booked...they think of his ability to violate the laws without cost is a BENEFIT.
So let's dispense with "law" altogether.
My guess, based on the fight against this that it must cost the dealer about $1,000,000,000/background check. It's simply too expensive. And a human life is only worth, well whatever the raw materials are worth.
A gun will be increased by $1,000,000,000 obviously. That will take it out of the hands of the poor who need guns as well. And it isn't fair in America that someone couldn't possibly afford a gun. The Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment with that exact thing in mind: the right of ALL Americans (except women and minorities) to buy as many guns as humanly possible to protect themselves against the government who only has these things:
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
My guess, based on the fight against this that it must cost the dealer about $1,000,000,000/background check. It's simply too expensive. And a human life is only worth, well whatever the raw materials are worth.
A gun will be increased by $1,000,000,000 obviously. That will take it out of the hands of the poor who need guns as well. And it isn't fair in America that someone couldn't possibly afford a gun. The Founding Fathers wrote the second amendment with that exact thing in mind: the right of ALL Americans (except women and minorities) to buy as many guns as humanly possible to protect themselves against the government who only has these things:
The value of a human life may be one of the least uniform metrics in our entire universe.
And America shows that it isn't worth much...certainly not as much value as a nice new Glock.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
It's a matter of percentages. Over 30,000 Americans die in car accidents every year. It's considered "the price of doing business". Gun grabbers don't care unless a gun is involved.
About 2/3s of "gun violence" are suicides...usually a single-shot to the head and mainly old white guys. That's only half the suicide problem. Gun-banners don't care about the 25,000 Americans who commit suicide without a gun. They're mostly kids and women.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
How is suicide even a problem?
Who knows better whether or not a person has had enough
than the person him/herself?
NOT making suicide as easy and undramatic as possible is, if we want to be honest, inhumane.
In a dangerously over-populated world,
religious conservatives do everything that they can to exacerbate rather than mitigate the problem.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
For washed-up, bitter geezers? It's not a problem as long as they don't leave a mess...and most do.
For teenagers, it's an unnecessary tragedy. Banning ropes, belts and curtain cords won't fix the problem.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
It's a matter of personal perspective for sure,
but to my mind,
every element of our world demographic is over-populated.
Except maybe, for good hitters.
Right now, baseball is bereft of good hitters.
I can't even watch modern baseball.
I grew up watching Ted Williams.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
That's because you are a citified Bostonian. Living in the country is a lot nicer. The only people I see are at Wal-Mart.
Dallas is a mess. The ACS Lodge we're staying is deep in the heart of Dallas. Yes, very overpopulated. LOL
evince
Truthmatters
evince
Truthmatters
Good gravey
You have no idea about this subject do you?
You sure seem happy to dig childrens graves don’t you
Jade Dragon
And I'm the one that jaded you.
Dutch isn't a Republican or even really a conservative. He's a centrist who votes libertarian.
evince
Truthmatters
And sometimes he backs libertarian nonsense
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
My team is the United States of America and partially agreed. TPTB only give minimal attention to healthcare and almost no attention to mental healthcare.
Does your team see that better mental healthcare would save more lives than banning guns, evince? What have they done to advance better mental healthcare, if any?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
The target of this shit is some guy that goes to the gun show / swap meet, and regularly sells a few guns or some ammunition--like a reloader--to people for profit. It isn't the guy's means of living, or his primary income. It's on the side.
Where this rule gets into a grey zone is somebody sells say, two guns they've owned for long time and makes a profit doing that. Does that suddenly qualify them as predominantly earning a profit and they would have needed a firearms license to do it? The way this rule is worded is really lawyerese weasel wording.
Because this person sold every (both) firearm for a profit, they were predominantly earning a profit on firearms sales and now need a federal license to do it. At least some pencil necked liar... err, lawyer... could easily twist this rule in this way, essentially making virtually any for profit gun sale fall under it.
Where this rule gets into a grey zone is somebody sells say, two guns they've owned for long time and makes a profit doing that. Does that suddenly qualify them as predominantly earning a profit and they would have needed a firearms license to do it? The way this rule is worded is really lawyerese weasel wording.
Because this person sold every (both) firearm for a profit, they were predominantly earning a profit on firearms sales and now need a federal license to do it. At least some pencil necked liar... err, lawyer... could easily twist this rule in this way, essentially making virtually any for profit gun sale fall under it.
evince
Truthmatters
Why don’t you already know?
I thought you were claiming you were informed about the issue?
I’ll go get some of the ideas the party supports
People who are small government always kill any attempts to do something
Remember that’s what libertarians believe
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...unity-agenda-in-his-first-state-of-the-union/
From the White House
From the White House
evince
Truthmatters
https://democrats.org/where-we-stan...ing-universal-affordable-quality-health-care/
Democratic Party platform
Fighting to have it NOT covered through babble about small government is what you back remember
Democratic Party platform
Fighting to have it NOT covered through babble about small government is what you back remember