# What can we do to prevent illegal weapon possessions?



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

How can we as legal weapon owner prevent illegal possession of firearms by criminals.
Well - Not all the Criminals are protected and often you cant see what kind of person hides behind the sunglasses.

If I want to sell a weapon I sell it to a Pawn Shop or may be on a range. I loose a lot of money this way.
I wanted to sell a Walther PPX M1 about 1 Year old and may be 400 rounds shot with it to a Pawn Shop and they offered me 80 Dollars if I bring the Gun, 2 clips and the original Walther Box that the Pistol came with. I didn't do the deal because 80 Dollars, - Come On I don't do Gun give away -, and placed the Gun in the bottom shelve way in the back of my gun safe.

A while later I came in the Gun shop and WoW there was a Walther PPX M1 without Box but with two clips. No - they didn't know how many rounds were shot through it, but confirmed the gun was in a good condition. The Prize TAG? 250.00 Dollar. Not that I complain about business practices but 250% win on a used gun? Are U sure? I can buy the Gun at online Gun Stores often already for 280 Dollar. Then I should better do that, he said. 

A friend of mine came and told me I should forget pawn shops and gun shops. Gun traders in the Internet and he sold his old Glock 17 for $ 450.00. They chatted and met by Abertson on the Parking lot. The deal was done in about 3 Minutes, driving time not counted.
Ah, - to whom he sold the gun? He said "Weeelllll - ahem Well....... huummm" But he saw a drivers license but welll - .....

What can we do that weapons not ending up in the hands of criminals?
Should we not start a platform for selling used guns that both sides get out with a smile and we know in what hands the gun ended up?


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

There's nothing you can do about it in a free country. But, we have plenty of laws against using weapons to commit crimes, and that's what the goal is...right?

Arming good citizens and prosecuting law-breakers and making them serve their sentences will have to suffice. You can't empower a government to decide who should be allowed to defend themselves, especially when the government increases its power over the people by disarming them. In a free country, the government has to be afraid of the general public, to a degree. Anyone who is afraid of this level of freedom is in the wrong country.


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

If you don't have an ffl and sell your gun online, have a local firearms dealer ship it to another firearms dealer where the buyer is. You can get documentation that you sold your gun and the dealer at the other end will have paperwork of who the buyer was.
both dealers may charge a fee at each end of the deal.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Private sales are legal in my home state. Personally, I would not sell a firearm to anyone who did not have a valid *C*oncealed *W*eapons *P*ermit from my home state.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

For the most part the answer is virtually nothing........

Law enforcement with all its might, money, resources and laws do little to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons(and breaking laws)... Law enforcement usually is there to clean up the mess and arrest someone after the deed is done......

About all "we" can do is never to sell a weapon to a stranger...... Sell it either to a relative, friend or a reputable FFL holder........ 

See also post #3 above..........


----------



## Smitty79 (Oct 19, 2012)

I will sell a gun to someone with a concealed carry permit in my state or someone I have a long standing relationship with such that I am pretty confident they are one of the good guys. I'm willing to sell for a 10 to 20% less than I might otherwise get to have the peace of mind.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

Gander Mountain and Cabella's buy pre-owned firearms. Granted you may not get the best price but it's an alternative. Pawn shops are not created equal so it pays to inquire around.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

If you list your gun for sale on Gunbroker.com, or some other gun-sales website, you can require that the sale go through a licensed dealer.
When that is done, the licensed dealer must subject the buyer to the usual "instant" government background check, before the gun is delivered.

First, the buyer pays you for the gun and the shipping cost. He must also send you a signed copy of his licensed dealer's FFL.
You, yourself, are allowed to ship your gun directly to that licensed dealer. You do not have to ship it from a licensed dealer of your own.

If you do this, you are assured that your gun will be placed in the hands of someone who passes the background check.
If that person then commits a crime with the gun you sold him, you are not legally responsible for his misuse of your gun.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

I think we should have some way to check that the person buying it is a law-abiding citizen, maybe some kind of, I dunno... "Background check?"

Sounds like a plan to me... Apparently there are those who feel that is unjust somehow.


