The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

cryogenic419 · November 17, 2013, 12:53 PM

A few thoughts...

I am for background checks at gun dealers, but to try to mandate them between private individuals would require an INSANE amount of
bureaucracy. In the end this would only succeed in making the lives of everyone who is following the law miserable and not actually accomplish what they say it will do. In order to make those universal background checks work everyone would have to register their firearms. Remember criminals don't play by the same rules as the rest of us, they won't register a thing. Pass all the laws you like, they won't follow them. If they did we wouldn't every have to worry about heroin or meth on the streets, stolen vehicles, burglaries, bank robberies, etc. If the Fast and Furious gun running debacle is any indication of how well our government is able to keep track of a few people and a few weapons, can you imagine the disaster that would entail if they had to keep track of everyone that had a gun? All in the name of stopping a few criminals.
There are other things that could be done to step up efforts that would be of no inconvenience to law abiding citizens. How about putting some money into the background check system so that it is a bit more modernized and ties together all the assorted agencies so there isn't some "oops, this should have popped up in the check but didn't" moment? How about actually going after violent criminals aggressively and locking them up. Something just doesn't seem right when a guy can rob a carryout with a gun and be back on the street a year later. How about some sentences with some damn teeth? Back taxes or defaulting on federal loans?? That really is more of a civil matter and should not have any more effect on your right to own a gun than it should to your freedom of speech or right to vote.

Magazine capacity...
Why do the military and law enforcement get to use high/full capacity mags??? Probably because there is no telling what threats they may run into and we all want them to have the most advantages possible. As a society should we also not be afforded the same advantages to protect our lives? Think in terms of a single mom who lives in a not so nice neighborhood because that is all she can afford. She buys a gun for self defense in her home and visits the range maybe twice a year. She isn't going to be a trained marksman or some tactical cyberninja, but she is proficient with safety and function of her firearm at the range. Should she ever need to use that firearm to defend her or her children's lives, I would want her to have every advantage in doing so. Lets be honest, even law enforcement/military folks who have had extensive training are not always the best marksmen when a situation arises where they need to fire their weapon. If they need all those rounds in their weapon to ensure that they are able to eliminate/stop the threat, wouldn't it seem logical that your average single mom might need that as well? To assume that should something ever happen you would only have one threat that you would need to worry about and that your aiming skills are going to be perfect everytime is plain ignorance.

You mention Sandy Hook and five children surviving because he had to change magazines and had he had to do it more often PERHAPS some non-insane responsible gun owner could have done something. I suppose that is true to some extent except there is one small detail that you may have overlooked. Any non-insane, responsible, and most importantly LAW ABIDING gun owner would not have been on school property with a firearm as the law prevents them from doing so.

Your stance seems to be that law abiding folks should have to bend over backwards to fix problems, while the criminal side can carry on with business as usual. If there were any strong leadership in our governments, whether it be federal, state, and local levels along with the funding, a lot of these problems could be fixed without passing any new laws. Just simply enforcing what is already in place...I know its a crazy idea but it might actually work. The money to fund these things is there, they just need to stop allocating it to everybody and everywhere else and keep that money here.

Everyone is so quick to jump on guns, high capacity magazines, background checks, how civillians don't NEED this or that item, etc and how law abiding gun owners are practically the scourge of the earth and its our fault everytime something bad happens. Drunk drivers kill people. Speeding cars kill people. Untrained people working on electrical wiring can kill. Space heaters can kill. Carbon monoxide can kill. Too many double cheeseburgers can kill eventually. Cigarettes kill. The list can go on and on, the point I am making is it comes down to the individual in control of these situations. Nobody says Ford and Chevy have to make their cars inoperable if you have over a certain amount of alcohol in your system. We all know there are no positives to cigarettes, yet we allow them to continue to be sold. In these situations we have no qualms about placing responsibility on the individual for their actions, why do we not extend the same courtesy to firearms?

Its funny how people are so quick to trample over the 2A, or say its OK if we come up with a bunch of new laws all in the name of safety. Background checks...hmmm...they say it is because they want to make sure you are who you say you are and that you are ok to have a gun. OK, I'll buy that. But when it comes to another right, say voting for instance...imagine if you were forced to provide ID so that they could verify you are who you say you are. I believe that has been tried in some states and people screamed bloody murder about how it disenfranchises voters. Considering how instances of voter fraud they have been finding in recent years perhaps its something to look at. Maybe its just me but I think some of the folks that have been voted in, or issues passed have caused far more damage to this country than me or any of my firearms ever could. I would hate to find out later on that some of this could have been prevented if we just would have checked ID's at the polling places. All the proposed rules, regulations, and laws that have been brought up about guns during my lifetime never seem to address the criminal side of things and how to deal with them, only more of the same what restrictions can we place on this or that. If their intentions truly are about safety why are they not directly going after the criminals who break laws and ruin lives, instead of worrying about whether or not my AR-15 has a bayonet lug on it or how many bullets my Glock can hold.

