|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 8, 2013, 02:00 AM | #201 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,821
|
Some interesting points Doublea A...here's my reply..
1) Enforce current laws.... Agree! Also would be a good thing if they could NOT be plea bargined.. 2) Everything through a background check... This sounds good on the surface, but I have reservations about it, especially its effectivness. The issues I have with it are, first, the current system is far from flawless. And there is no money to "fix" it, assuming one could. Second, FFL dealers are required by law to run the checks, and the current system can barely handle that. Add in EVERY private purchase in the country, and (without a serious upgraded system), it will crash. Then, NO SALES to anyone, until it gets fixed, right? Also, I have always had some heartburn with the system. Partially because my institutional paranoia is always worried that some flaw in the system will deny me (my record is spotless, I just worry the system will glitch), and partially because, with spotless record (ok, I've had one speeding ticket in the last 20 years), why should I have to proove my self, EVERY SINGLE TIME I buy a gun? Also, I buy, sell, and trade with people I know, and have known for decades, and I dislike both the idea that I would have to run a check on each of them, EVERY TIME, and the idea that if I didn't, I could be breaking a law. Go back to your point #1. Existing law already states all that is needed. Also,are you aware that the govt has already had to defend itself in court over keeping the "instant check" records, when the law clearly states that they must NOT be kept? 3. Keep the entire standard so called "high capacity magazines” but we should regulate for example the AR 15 100 round “drum” OK, so YOU don't care about regulations for example the AR 100 rnd drum. I do. What is a reasonable number? You are ok with 30, but not 100? How about 10? That's what they want. They say its ..reasonable...The problem is that once you admit that a given number is acceptable to be regulated, then it just comes down to who gets to set that number. Like haggling with a hooker....You accept the principle, and then bargin for an acceptable price? No, I don't think so. What is the magic number when a spring loaded metal or plastic box becomes an evil agent of destruction? I don't see one. 4. All people getting CCW or carry permits must take a class.] Good idea. They should. However, making it a law opens the door to abuse by a system dominated by anti gun politicians and police chiefs...it has happened before, in several places. Bit by bit, the regulations on what has to be in the class are increased, and opportunities to take the class are reduced. What begins as a mandated 3hr class eventually becomes 40hrs of required training, only given 3 times a year in one location, etc. Don't laugh, I've seen it happen. For a recent example of this at work, just look at what they decided airline pilots had to go through to be "certified" to have a gun in the cockpit. 5. All STATES should make their mental health database available to the federal government so we can prevent the mentally challenged individuals from acquiring firearms legitimately. Again, good idea, on the surface. The real world problem you are going to run smack into here, is the personal privacy issue, and existing law. First point: it was conclusively proven at VA Tech that there are dangerously unstable individuals that are not being "picked up on" and put in the system. Second point (and main one): Personal Privacy. Medical records. There is a lot of existing law that specifically prohibits this information from being shared, FOR ANY REASON without the express consent of the individual, and sometimes, even then. Are you aware that Patrick Purdy, the shooter in Stockton that touched off the whole "assault weapon" hysteria back in 86 with a semi auto AK in a CA schoolyard was recieveing monthly payments from Social Security because he was "mentally unable to work"? AND, that at the same time, he bought 2 handguns in California, TWICE going through CA's background check and 15 day waiting period? AND that BY LAW California could NOT be told of his mental condition, as it was a violation of his privacy rights? ITs a good idea, but the system is already stacked against it being able to work. 6. Increase funding for mental health by reducing the amount of foreign aids given all over the world. I like this one. In our current fiscal situation, I firmly believe that we should let the rest of the world make their own way and use the money for things in the US that need fixing. The rest of the world managed to survive before the US was able to give them monetary aid, and I am confidant that they can do so again. 7. Finally involve the education of both the risk and benefits of firearms into educational system. Agree, at one time, this kind of thing was taught in schools. Of course, that was many decades ago, when schools had rifle teams, and were not run by anti gun elitist social reformers....or people who wanted to be...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 8, 2013, 09:13 AM | #202 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Yes. Enforce current laws!
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
||
January 8, 2013, 09:47 AM | #203 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,299
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now I agree that people should get training, as it's always a great idea...but when you mandate something prior to exercising a right, then it is no longer a right but a controlled privilege. Quote:
Mentally challenged? I have to say that from my admittedly biased view point, that describes many of our nations leaders. Quote:
Quote:
Make the above an elective in high school, or even middle school. Make it as "mandatory" as Sex Ed and Drivers Ed, considering how many more lives are destroyed and tax dollars lost by misuse of both sex and cars than with legally held firearm. |
||||||||
January 8, 2013, 01:18 PM | #204 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 8, 2013, 09:46 PM | #205 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
Quote:
Let's say you really wanted to pass a law that every firearms purchaser had to go through a background check. How would you ever enforce it? There are over 200 million unregistered firearms floating around out there. I have several that don't even have serial numbers. How would you convict someone for selling a firearm without a background check, if you can't prove who owned it? And how would you implement such a scheme? Make the service free, straight from the NICS database? Who's going to pay for it? The bigger question is who's going to prove you're using it or not using it? Will the ATF open up some office somewhere for you to do this? I doubt it. Are you going to call it in from home? That opens it up for abuse by people who just want to snoop on a neighbor. The other way to do it, and it's done in other states, is that you have to run every sale through a dealer. I pass my guns down to my kids and my local dealer gets $40 a pop. And he still doesn't know my kid as well as I do. You could mandate the dealers perform the service for a nominal fee. Another great idea. Just like any other product, when the price is pushed low artificially, the quantity a seller is willing to supply goes down. You're going to the back of the line when your dealer is helping customers who are actually paying him money. Any such system would have done nothing to prevent what just happened in CT. The guy stole the guns from his mother. All this law would do is discourage gun ownership and trip up honest people. |
|
January 8, 2013, 10:40 PM | #206 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Furthermore, such a measure would make life harder for dealers. That would increase the paperwork burden significantly.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 8, 2013, 10:58 PM | #207 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,462
|
Quote:
|
|
January 8, 2013, 11:17 PM | #208 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|