----------



## DirtyDog (Oct 16, 2014)

As an individual, you can do all the thing mentioned above. But as a culture, we can stop criminals from obtaining guns every bit as effectively as we can stop junkies from obtaining drugs.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> I think we should have some way to check that the person buying it is a law-abiding citizen, maybe some kind of, I dunno... "Background check?"
> 
> Sounds like a plan to me... Apparently there are those who feel that is unjust somehow.


There is a major push by anti's for just this sort of thing. But think about it. A law like this would curtail private sales to family members (I've done this), to friends and neighbors, and to hobbyists at gun shows (I've also done this). It would prevent taking your child or a friend to a shooting range and letting them fire one or your guns. In fact, you wouldn't even be legally allowed to let someone examine one of your firearms. And forget willing your guns to others.

The reason is that laws like this being proposed address not only sales but transfers and possession as well. Which means there are a plethora of unintended consequences attached to laws like these.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> There is a major push by anti's for just this sort of thing. But think about it. A law like this would curtail private sales to family members (I've done this), to friends and neighbors, and to hobbyists at gun shows (I've also done this). It would prevent taking your child or a friend to a shooting range and letting them fire one or your guns. In fact, you wouldn't even be legally allowed to let someone examine one of your firearms. And forget willing your guns to others.
> 
> The reason is that laws like this being proposed address not only sales but transfers and possession as well. Which means there are a plethora of unintended consequences attached to laws like these.


I'm not thinking of a WA-style "transfer" check, but a purchase check. You would still be able to sell to someone who passed the test. If your son won't pass, then he shouldn't have a gun.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> I'm not thinking of a WA-style "transfer" check, but a purchase check. You would still be able to sell to someone who passed the test. If your son won't pass, then he shouldn't have a gun.


I disagree with your position on this for a number of reasons but perhaps most of all is that it does nothing but open that door a little wider to national registration and eventual confiscation. I am not willing to see that take place under any circumstances.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> I disagree with your position on this for a number of reasons but perhaps most of all is that it does nothing but open that door a little wider to national registration and eventual confiscation. I am not willing to see that take place under any circumstances.


I was merely answering the OP's question logically. Whether you are "willing to see that take place" or not doesn't affect the answer.

Honestly, it is this aversion to commonsense ideas that will ultimately break the NRA and all who sail in her. Hopefully other more sensible and flexible organisations can step in to save 2A for those of you unwilling to compromise. And maybe then we can stop having to listen to Ted Nugent.


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

@ Sail Design



PT111Pro said:


> How can we as legal weapon owner prevent illegal possession of firearms by criminals.
> 
> Should we not start a platform for selling used guns that both sides get out with a smile and we know in what hands the gun ended up?


The OP was looking for ways that we as legal owners could work within EXISTING law to keep weapons in responsible hands. I didn't get the feeling that he was looking for more "feel good" legislation that only restricts the law abiding.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

TurboHonda said:


> The OP was looking for ways that we as legal owners could work within EXISTING law to keep weapons in responsible hands. I didn't get the feeling that he was looking for more "feel good" legislation that only restricts the law abiding.


Ummmm.... PT111 WAS/is the OP.......


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

I live in North Carolina and the law here says even private sales of a handgun requires a pistol purchase permit unless the buyer is a CCW holder. Not often followed but it is the law.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> I was merely answering the OP's question logically. Whether you are "willing to see that take place" or not doesn't affect the answer.
> 
> Honestly, it is this aversion to commonsense ideas that will ultimately break the NRA and all who sail in her. Hopefully other more sensible and flexible organisations can step in to save 2A for those of you unwilling to compromise. And maybe then we can stop having to listen to Ted Nugent.


So are you saying that to think as do I is lacking of common sense? That I, and those who think like me, are inflexible? I would propose to you and anyone else who is willing to accept so called "common sense" gun laws may also be willing to sell liberty to the dark forces who continually push for those "common sense" gun laws.

What is it that Franklin said? *"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."* I think the gentleman was on to something, don't you?

P.S. See my PM to your PM.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

tony pasley said:


> I live in North Carolina and the law here says even private sales of a handgun requires a pistol purchase permit unless the buyer is a CCW holder. Not often followed but it is the law.


