Feds say neo-Nazi with guns was tracking community leaders

Quote from Dr. J : On a side note, I don't disagree with UBGC but I also believe it won't make the tiniest bit of difference.

Let's then drop the pretense, then. Do you think BGC requirement for the FFLs have made a "tiniest bit of difference"?

Quote from Dr. J : bingo this is why UBGC is toothless. It *requires* registration to have any weight at all.

Then let's add registration to UBGCs. I agree with your logic. If UBGCs without registration are useless, let's not have ANY BGCs -- not even for FFLs. Or, let's require registration along with UBGCs.

Are you on board with that?

Quote from Dr. J : "federal agents have been unable to determine how and where Schmidt obtained his weapons," /thread

^ This.

The idea that the Feds would see this Neo-Nazi possessing illegal guns and conclude that some otherwise honest, hardworking American would sell him a gun via private sale/gun show, and not some Neo-Nazi scum bag friend is not surprising to me, but probably should be disturbing to others...

Quote from TRNT : Will gun enthusiasts object to paying sales taxes on those sales? If >50% of people want those regulations, how would you be able to characterize such as "unneeded"? Why do the majority have to prove to you anything before exercising their rights (of passing laws)?

>50% of people do not want ObamaCare, how would one be able to claim it is "needed" when the majority claims it is not need (and not wanted).

We all know it's not difficult to sell the general public on issues given certain hand picked messages. Everything sounds good in theory, until the details comes to light. Are tax payers (as in all taxpayers) willing to pay for the enforcing this.. not only enforcing but making transfers free and accessible to all? Even raising the minimum wage sounds good until you think about further repercussions. If people had a more in depth logic of thinking, maybe we'd have more common sense public beliefs out there.

by VAST majority the public wants cuts in spending equal to increases in revenue. To many political agendas going on today..

in addition I purchased a hand gun from a friend more than a decade ago.. we went to local gun retailer and had the registration changed. But I'm also not a criminal.. nor was my friend (the seller). We both LCC. I have taken Handgun safety training courses.. etc.. etc..

Would a criminal on a low economic scale (transfer is not free) comply with the same regulations?

Quote from DJPlayer : >50% of people do not want ObamaCare, how would one be able to claim it is "needed" when the majority claims it is not need (and not wanted). We all know it's not difficult to sell the general public on issues given certain hand picked messages. Everything sounds good in theory, until the details comes to light. Are tax payers (as in all taxpayers) willing to pay for the enforcing this.. not only enforcing but making transfers free and accessible to all? Even raising the minimum wage sounds good until you think about further repercussions. If people had a more in depth logic of thinking, maybe we'd have more common sense public beliefs out there. by VAST majority the public wants cuts in spending equal to increases in revenue. To many political agendas going on today..

I apologize for being sloppy. We do not gov by plebiscite. We have a representational democracy. When I said that I meant "through" their representatives. Yes, it is sometimes possible that a law with less than 50% support among the population be adopted -- heck we sometimes elect a president with less than 50% popular vote but that is what our democracy is. (And please do not say we are not a democracy. I am sick and tired of that phony baloney claim.)

Quote from DJPlayer : in addition I purchased a hand gun from a friend more than a decade ago.. we went to local gun retailer and had the registration changed. But I'm also not a criminal.. nor was my friend (the seller). We both LCC. I have taken Handgun safety training courses.. etc.. etc.. Would a criminal on a low economic scale (transfer is not free) comply with the same regulations?

Right now a criminal could use the gun-show loophole and buy a gun. If we adopt a UBGC, he can no longer do that. And that, to most of us, is a good thing.

Quote from DJPlayer : If people had a more in depth logic of thinking, maybe we'd have more common sense public beliefs out there.

most just want to jump on the popular bandwagon.

Quote from TRNT : Right now a criminal could use the gun-show loophole and buy a gun. If we adopt a UBGC, he can no longer do that. And that, to most of us, is a good thing.

We could fix that issue even easier that UBGC. Only dealers can sell at gun shows.. Problem fixed. Wow that was easy.. There are a very very few private gun owners at gun shows.. we're talking about people selling their very own collection of weapons. So they are given the option to go to a gathering where people are looking for guns.. rather than hitting craigslist, newspapers etc.. and fishing for possibly individuals interested.

So let's say I have 10 person weapons and I want to sell them.. Then I must go to a licensed dealer with each weapon and each seller and transfer title. Which of course there is a cost to. But the current and only defense in my state vs. voter ID is that people would have to drive to the DMV (described as an inconvenience). Which was why it wasn't implemented in the last election.

We can't cherry pick the inconveniences.. when dealing with rights.

