Bucks county Democratic wants to close the PA state loophole

[General Geoff]

Its a good loophole to close.

You should not be able to purchase a firearm without going through a criminal background check.

Its a simple rule that outside of hurting your wallet more, it has zero effect on anybody that is not a criminal.

The only issues I have with background checks is that the cost should not fall on the shoulders of the customer.

To the contrary, there should be no background checks at all. There are far more dangerous objects and substances which can be purchased without a background check; I don't see why firearms, which are explicitly protected by the Constitution, should be subject to government approval as to who can or can't have them.

[Solaran_X]

Some loophole.

In 2011, according to FBI UCR table 20 data, Pennsylvania had 636 homicides. 379 were committed with pistols, which are subject to so-called "universal background checks."

Only 27 were committed with long guns, which do not require a background check in a private sale.

[39flathead]

Its backwards thinking to ask a simple criminal check be done for the transfer of all firearms?

Seems like a lot a common sense to me. Sure doesn't impede my freedom. Nor does it paint a target on my back.




I didn't say they should be. But whether or not the animals need locked up or eradicated is a separate debate entirely.



Proof of the bold?

While the argument that the law won't stop ALL illegal transfers is a strawman argument at best (like saying the DUI law won't stop ALL drunk drivers, so we should abolish the law am I right?) the use of background checks have denied potential threats a purchase in the past.

Didn't have to go far through the history of this forum to find one example.

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/209...se-denied.html

Using your logic, pedophiles can use cell phones to text underage children, background checks should be instituted to buy a cell phone.
Same goes for computers.



How you can claim that as a free law abiding citizen, being forced to submit to gov't approval to exercise your rights, will not impede your freedom?
It has been argued that one not have to show ID to prove they are a citizen in order to vote, but yet I should have to prove to the gov't that I can buy a gun from my neighbor?

Where would you draw the line as to when your freedom was being impeded?

None of these recent shootings would have been averted if there were universal checks, none.
This is not about safety, it is about control, and ultimately confiscation, as is already happening in NY.

[streaker69]

Proof of the bold?

While the argument that the law won't stop ALL illegal transfers is a strawman argument at best (like saying the DUI law won't stop ALL drunk drivers, so we should abolish the law am I right?) the use of background checks have denied potential threats a purchase in the past.

Didn't have to go far through the history of this forum to find one example.

http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/209...se-denied.html

You really didn't bother to answer my question about how this will stop people that are already willing to commit a crime? Do you really think that the criminals that are buying stolen guns off the streets are going to care about one more law that they're breaking? No, this law will only do more to inhibit our already heavily inhibited rights.

[mikelets456]

Its backwards thinking to ask a simple criminal check be done for the transfer of all firearms?

Seems like a lot a common sense to me. Sure doesn't impede my freedom. Nor does it paint a target on my back.



ml[/URL]

Common sense? Are you a liberal troll because that term is a DEAD giveaway. Btw, most guns used by criminals are stolen and resold....Many stolen from police, trucks and our own government as exhibited via fast and furious. why isn't government being held accountable as we are? Criminals will get guns...look at Mexico where getting a gun legally is next to impossible, is that what you want? First answer that before you reply because we're heading towards Mexico, china and India's gun laws. Read my signature and tell me what you prefer.

[GunLawyer001]

You really didn't bother to answer my question about how this will stop people that are already willing to commit a crime? Do you really think that the criminals that are buying stolen guns off the streets are going to care about one more law that they're breaking? No, this law will only do more to inhibit our already heavily inhibited rights.

There are downsides to all options here.

Mandatory background checks will not stop the prohibited from buying guns from other criminals, but it will stop them from buying guns from you and me.

It won't stop straw purchasers, but it will shrink the market. New York City is flooded with guns, and they mostly aren't stolen, that huge market is primarily serviced by people driving down to the states that allow no-question private sales.

It's true that there are huge pitfalls to mandatory licensing, but there are also benefits, just like there's a downside to unregulated private sales, and also benefits.

If I were dictator, and I didn't have to worry about bleeding hearts making sure that criminals were locked up in comfort and getting their free sex-reassignment surgery and spots on the organ transplant lists, I'd stack criminal like cord wood in tent camps in the desert or up in the frozen tundra. They'd grow their own food or go hungry, and they'd pray for some dentist to commit crimes so they could get their teeth fixed. I'd lock up every predator until he or she could prove they were no threat, and that's a high burden to prove.

We can't impose rehabilitation, all we can do is identify the bad guys and lock them away from the good guys. That's not what we do now, right now we have time-outs and then they rejoin the melee.