And I find NC's purchase permit law quite strange. I first heard about this around ten years ago from someone I met who lived in NC. I thought it strange for a Southern state to have something like this.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> I was merely answering the OP's question logically. Whether you are "willing to see that take place" or not doesn't affect the answer.
> 
> Honestly, it is this aversion to commonsense ideas that will ultimately break the NRA and all who sail in her. Hopefully other more sensible and flexible organisations can step in to save 2A for those of you unwilling to compromise. And maybe then we can stop having to listen to Ted Nugent.


The problem with so called common sense weapons laws is there is no such thing......

All the gun laws on the books and those proposed only end up affecting law abiding citizens.... There are numerous gun laws and many other laws that will render someone a criminal if caught and convicted.... None of these laws stop criminals from committing their acts nor do they stop people with physiological problems from committing their acts.....

*Common Sense Gun Laws, Ain't......*


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

I'll think we don't need more laws. We have enough gun laws and liberals should be aware of that fact. They behave and speak like they would be no law at all.

But anyway. I just thought we could find a way to make sure that our guns that we sell don't end up in the next door burglary. Just think how you would feel if you sold a gun and a week later a burglary happen and the neighbor get killed with your weapon that you sold or someone burglar your home and threatens you or your family with your just sold gun. 

I'm looking not for new laws. We have already to many worthless laws that feed agendas but not helping the problem. But one thing is for sure. Selling a Gun on a Parking lot and no one knows who is who is not safe for anyone in the community. I'll just think, there must be a reason if someone buys a old Glock 19 for 450 on a parking lot instead the same gun brand new for 475 in the next door store.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I have bought and sold many, many guns in my lifetime so far.
Even when there was no legal requirement to do so, I always asked the local PD whether there were any "wants and warrants" for the purchaser.
(When I explained why, they always did the check.)

But that was voluntary on my part.
I believe that it is something that a responsible gun owner should do anyway.

Trouble is, too many people, nowadays, have no feeling of personal responsibility.

So we have to walk this fine line, somehow: The government does well by making a law requiring background checks for changes in ownership, but the law cannot be so loosely written that it leaves room for abuse by any level of government and its agencies.
At the same time, the law cannot be so tightly written that it prohibits mere temporary transfers among family, friends, and even acquaintances. That leads to draconian restrictions which have no place in a free society.

What's a fairly decent government to do? Well, one thing it shouldn't do is to permit Washington State's abusive and draconian anti-transfer law to stand. (Good luck with that!)
What is an informed and critical-thinking electorate to do? Who knows? After all, we no longer have anything like that description.

How to avoid governmental abuse:
• Make service in any governing body purely voluntary, without any remuneration past basic expenses.
• Limit election-campaign spending, such that each candidate running for any office may spend only the same amount as every other candidate can afford to spend.
• Make a restriction, such that in order to vote one either has to own property, or has to have paid federal income tax—or even both.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> ,snip>What's a fairly decent government to do? Well, one thing it shouldn't do is to permit Washington State's abusive and draconian anti-transfer law to stand. (Good luck with that!)
> What is an informed and critical-thinking electorate to do? Who knows? After all, we no longer have anything like that description.<snip>


I contend that government has lost this trust, by its daily actions against 'normal' citizens, over a long period of time. There were always occasional abuses by overzealous, well-meaning 'reformers,' but political opportunists have abused the trust placed in them to such a great extent in recent years that they can no longer be trusted behind closed doors. I cannot foresee any time in the near future when that kind of trust can be placed in an elected official. Constitutional remedies need to be applied to everything, to start with.



> (snip)• Make a restriction, such that in order to vote one either has to own property, or *has to have paid federal income tax-or even both*.


A person who pays taxes has an investment in what the politicians he helps elect do with their power. People who don't pay taxes vote for the politicians who fund their existence for their vote, using money confiscated from people who are doing their part to make a free country work. TAX THE POOR!


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> So are you saying that to think as do I is lacking of common sense? That I, and those who think like me, are inflexible? I would propose to you and anyone else who is willing to accept so called "common sense" gun laws may also be willing to sell liberty to the dark forces who continually push for those "common sense" gun laws.
> 
> What is it that Franklin said? *"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."* I think the gentleman was on to something, don't you?
> 
> P.S. See my PM to your PM.


