Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,651 posts)
29. I will do my best to explain what I understand as the truth
Thu Mar 22, 2018, 10:39 PM
Mar 2018

US Bill of Rights 5A -

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


It is the premise of the Founders that rights are innate in humans. You can argue that to be true or false but it is a foundational principle the Founders articulated in organizing the government. Governmental powers and authority derive from the just consent of the governed people. The people have certain liberties to act, organize, socialize and accumulate wealth as they see fit. Everyone has these rights and liberties until due process has taken place. If you beat a family member or other person, your freedom to repeat that will be seriously limited. (IMHO assaulting someone smaller, weaker and less able than yourself should get locked up or at the very least ankle monitored probation for life.) I strongly support anyone's access to weapons be as restricted as possible if they are by due process determined to be a danger to themselves or others. Convicted criminals are a demonstrated danger and should not be able to buy a firearm.

** We all start out equal but those who choose violent crime can't and should not be able to buy a gun. **

The law says gun sales by FFLs require a BG check. In most states private citizens have no access to the NICS. I favor a federally funded program giving NICS access to all persons transferring ownership of a gun at a local law enforcement office. A LEO identifies the buyer, runs the check and gives a yes/no on the transfer. It would be there for everyone to use. Individual states could make it mandatory but the feds could develop and finance the infrastructure needed for everyone to take advantage of it.

It's fine to say whatever a Congressperson wants to say but if you want to make a federal law about an intrastate gun transfer you will need to do a few things. First, you will need to find funding to add federal law enforcement in every county nationwide to enforce that law. Second, these agents will need training, support, supervision and logistics to do their job.

The real and effective way to make any gun laws work is to get individual states to accept, enact and support those laws.

Obama made a bunch of incredible progress on several issues. However, getting hundreds of Senators and Representatives from places thousands of miles away from each other to all agree on something requires months of negotiation and an incredible degree of leadership. Our whole background check system is less than 3 decades old. It needs improvement, refining and expansion. It will cost a lot.

My underlined italics above are what I see as progress toward a better system. I believe most people are basically good. Empowering private sellers to access the BG system is a start.

I welcome your comments and any discussion. Have a great night and thanks for discussing this.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

not really, gejohnston Mar 2018 #1
Someone who has an FFL (Federal Firearms License) AzureCrest Mar 2018 #2
Well then get them access to the system. Private sales were like 30% of gun show purchases and its bettyellen Mar 2018 #3
States that dont regulate who are responsible for the flow of guns into states that do regulate. gejohnston Mar 2018 #4
The NRA has lobbied to block research- and block regulations. Do the math. bettyellen Mar 2018 #6
no they didn't gejohnston Mar 2018 #7
They only support backround checks with the loophole. And research is not advocacy for fucks sake bettyellen Mar 2018 #12
The "loophole" gejohnston Mar 2018 #15
I dont give a shit about excuses for allowing the loophole- well regulated does not mean bettyellen Mar 2018 #16
IOW, gejohnston Mar 2018 #17
You think loopholes are well functioning? Bullshit. bettyellen Mar 2018 #18
And yet again, the default intellectual level of gun control advocacy is confirmed... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #19
He argued that the loopholes existing are equivelent to well functioning or well regulated ... bettyellen Mar 2018 #20
re: loopholes discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2018 #21
youre actually arguing everyone deserves to have a weapon. Violent abusive people. Nope. bettyellen Mar 2018 #22
It would be polite to take *your* straw argument out of *his* mouth friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #23
The people are in favor of sensible gun regulation- the loopholes prevent it from functioning. bettyellen Mar 2018 #24
Putting your straw into *my* mouth is also impolite. I'll thank you to remove it friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #25
I was replying to the claim that laws full of loopholes are functioning. By definition they do not. bettyellen Mar 2018 #26
"But you knew that." I 'knew' nothing of the sort, and you've proposed no clear means... friendly_iconoclast Mar 2018 #27
Close the loopholes, all transfers require a check. Period. Thats regulation. bettyellen Mar 2018 #28
I will do my best to explain what I understand as the truth discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2018 #29
Gets even worse. Wellstone ruled Mar 2018 #5
I call that the Brussels Train Station Loophole gejohnston Mar 2018 #8
Yes. Wellstone ruled Mar 2018 #9
"Private sales were like 30% of gun show purchases" link? I doubt that.. EX500rider Mar 2018 #11
It is still against the law. Nitram Mar 2018 #10
It's not until we stop expecting laws to control people that we will make progress discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2018 #30
I'm not defending this law as a fool-proof deterrent to gun violence. I'm just pointing out Nitram Mar 2018 #31
The location of the sale does not change the rules of the sale. ManiacJoe Mar 2018 #13
A gun show is basically a temporary mall. krispos42 Mar 2018 #14
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Don't gun shows circumven...»Reply #29