November 17, 2013, 12:53 PM	#17
cryogenic419 Senior Member Join Date: March 29, 2009 Location: NW Ohio Posts: 569	A few thoughts... I am for background checks at gun dealers, but to try to mandate them between private individuals would require an INSANE amount of bureaucracy. In the end this would only succeed in making the lives of everyone who is following the law miserable and not actually accomplish what they say it will do. In order to make those universal background checks work everyone would have to register their firearms. Remember criminals don't play by the same rules as the rest of us, they won't register a thing. Pass all the laws you like, they won't follow them. If they did we wouldn't every have to worry about heroin or meth on the streets, stolen vehicles, burglaries, bank robberies, etc. If the Fast and Furious gun running debacle is any indication of how well our government is able to keep track of a few people and a few weapons, can you imagine the disaster that would entail if they had to keep track of everyone that had a gun? All in the name of stopping a few criminals. There are other things that could be done to step up efforts that would be of no inconvenience to law abiding citizens. How about putting some money into the background check system so that it is a bit more modernized and ties together all the assorted agencies so there isn't some "oops, this should have popped up in the check but didn't" moment? How about actually going after violent criminals aggressively and locking them up. Something just doesn't seem right when a guy can rob a carryout with a gun and be back on the street a year later. How about some sentences with some damn teeth? Back taxes or defaulting on federal loans?? That really is more of a civil matter and should not have any more effect on your right to own a gun than it should to your freedom of speech or right to vote. Magazine capacity... Why do the military and law enforcement get to use high/full capacity mags??? Probably because there is no telling what threats they may run into and we all want them to have the most advantages possible. As a society should we also not be afforded the same advantages to protect our lives? Think in terms of a single mom who lives in a not so nice neighborhood because that is all she can afford. She buys a gun for self defense in her home and visits the range maybe twice a year. She isn't going to be a trained marksman or some tactical cyberninja, but she is proficient with safety and function of her firearm at the range. Should she ever need to use that firearm to defend her or her children's lives, I would want her to have every advantage in doing so. Lets be honest, even law enforcement/military folks who have had extensive training are not always the best marksmen when a situation arises where they need to fire their weapon. If they need all those rounds in their weapon to ensure that they are able to eliminate/stop the threat, wouldn't it seem logical that your average single mom might need that as well? To assume that should something ever happen you would only have one threat that you would need to worry about and that your aiming skills are going to be perfect everytime is plain ignorance. You mention Sandy Hook and five children surviving because he had to change magazines and had he had to do it more often PERHAPS some non-insane responsible gun owner could have done something. I suppose that is true to some extent except there is one small detail that you may have overlooked. Any non-insane, responsible, and most importantly LAW ABIDING gun owner would not have been on school property with a firearm as the law prevents them from doing so. Your stance seems to be that law abiding folks should have to bend over backwards to fix problems, while the criminal side can carry on with business as usual. If there were any strong leadership in our governments, whether it be federal, state, and local levels along with the funding, a lot of these problems could be fixed without passing any new laws. Just simply enforcing what is already in place...I know its a crazy idea but it might actually work. The money to fund these things is there, they just need to stop allocating it to everybody and everywhere else and keep that money here. Everyone is so quick to jump on guns, high capacity magazines, background checks, how civillians don't NEED this or that item, etc and how law abiding gun owners are practically the scourge of the earth and its our fault everytime something bad happens. Drunk drivers kill people. Speeding cars kill people. Untrained people working on electrical wiring can kill. Space heaters can kill. Carbon monoxide can kill. Too many double cheeseburgers can kill eventually. Cigarettes kill. The list can go on and on, the point I am making is it comes down to the individual in control of these situations. Nobody says Ford and Chevy have to make their cars inoperable if you have over a certain amount of alcohol in your system. We all know there are no positives to cigarettes, yet we allow them to continue to be sold. In these situations we have no qualms about placing responsibility on the individual for their actions, why do we not extend the same courtesy to firearms? Its funny how people are so quick to trample over the 2A, or say its OK if we come up with a bunch of new laws all in the name of safety. Background checks...hmmm...they say it is because they want to make sure you are who you say you are and that you are ok to have a gun. OK, I'll buy that. But when it comes to another right, say voting for instance...imagine if you were forced to provide ID so that they could verify you are who you say you are. I believe that has been tried in some states and people screamed bloody murder about how it disenfranchises voters. Considering how instances of voter fraud they have been finding in recent years perhaps its something to look at. Maybe its just me but I think some of the folks that have been voted in, or issues passed have caused far more damage to this country than me or any of my firearms ever could. I would hate to find out later on that some of this could have been prevented if we just would have checked ID's at the polling places. All the proposed rules, regulations, and laws that have been brought up about guns during my lifetime never seem to address the criminal side of things and how to deal with them, only more of the same what restrictions can we place on this or that. If their intentions truly are about safety why are they not directly going after the criminals who break laws and ruin lives, instead of worrying about whether or not my AR-15 has a bayonet lug on it or how many bullets my Glock can hold.