Not specifically, no. I'm saying there MUST be some laws pertaining to the posession and use of firearms. Would you like convicted criminals to be able to buy a new gun the minute they are released from jail?

I'm merely stating, as a fact, that there must be SOME laws about possession. Those who argue against that are inflexible. With all due respect - if that shoe fits, then you should wear it with pride.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> I was merely answering the OP's question logically. Whether you are "willing to see that take place" or not doesn't affect the answer.
> 
> Honestly, it is this aversion to commonsense ideas that will ultimately break the NRA and all who sail in her. Hopefully other more sensible and flexible organisations can step in to save 2A for those of you unwilling to compromise. And maybe then we can stop having to listen to Ted Nugent.


That background check (NICS?) should be 'available and voluntary' for the private seller's use.

Sail, there have been _many_ 'commonsense' ideas that turn out to have worms in them. I have learned to twist and turn gun control ideas and run them through a wringer, to see if any worms come out. The gun control proposal that is on its way through the Vermont legislature has had a thorough squeezing - what is left is commonsense state duplication of commonsense Federal law - with the _Bloomy_ worms removed.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> [...]
> How to avoid governmental abuse:
> • Make service in any governing body purely voluntary, without any remuneration past basic expenses.
> • Limit election-campaign spending, such that each candidate running for any office may spend only the same amount as every other candidate can afford to spend.
> • Make a restriction, such that in order to vote one either has to own property, or has to have paid federal income tax-or even both.


You were doing fine, until the "make a restriction..." part. Those restrictions are a recipe that the plutocrats would be happy to take and run with. The Hamilton crowd liked that formula, the Jeffersonians did not. The property owner & poll tax restrictions have been gone for awhile; good riddance.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> That background check (NICS?) should be 'available and voluntary' for the private seller's use.
> 
> Sail, there have been _many_ 'commonsense' ideas that turn out to have worms in them. I have learned to twist and turn gun control ideas and run them through a wringer, to see if any worms come out. The gun control proposal that is on its way through the Vermont legislature has had a thorough squeezing - what is left is commonsense state duplication of commonsense Federal law - with the _Bloomy_ worms removed.


No arguments about the worms - but surely no-one is proposing having NO laws about ownership... This whole thread is about how to PREVENT illegal ownership.

I say make some commonsense laws (remove worms first, by all means) and let's get on with Life.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

Abolish the laws. Its only illegal because the is a law making it so.

Simplicity can be so...... foolish.

Perhaps there is a consensus, the problem all focuses on identifying the buyer. Especially the character of the buyer.
This includes criminal behavior, mental status, propensity for violence, and basic lack of skills to even operate a firearm.

In a perfect world, I suspect few gun owners would object to a national licensing program that could be utilized to insure the licensee met criteria that would 
meet expectations of the above behaviors.

BUT, this is not a perfect world, and an agency with that kind of power, would be influenced by tyrants, or worse: elitists, 
who would soon wreck havoc on any semblance of what the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect: a free society.

Perhaps we can utilized some elements, criminal, and knowledge to filter out many, but there is no guarantee that kid who's dad just bought a .22 bolt action from you
won't shoot the next door neighbor over some Yu-Gi-Oh cards.


So we are left with Trust. Trying to determine if we can trust the buyer (or the reseller if using a dealer/middleman).
Often the safest way is to work with a dealer/gunshop who themselves have the legal right that even if all the physical evidence says ok, can still make a gut decision and say no.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

> Sail
> Would you like convicted criminals to be able to buy a new gun the minute they are released from jail?


Depends what the crime was. If there was no violence or threat involved why not?
When liberals can carry Busloads of illegal immigrants into the US and fit them out with voter cards so they can vote for them, than a hooker should be able to get legally a gun to protect herself from the newly arrived voters when she comes out of prison. Don't you think? She was in there for the oldest business on earth anyway.

What about an vehicle? Should a convicted felon not loose the privilege to drive a vehicle? 
In the most of the crimes are automobiles or motorcycles involved. The most of the crimes would not even be possible when not an motor-vehicle could be used to go to the crime scene and thereafter to get away.