I'd sequester all the mentally ill, keep them in comfort where they can't hurt us or themselves or the other inmates.

Then for everyone else, the winnowed good & safe citizens, you could buy Uzi's over the counter at WalMart, no questions asked. Of course, that armed populace would seriously shorten my reign as dictator, but maybe it would last long enough for most people to get to like being treated like adults, which is only possible if the violators are taken out of the mix.

[iamlazer]

No, it isn't. Crime and punishment go hand-in-hand. If you committed an illegal act, you should be punished accordingly. Once you've served your time, been rehabilitated, and are no longer a danger to the general population, you should be released and afforded the same rights as everyone else.

Who says they have truly been rehabilitated and are deemed fit for a relationship with the public?

So your argument is we shouldn't have BC's because everybody floating through today's public world are all labeled "the general population" and all are deemed fit for purchase of a firearm because they have not been executed for their crime or they have served their sentence?

That is a terrible opinion in my eyes.

But then again I'm pro-Capital punishment and believe there should be no second chance/life sentence for most of the felonies.

You do something as heinous as murder/rape/ect then you should be executed.

But fixing the judicial system IS a separate issue.

Using your logic, pedophiles can use cell phones to text underage children, background checks should be instituted to buy a cell phone.
Same goes for computers.



How you can claim that as a free law abiding citizen, being forced to submit to gov't approval to exercise your rights, will not impede your freedom?
It has been argued that one not have to show ID to prove they are a citizen in order to vote, but yet I should have to prove to the gov't that I can buy a gun from my neighbor?

Where would you draw the line as to when your freedom was being impeded?

None of these recent shootings would have been averted if there were universal checks, none.
This is not about safety, it is about control, and ultimately confiscation, as is already happening in NY.

I can say I'm not being impeded because I'm not? I've never committed a crime. I literally have nothing to worry about.

You really didn't bother to answer my question about how this will stop people that are already willing to commit a crime? Do you really think that the criminals that are buying stolen guns off the streets are going to care about one more law that they're breaking? No, this law will only do more to inhibit our already heavily inhibited rights.

And you didn't bother to respond to my statement asking for a source to back up your opinion. I've provided at least one example of BC's doing what they are suppose to do. Its more than what you have provided.

As what I presume you are a law abiding citizen, how exactly would your rights be inhibited by the passing of such a bill?

Common sense? Are you a liberal troll because that term is a DEAD giveaway. Btw, most guns used by criminals are stolen and resold....Many stolen from police, trucks and our own government as exhibited via fast and furious. why isn't government being held accountable as we are? Criminals will get guns...look at Mexico where getting a gun legally is next to impossible, is that what you want? First answer that before you reply because we're heading towards Mexico, china and India's gun laws. Read my signature and tell me what you prefer.

Ha. The furthest thing. I however do advocate responsibility and as legal gun owners it is our responsibility to ensure that we do what we can do to keep firearms out of the hands of those deemed unworthy.

A unregistered BC for all purchases is the very least we can do IMO.

The supposed bill linked in said article is hardly a pinko commie dream.

Back away from the ledge. Nobody here is advocating registries.

[ForeverPA]

We always fight losing battles. Gun owners have accepted the background check system. It is over and no sense debating it. Having done so you can apply it haphazardly. You can't subject me to a background check in the store then let others buy and sell out of the trunk of their cars in the parking lot. This is an easy sell to the public and Dems are glad to oblige.

[SamF]

To the contrary, there should be no background checks at all. There are far more dangerous objects and substances which can be purchased without a background check; I don't see why firearms, which are explicitly protected by the Constitution, should be subject to government approval as to who can or can't have them.

Surely you jest?? Everyone should be able to buy a firearm on the "honor system" no matter who they are, what they have done in the past?

[nightglider]

Who says they have truly been rehabilitated and are deemed fit for a relationship with the public?

So your argument is we shouldn't have BC's because everybody floating through today's public world are all labeled "the general population" and all are deemed fit for purchase of a firearm because they have not been executed for their crime or they have served their sentence?

That is a terrible opinion in my eyes.

But then again I'm pro-Capital punishment and believe there should be no second chance/life sentence for most of the felonies.

You do something as heinous as murder/rape/ect then you should be executed.

But fixing the judicial system IS a separate issue.

I wasn't taking about today's general population. Notice my use of the word 'should'. I was referring to a world where laws were actually enforced. The problem is both the judicial and executive branches. The problem is *not*, however, more legislation.