Politics Selling a gun without completing a background check is now a crime in New Mexico

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Ok, I'm not sure where I fall on "some" of the gun control laws, but this is the right thing to do. Yes I get it criminals have guns and illegal ways to get them, but we should be forcing people that buy guns to have way more than background checks, like mandatory stress screenings, and gun safety training, and pass some very basic tests to prove out that they are in fact capable of using the power they have with at least an ounce of respect for the world they're part of.
 
100% Constitutionally invalid, just words on paper which will never survive a SCOTUS appeal, if it even ever gets to that.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
We need a background check for voting, since that is the most important power a citizen has. derp derp.
Click to expand...
A background check for registering to vote makes sense but only because your voter registration might be useful as some sort of other kind of ID. There's no incentive to vote illegally. It takes time and effort and yields no gain other than the satisfaction of voting. Do you really think a low life cares about voting? Oh, I guess you could fantasize about some sort of cabal of people seeking to pool their efforts to get bums elected, but . . . LOL, not in a Million years.
Registering a firearm prohibits a lot of bad people from owning a gun legally and it tells us something useful about a recovered murder weapon. Meanwhile, John Smith gets to keep his gun.
 
I don’t see any way to enforce this law. It just seems like feel good legislation for Democrat lawmakers to appear to be making a difference. Like most proposed gun legislation, it just makes criminals out of legal gun owners.
 
jonnyboy said:
I don’t see any way to enforce this law. It just seems like feel good legislation for Democrat lawmakers to appear to be making a difference. Like most proposed gun legislation, it just makes criminals out of legal gun owners.
Click to expand...
Mostly it makes criminals out of criminals. What do law abiding citizens have to hide?
 
Great job.

The less white nationalists with guns, the better.
 
Lanny said:
Mostly it makes criminals out of criminals. What do law abiding citizens have to hide?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the government decided that around 1789 or so. Nothing. But per the Constitution, they don't have to.
Unless, of course, you want me as a appointed officer of the government to investigate and deny until appeal the right of every author to publish. Or every TV script or movie to be checked. Or, here it comes...right to vote. "Sure, sir, I'm happy to let you vote today. Wait until I go through a background check to ensure that there's nothing I find objectionable in your record that could deny it. What would you have to hide, sir?"
 
BrianFromWA said:
Pretty sure the government decided that around 1789 or so. Nothing. But per the Constitution, they don't have to.
Unless, of course, you want me as a appointed officer of the government to investigate and deny until appeal the right of every author to publish. Or every TV script or movie to be checked. Or, here it comes...right to vote. "Sure, sir, I'm happy to let you vote today. Wait until I go through a background check to ensure that there's nothing I find objectionable in your record that could deny it. What would you have to hide, sir?"
Click to expand...
Where does the Constitution say that no background check shall be required? If you find it that means that all these gun sales from dealers requiring background checks are unconstitutional. I wonder if anyone has told the Feds.
 
dviss1 said:
Great job.

The less white nationalists with guns, the better.
Click to expand...
The less black (insert fringe group here) with guns, the better.

Doesn’t sound racist at all, does it?
 
Lanny said:
Where does the Constitution say that no background check shall be required? If you find it that means that all these gun sales from dealers requiring background checks are unconstitutional. I wonder if anyone has told the Feds.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has ruled they can. Some people (I'm not a legal scholar enough to understand) seem to think that that was an overreach that will be rectified as soon as orangeman stacks the Court back away from activist lefties. I don't know. I think the devil is in the details. :dunno:
But you're an educated man, I'm sure you've read in the Constitution where it says that no one may be searched or seized without either their consent or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. At this point, I think everyone agrees that you need to be checked in public databases to ensure you're not a felon or otherwise not permitted to own the weapon you're attempting to get. Anything further, or registration thereof, is a search of records that doesn't necessarily meet the provisions of the 4th, and certainly not the 2nd. Personally, I'm a fan of ensuring that I can check to make sure that no black person can get another weapon. Or anyone with a credit score below 700, because those poor people are probably using it to steal something. Or those making less than 150k/year, same reasons. Or having a registry of every Democratic-registered voter's gun, so that I have ample evidence to confiscate a weapon from obviously mentally-challenged citizens.
 
jonnyboy said:
The less black (insert fringe group here) with guns, the better.

Doesn’t sound racist at all, does it?
Click to expand...
Well, since 70% of the terrorist attacks come from Right wing White supremacists I guess I know where the emphasis ought to be.
 
BrianFromWA said:
But you're an educated man, I'm sure you've read in the Constitution
Click to expand...

Careful Brian, Lanny has objected to being guided to the BJM, NOG, and Dr. (Capt)VanDorn's Oceanography and Seamanship content.
I don't know that time for the Constitution will be made either.
 
Last edited:
BrianFromWA said:
SCOTUS has ruled they can. Some people (I'm not a legal scholar enough to understand) seem to think that that was an overreach that will be rectified as soon as orangeman stacks the Court back away from activist lefties. I don't know. I think the devil is in the details. :dunno:
But you're an educated man, I'm sure you've read in the Constitution where it says that no one may be searched or seized without either their consent or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. At this point, I think everyone agrees that you need to be checked in public databases to ensure you're not a felon or otherwise not permitted to own the weapon you're attempting to get. Anything further, or registration thereof, is a search of records that doesn't necessarily meet the provisions of the 4th, and certainly not the 2nd. Personally, I'm a fan of ensuring that I can check to make sure that no black person can get another weapon. Or anyone with a credit score below 700, because those poor people are probably using it to steal something. Or those making less than 150k/year, same reasons. Or having a registry of every Democratic-registered voter's gun, so that I have ample evidence to confiscate a weapon from obviously mentally-challenged citizens.
Click to expand...