In a country where the police forces get cut down to the bare minimum so that the citizen can't say there is no police at all, is it essential that people being able to protect themselves regardless if they committed a crime or not.

I would say someone that was convicted in some kind of violence shouldn't have a gun but I would say someone that used a car to commit a crime should loose the drivers license too. Someone that used an airplane .... and so forth.

No Sir I was never accused for doing something wrong, but I see the very need for self protection for a wide area of citizens since the government is not willing to protect the citizen and even takes sides against law abiding citizen when it fits in a political agenda. And that is a fact that Sail not even you can denial.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

PT111Pro said:


> Depends what the crime was. ........


Agreed. (PS: Farming predates prostitution as a vocation)

I know individuals who conducted them selves in such a way they forfeited the right to drive.... repeat DUI/accidents.

Likewise some crimes are that heinous that some rights are lost for life.

But consider the "felon" who from day one professed innocence, did his time, and then is released into a world, where the real perpetrator is lurking, 
waiting for the opportunity to finish his business and remove the last possible link to him. Or the victim of the alleged crime is waiting for payback.

There are many things to consider, and hopefully the court systems make wise decisions. But it is not always the case.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> I think we should have some way to check that the person buying it is a law-abiding citizen, maybe some kind of, I dunno... "Background check?"
> 
> Sounds like a plan to me... Apparently there are those who feel that is unjust somehow.


agreed, but I have an easier solution: Do like in the Middle East. You steal, off goes one hand, commit another big enough crime, off goes the other hand. Pretty soon, you don't have to worry about criminals carrying guns because they won't be able to.

:anim_lol:


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

RK3369 said:


> agreed, but I have an easier solution: Do like in the Middle East. You steal, off goes one hand, commit another big enough crime, off goes the other hand. Pretty soon, you don't have to worry about criminals carrying guns because they won't be able to.
> 
> :anim_lol:


That would work, too - except for the Congressmen who would complain that they can't feed at the corporate trough anymore...

Edit: Or were you suggesting Sharia Law for the US? (Just kidding, FFS!!!)


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> That would work, too - except for the Congressmen who would complain that they can't feed at the corporate trough anymore...
> 
> Edit: Or were you suggesting Sharia Law for the US? (Just kidding, FFS!!!)


No, they could still feed. Tell them to dive in face first. They're used to it anyhow. .............. another interesting situation, if all the congressmen were running around without hands, I guess we couldn't write nay new laws because nobody could sign them. In one sense, that's not a bad idea.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> That would work, too - except for the Congressmen who would complain that they can't feed at the corporate trough anymore...


Oh, come on now...
You know very well that lawmakers are exempt from the laws that they make.

It's only _your_ hands, which will be cut off. Not theirs.

(BTW: That's true under Sharia, as well. Has anyone ever seen an Ayatollah who was missing a hand? How 'bout Hamid Karzai?)


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

CW said:


> Agreed. (PS: Farming predates prostitution as a vocation)
> 
> I know individuals who conducted them selves in such a way they forfeited the right to drive.... repeat DUI/accidents.
> 
> ...


Aaaahhhh... Would that we could make a law that was 100% effective and ALWAYS caught the right guy.

But, until then, are you suggesting that no law that isn't 100% effective is worth making? If not, my apologies because it sounds that way. If so, please look at the reality of the situation.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Oh, come on now...
> You know very well that lawmakers are exempt from the laws that they make.
> 
> It's only _your_ hands, which will be cut off. Not theirs.
> ...


a very good observation. and once again, the old axiom of the "ruling" class continuing to rule in spite of themselves rings true..... will we ever learn????
I fear not.

.......just remember the phrase "pigs at the trough" when Hillary is campaigning around the country. Keep that image in your mind because in November of 2016, you're going to have to remember just what a misplaced vote could mean to the country. Can you say "Clinton Foundation accepting all that money from foreign governments while the Hildabeast was the Secretary of State? Of course, she wouldn't pull a strng or two for anybody anywhere, right???

