Quote:
Tread carefully with that word "absolutely", there are certainly things that prevent or hinder law abiding citizens from owning a firearm due to background checks. Identity theft, similar/same name as a felon, etc. Something that prevents or hinders...sounds awfully similar to restriction.
|
Certainly. Whenever you introduce a complication into a process errors result. I hate defects myself. There is a system for dealing with them too. Does the system result in an undue or impossible burden to overcome? No.
Quote:
If this is so, being as how it says right on the 4473 that providing false information or buying for another person is punishable as a felony, right above the signature and date lines, why are there not "tens of thousands" of people prosecuted for attempting to buy a firearm? Seems to me that if a felon or other prohibited person puts down false info, signs the form and the check comes back denying him a firearm because he is a felon, that'd be a slam dunk case, right?
|
[and others]
While a good question that is not really the point of the discussion. I will say the government does not prosecute a whole bunch of crimes. I am still waiting to see prosecutions of border intrusions, fraud in relation to financial collapse, Fast and the Furious and a few other things that will never see the light of day just to provide some examples. I say if you want to see prosecutions happen contact your government. If you don't want prosecutions to happen then your argument is without merit.
Quote:
Where we disagree is whether such a check should be mandatory for private citizens to use a background check for private transfers. I am of the opinion that it is the government's job to prove.....
|
There is some merit to the "no background check at all" argument. However that would presuppose that there were no prohibited people. If there are prohibited people there must be a way to distinguish them.