I prefer nothing gets done just like what's been happening since the Republicans have come into the senate and now the presidency. Trump sat there in front of several Parkland students and lied to them and even publicly humiliated the Senate calling them afraid of the NRA and right after the NRA got a hold of him he backs off what he promised the Parkland students. Yep, let's just keep doing nothing.
 
Lanny said:
Nope
"The politically conservative Daily Caller News Foundation using data from the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), found 92% of all "ideologically motivated homicide incidents" committed in the United States from 2007 to 2016 were motivated by right-wing extremism or white supremacism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_terrorism
Click to expand...

“Ideologically motivated homicide incidents” whatever the fuck that word salad actually means, make up a an extremely small fraction of overall gun homocides. That term sounds like a carefully crafted phrase where the creators of it get to pick their own criteria as to what qualifies. You can cherry pick made up bullshit statistics all you want, but gun violence isn’t some exclusively white problem, like you and dviss are trying to insinuate. Keep doing mental gymnastics to try and prove incorrect points, you just discredit yourself more.
 
jonnyboy said:
“Ideologically motivated homicide incidents” whatever the fuck that word salad actually means, make up a an extremely small fraction of overall gun homocides.
Click to expand...

How do you know it's a small fraction, if you don't know what the words mean?

That term sounds like a carefully crafted phrase where the creators of it get to pick their own criteria as to what qualifies. You can cherry pick made up bullshit statistics all you want, but gun violence isn’t some exclusively white problem, like you and dviss are trying to insinuate. Keep doing mental gymnastics to try and prove incorrect points, you just discredit yourself more.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone suggested gun violence was a white problem. They suggested gun terrorism is a white problem.

barfo
 
jonnyboy said:
“Ideologically motivated homicide incidents” whatever the fuck that word salad actually means, make up a an extremely small fraction of overall gun homocides. That term sounds like a carefully crafted phrase where the creators of it get to pick their own criteria as to what qualifies. You can cherry pick made up bullshit statistics all you want, but gun violence isn’t some exclusively white problem, like you and dviss are trying to insinuate. Keep doing mental gymnastics to try and prove incorrect points, you just discredit yourself more.
Click to expand...
He wasn’t talking about gun violence. You questioned his stat on terrorist attacks. Terrorist attacks seems to line up pretty well with Ideologically motivated homicide incidents.
 
This law seems like a good law but won’t have enough effect until other states adopt similar laws. The way it stands now, the legitimate sales will continue with background checks while shady ones will simple cross over to Arizona, Utah, Texas, Colorado or Kansas. That’s why firearm regulations really need to be implemented nationally. Perhaps even a national law that says a firearm may only be sold in the state where the seller resides. That’s just an off the cuff idea, but it might help states to actually be able to make and enforce gun legislation on their terms.
 
Last edited:
jonnyboy said:
“Ideologically motivated homicide incidents” whatever the fuck that word salad actually means, make up a an extremely small fraction of overall gun homocides. That term sounds like a carefully crafted phrase where the creators of it get to pick their own criteria as to what qualifies. You can cherry pick made up bullshit statistics all you want, but gun violence isn’t some exclusively white problem, like you and dviss are trying to insinuate. Keep doing mental gymnastics to try and prove incorrect points, you just discredit yourself more.
Click to expand...
Give me some evidence that ideological homicide makes up on a small fraction so I can be sure that you're not just fantasizing. It's your assertion, you back it up.
 
MarAzul said:
Careful Brian, Lanny has objected to being guided to the BJM, NOG, and Dr. (Capt)VanDorn's Oceanography and Seamanship content.
I don't know that time for the Constitution will be made either.
Click to expand...
I'm more a Bowditch man, myself. ;)
 
Lanny said:
Give me some evidence that ideological homicide makes up on a small fraction so I can be sure that you're not just fantasizing. It's your assertion, you back it up.
Click to expand...

Here’s a quote from the same “START” group you got your info from:

“New study compares ideologically motivated homicides in United States
Victims of far-right and al-Qaida influenced extremists more unique than similar
March 2, 2016Jessica Rivinius
Over the last 25 years in the United States, those inspired by al-Qaida and its associated movement (AQAM) have killed nearly seven-and-a-half times more people than far-right extremists have killed in one-fifth as many incidents...”


The Wikipedia article you referenced entitled “Far right terrorism” got its info from START. The author of the Wikipedia page cherry-picked data from an arbitrary window of time, purposely leaving out key incidents to reflect data concurrent with his stance. It’s amazing what you’ll find when you dig just a little deeper. Turns out a lot of these alarmist groups are full of shit, who would’ve thought.

Also, when it comes to overall murders your stat completely falls into obscurity. There have been 500 murders at the hands of “right wing extremists” since 1990, according to Seattle University. There were nearly 17,000 murders last year alone and that number gets higher year by year as you make your way back to 1990, where the number was over 23,000. We’re talking hundred of thousands.

Like I said, small fraction.
 
Last edited:
BrianFromWA said:
I'm more a Bowditch man, myself. ;)
Click to expand...
My Grandson, the 12 year old was on MarAzul with me for a couple days last fall. We were sitting in the cockpit talking about whatever when the question
came up of how far can you see at sea from the cockpit here? I didn't answer right away, I found the place in Nathaniel's three pound first volume, where he explains how to calculate the answer to the question.

After a grunt or two, he asked me, Grandpa, did you read all this book?
I don't know! I usually only read it when I need to figure something out.

Then it was on to next.


PS
Dang! I just found out, there is a digital version of the book available.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top