And any sane person would really vote to put her in the White House? Yes, they're all criminals but she's completely blatant about it. Believes we're all too stupid to figure it out. I really can't believe the Democrats are so stupid that they have all but elected her at this point. How could any group of people adopt such an "elitist" monarch to rule the masses? If she's elected anybody who voted for her deserves just what they are going to get. The unfortunate part is that if she is elected, those of us who opposed her are likely to be just as bad or possibly worse off.
Sad state of affairs in this country.

I bet is she gets the nomination (and who else is there anyhow?), she'll have Al Sharpton as her running mate. :blah:


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

If the US american really elect Hilary into Office, that would be really the darkest day in the history of the United States of America. Not even Obama can top that.
But I'll really think, many woman that know politics as well as a gas turbine from inside find it smart to vote a woman in power and they find that cool, and there are very many male feministers out there, which are very submissive and find that sexually arousing to vote a real mistress in power. Kids misguided by unscrupulous teachers on college will vote for her and a lot of undocumented democrat voters will do that too.
She will make it I am afraid. And than I have to find me a other place to live. Than it will be time to move on again.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

Steve M1911A1:


> How to avoid governmental abuse:
> • Make service in any governing body purely voluntary, without any remuneration past basic expenses.
> • Limit election-campaign spending, such that each candidate running for any office may spend only the same amount as every other candidate can afford to spend.
> • Make a restriction, such that in order to vote one either has to own property, or has to have paid federal income tax-or even both.


My God! *Wouldn't that be great!* I'm all for it.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

PT111Pro:


> She will make it I am afraid. And than I have to find me a other place to live.


Don't pack your bags just yet. Unless the Republicans really screw up, and I mean really screw up. That phony, self centered, egotistical bitch will not get elected. She's just not likable. She feels that she's entitled to it because of who she is. She walks around as if she's the second coming of Christ. She hasn't accomplished a thing in her career. The media is not exactly doing handstands over her candidacy. Eventually she's going to have to answer questions about the myriad of scandals that surround her. The Democrats are shitting in their pants as they have so much invested in her and really no one else to turn to. As Obama's mentor the Reverend Jeremiah Wright stated their "chickens have come home to roost".


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> <snip>
> 
> The Democrats are shitting in their pants as they have so much invested in her and really no one else to turn to.
> 
> <more snip>


Although I like to think of myself as a liberal independent (note NO capital letters there) i hope another unknown but good person like Obama comes forward and wins the Democratic spot. Because I have not seen NE Republican I would vote for in the slate so far.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> Not specifically, no. I'm saying there MUST be some laws pertaining to the posession and use of firearms. Would you like convicted criminals to be able to buy a new gun the minute they are released from jail?
> 
> *I'm merely stating, as a fact, that there must be SOME laws about possession.* Those who argue against that are inflexible. With all due respect - if that shoe fits, then you should wear it with pride.


There already are... a bunch of them at both the federal and state level. We don't need more of them.

*"Would you like convicted criminals to be able to buy a new gun the minute they are released from jail?"*
Of course not... where did you ever get that idea. Me thinks your emotional argument is showing. And like above, there are plenty of law against this so we don't need more of them, either.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> There already are... a bunch of them at both the federal and state level. We don't need more of them.


Totally agreed, but the current ones don't seem to be working. Can we retire some and make better ones? That seemed to be the purpose of this thread.



SouthernBoy said:


> *"Would you like convicted criminals to be able to buy a new gun the minute they are released from jail?"*
> Of course not... where did you ever get that idea. Me thinks your emotional argument is showing. And like above, there are plenty of law against this so we don't need more of them, either.


Semi-rhetorical, and full of hyperbole if truth be told - but sometimes I hear an odd voice crying for removing ALL laws pertaining to guns, and the obvious outcome of that would be criminals, even dangerous ones, being allowed to purchase. I hope no-one really thinks that's a viable option


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

As I am sure you know, Sail, laws are a joke to the criminals. Many if not most of the laws we have aren't enforced. The simple solution is to only sell guns to people that you know are not criminals or deal with an FFL.

GW


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> i hope another unknown but good person like Obama comes forward and wins the Democratic spot.