Quote from Rebound : There are 300 million private guns in America. Don't you think that's enough to be certain that the government can never take them all away? Because aren't the people against UBC really against it because they're paranoid about the government knowing whether they have guns or not? If I buy or sell a car, I have to transfer its title, plain and simple. So why not put the same requirement on a gun transfer? Why not require a background check, whether a gun is sold in a store, gunshow, or just sold to a friend? The fact that gun fans call people who disagree with them "idiots" leads me to believe that they are an angry, violent-prone bunch of people.

It's certainly unlikely that the government could actually take away all those guns. However, they could take otherwise legal and law abiding owners and make them felons with new restrictions. California has shown they are willing to do just that. Is that a good law? Didn't one of the father's of the US legal system suggest it's better to let one guilty man go free than convict 10 innocent men (or something like that). What would happen is in an effort to crack down on the small minority who use guns illegally we would risk making felons out of many people who would never do harm to people who aren't trying to do harm to them. It should disturb people to consider passing such a law once the ramifications are clear.

Quote from empiretc : most just want to jump on the popular bandwagon.

which is how the simple minded typically work. I will actually quote 2 females from the 2008 election. Why are you voting for Obama? response: "all the celebrities are.. and most other people are.. everyone can't be wrong." I actually had 2 separate people say this to my face and not as a joke in anyway. After they fire stopped spurting out my eyes.. I realized we are doomed because of people that think this way. Neither of these people were "dumb" in anyways.. just not politically involved.. So they based their opinion on the majority.

Quote from DJPlayer : We could fix that issue even easier that UBGC. Only dealers can sell at gun shows.. Problem fixed. Wow that was easy.. There are a very very few private gun owners at gun shows.. we're talking about people selling their very own collection of weapons. So they are given the option to go to a gathering where people are looking for guns.. rather than hitting craigslist, newspapers etc.. and fishing for possibly individuals interested. So let's say I have 10 person weapons and I want to sell them.. Then I must go to a licensed dealer with each weapon and each seller and transfer title. Which of course there is a cost to. But the current and only defense in my state vs. voter ID is that people would have to drive to the DMV (described as an inconvenience). Which was why it wasn't implemented in the last election. We can't cherry pick the inconveniences.. when dealing with rights.

You are kidding me. In one post you say even a UBGC does not help a bit (was it you or someone else?), and here you say we can solve the gun-show loophole problem easily? Come on!

Look, "gun-show loophole" is a proxy for all the other related and similar loopholes too. If the private individual who can no longer sell a gun to a felon in gun-show because supposedly you closed that loophole can then go out for a few minutes and sell the same gun to the same felon, what problem do you think you have solved by forbidding private sellers to sells gun in gun-shows?

Quote from DJPlayer : which is how the simple minded typically work. I will actually quote 2 females from the 2008 election. Why are you voting for Obama? response: "all the celebrities are.. and most other people are.. everyone can't be wrong." I actually had 2 separate people say this to my face and not as a joke in anyway. After they fire stopped spurting out my eyes.. I realized we are doomed because of people that think this way. Neither of these people were "dumb" in anyways.. just not politically involved.. So they based their opinion on the majority.

Well, that is just two people. There was a survey that showed 30% or so of Ohio republicans believed Obama was a foreign born Muslim. Are you worried about that?

And do you know how many* republicans still believe that Saddam had WMDs at the time we invaded Iraq and that Saddam was involved in 9/11? Thanks to Faux News.

* Whatever number you come up with add one (1) for Cheney. I can't believe he and his ilk got away with sending 4000 innocent young Americans to their death knowing full well that they were lying through their teeth.

BTW: for full disclosure, I voted for Obama partly because he is black.

Quote from TRNT : Then let's add registration to UBGCs. I agree with your logic. If UBGCs without registration are useless, let's not have ANY BGCs -- not even for FFLs. Or, let's require registration along with UBGCs. Are you on board with that?

Do you believe in absolutism? Do you believe if a law is not 100% effective then it shouldn't be allowed?

Do you believe that some treatments are worse than the cure? Would you agree that amputation is an extreme way to solve arthritis?

Background checks and registration are both examples of laws that cause some level of pain to the law abiding and are not 100% effective when stopping illegal transfers. We have a balance between protecting legal gun owners and their rights and stopping crime. Background checks at FFLs are relatively easy to implement and control even without registration thus the cost to benefit ratio looks reasonable (I say this in absent of hard data). The private sale equivalent is harder to do. Without a list of who owns what a private sale law doesn't really work. It seems like it would be as effective as asking people to collect sales tax at a yard sale.

OK, so then let's demand a list. Well how do you get that list going and make sure it's not full of holes? What about the potential down side of the list? It can (and has been) used for confiscation or or types of forced relinquishment of arms.

The use of back ground checks at FFLs seems to be something that has relatively little negative impact and is easy to enforce. Back ground checks on private sales seems about impossible to enforce without relatively large and burdensome rules. Thus the one probably makes sense because the good vs harm ratio seems to favor good. In the other case the good vs harm ratio looks to have reversed.