Sorry, "Sail" Obama is not a good person.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> Totally agreed, but the current ones don't seem to be working. Can we retire some and make better ones? That seemed to be the purpose of this thread.
> 
> *Semi-rhetorical, and full of hyperbole if truth be told - but sometimes I hear an odd voice crying for removing ALL laws pertaining to guns, and the obvious outcome of that would be criminals, even dangerous ones, being allowed to purchase. I hope no-one really thinks that's a viable option*


To quote a previous president, "well there you go again". I rather doubt that anyone here seriously favors removing any laws that make it illegal for felons to possess firearms... at least until they are cleared through their state's legal system.

There are perhaps 20,000 federal gun laws on the books and not many of them do much good. But some do. So while we're at it, take a stab at which ones are useless and which ones are worthwhile. I'll start it by suggesting the repeal of U.S. Code 18,822; the gun free school zone act.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> Sorry, "Sail" Obama is not a good person.


Opinion - doesn't count.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

goldwing said:


> As I am sure you know, Sail, laws are a joke to the criminals. Many if not most of the laws we have aren't enforced. The simple solution is to only sell guns to people that you know are not criminals or deal with an FFL.
> 
> GW


Sure - so let's just do it. But what is the difference between that and having a phone-able NICS check available so your arse is covered when your good buddy decides to commit a crime with his new gun? 
And in the final analysis, it is YOUR arse as well as his that will be in a sling if he does.


----------



## Goldwing (Nov 5, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Although I like to think of myself as a liberal independent (note NO capital letters there) i hope another unknown but good person like Obama comes forward and wins the Democratic spot. Because I have not seen NE Republican I would vote for in the slate so far.


I would hope that you would set your sights a lot higher than that Sail, maybe Reverend Al, or Jesse Jackson Jr.fart

GW


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SailDesign said:


> Totally agreed, but the current ones don't seem to be working. Can we retire some and make better ones?...


"Aye, there's the rub..."
Those old, ineffective yet restrictive laws never do get "retired."
New, equally ineffective yet ever more restrictive laws are just added to the list.

*Ineffective:* People of evil bent do not obey the law, no matter how many laws you make, or how dire their penalties.
*Restrictive:* However, all laws affect the needs and the activities of the honest and the law-abiding.

It is not possible to alter morals and behavior by merely making laws.
It is only marginally possible to alter behavior by stringently enforcing laws, and imposing their penalties.
Laws do not limit illegal behavior. Penalties only occasionally limit illegal behavior through the example of those previously caught, tried, and punished.

*Quick Proof:* Can anyone cite any occasion in which a "gun control" law has worked to keep any kind of gun out of the hands of anyone exhibiting criminal intent?

Background-check laws will force the law-abiding to be very careful about to whom they sell their guns.
However, so might rationally-written criminal-responsibility laws.
The obvious problem is that, for the most part, legislatures do not write and pass rationally-written laws. This is particularly true about weapons-control laws.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> Opinion - doesn't count.


Ahh, then it didn't count when you said he was a good person... right?


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

goldwing said:


> I would hope that you would set your sights a lot higher than that Sail, maybe Reverend Al, or Jesse Jackson Jr.fart
> 
> GW


I fart in your specific direction...


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SailDesign:


> Opinion - doesn't count.


Guess yours doesn't either. fart


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Ahh, then it didn't count when you said he was a good person... right?


Nope! No more than D'man's.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> Guess yours doesn't either. fart


I'm going to have to leave the room until the stench clears...


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> Sure - so let's just do it. But what is the difference between that and having a phone-able NICS check available so your arse is covered when your good buddy decides to commit a crime with his new gun?
> *And in the final analysis, it is YOUR arse* as well as his that will be in a sling if he does.


Not necessarily. If you sell a gun in a private sale to someone whom you believe to be a valid buyer and then sometime down the road he commits a crime, how is that your fault? How can you be held liable?

As for an NICS check to "your good buddy" who later commits a crime, that is no different than selling a gun in a private sale. If he is bent on doing evil, the background check is not going to make any difference.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> SailDesign:
> 
> Guess yours doesn't either. fart


They usually turn to emotional attacks when the substance of their argument is exhausted or fails.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> They usually turn to emotional attacks when the substance of their argument is exhausted or fails.


Hey!! At least I didn't start the flatulence attacks....


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

SailDesign said:


> Hey!! At least I didn't start the flatulence attacks....


There were flatulence attacks? Waft that flatus!


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

In a perfect world, we could eliminate illegal firearm possession. We could also eliminate drunk drivers, drug addicts, murders, assaults, thefts, and crooked politicians, as well as a boat load of other negative issues. 

But, as we all know, this world of ours if a far, far cry from being perfect. As long as we are an imperfect species (humans), we will continue to suffer from a society of fools. 

A bit harsh you might ask? Not harsh at all.......just a bit brutal, honest and truthful. 

But, back to the OP's original question. There is absolutely nothing that we can ever do to ever eliminate illegal firearm possession. All that we can try to do, is to manage it as best as imperfect beings can.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

The other problem with honest people trying to guns out of the hands of criminal is our own government has been know to sell and allow sales of guns to know criminals. With all the federal and state laws, everyone trying their level best then the D.O.J. throws the laws out the window then cries about illegal guns on the street. Oh yea a rich mayor conspires with other people to go to other states to try to buy guns illegally and transport them across state lines to smuggle them into a place that require a license to even own a firearm, then confesses on T.V. and is still walking free and never charged with the crimes he committed.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

Well, what do you expect, when that rich mayor is trying to "engineer" society into a "more correct" and "better" form?


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Here's my bottom line on the subject of guns for self defense:

Some members of our society are predators. Predators will prey on any who meet their criteria for prey, i.e. somebody weaker. They may be stronger physically, or they may be willing to use weapons to make themselves stronger than their prey. There are no rules - it's simply a matter of obtaining a 'free lunch.' The prey may remove themselves from the 'prey' category by using a weapon that makes them able to hurt the predators that come after them. Once they cease to be a free lunch, the predator moves on, if still able. This is natural 'law' that does not change, with or without busy-body legislators. The end.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Bisley said:


> Here's my bottom line on the subject of guns for self defense:
> 
> Some members of our society are predators. Predators will prey on any who meet their criteria for prey, i.e. somebody weaker. They may be stronger physically, or they may be willing to use weapons to make themselves stronger than their prey. There are no rules - it's simply a matter of obtaining a 'free lunch.' The prey may remove themselves from the 'prey' category by using a weapon that makes them able to hurt the predators that come after them. Once they cease to be a free lunch, the predator moves on, if still able. This is natural 'law' that does not change, with or without busy-body legislators. The end.


And while this is simplicity defined, those who would see us disarmed just can't seem to get their minds around it. There are very real reasons for this, some of which are outside the commonly given ones.


----------



## CW (Mar 20, 2015)

SailDesign said:


> Aaaahhhh... Would that we could make a law that was 100% effective and ALWAYS caught the right guy.
> 
> But, until then, are you suggesting that no law that isn't 100% effective is worth making? If not, my apologies because it sounds that way. If so, please look at the reality of the situation.


Sorry for the delay responding....

I believe I was heading towards a similar conclusion that Paratrooper stated.

We'll never be perfect, but we must be Prudent, even taking measures ourselves (like vetting purchasers) if legislation and courts will not address the issue properly.

Our imperfect best may be the best we have.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

Gun laws only make from law obeying people criminals. That is the only task what liberals want to accomplish. It is that simple. They want to protect criminals or is here anyone that still don't know that? And because that is that way, they have to make laws so everyone becomes a criminal so no one is able to point the liberals agenda out. So they can say you are outside the law too.

In Europe had 42% of the people before the liberal revolution in 1991 legally a weapon in the home for defense. After the liberals took over and special protection for criminals and middle eastern and Muslimic criminal family dynasties were implemented the people had no other chance and now they are over 80% of illegal weapons in the homes for defense.

So and what does a anti weapon law do? I mean there is no more denunciation and spying than in Europe. Europe became in only 15 years a society of spy. They spy on each other because that is the currency of liberal societies in which the average citizen can buy privileges from the government with.
But still the people are armed up top the teeth. They have no other choice if they want to survive in the long run with that liberal protectionism that is based on denunciations, career criminals and criminal dynasties. 

So a law only restrains a law obeying citizen. Criminal welcome restrictive laws as a kind of "protection". When people get disarmed than is it much easyer to commit a crime. Sure the liberals know that, that is actually why they do it.


----------

