|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 26, 2013, 06:24 PM | #101 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
Last edited by manta49; January 26, 2013 at 06:59 PM. |
|
January 26, 2013, 06:31 PM | #102 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
|
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Right = Something that is not a privilege, something not granted by the government, but something that is inalienable. to Keep = To posess as an item of personal property, IE: Not something issued by the state and then subject to being returned. AND Bear = To be able to carry the property into public, IE: to shoulder ones arms and march, or to carry elsewhere for lawful purposes. Arms = Weapons suitable for use as offensive and defensive arms, IE: "not for sporting purposes". Willie . |
January 26, 2013, 06:31 PM | #103 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,273
|
What I look at:
This idea is put in a marketing wrapper,to give it emotional appeal.Words like "common sense","reasonable",etc are attached to it,the implication being those in opposition lack common sense ,or are unreasonable. What is not brought to the open and discussed,How will it be implemented? Ever heard"The devil is in the details" How about"If its not written down,or if you cannot verify,measure,etc,iit not valid? You see,the only mechanism I can think of to enforce compliance of "No uncontrolled sales,background check,etc" The Federal Government would require an inventory off every firearm you own.Via audit,if you have any firearm not on the inventory,or,if you cannot produce a firearm that is on the inventory,you are now a criminal. Before you blow this off,you tell me,by what other method could the government effectively control face to face sales?Your plan must be enforcable. My Sheriff is one of those who will refuse to enforce,and in his open letter to the public and lawmakers,he came to the same conclusion. This is,by the way,reasonably close to provisions in the treaty the UN would like for us to sign. An aside,in Colorado,for years now,at gunshows,every sale must go through an ffl transfer.A table is set up,you fill out the 4473,they phone it in,you pass NICS or you don't.The parking lots are patrolled,no private sales are permitted.There is no gunshow loophole at Coloraado gunshows,period. |
January 26, 2013, 06:33 PM | #104 | |
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
|
From the politico article:
Quote:
|
|
January 26, 2013, 06:45 PM | #105 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
What is right for America might not be right for some other countries. Undoubtedly here if everyone was armed thousands more would have being killed over the last 40 years. Quote:
Last edited by manta49; January 26, 2013 at 07:01 PM. |
||
January 26, 2013, 06:50 PM | #106 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Quote:
Some highlights: Roughly 30% of the applications were not approved/denied in the 30 days mandated by law. Roughly 70% of revoked FOIDs were not turned in to the ISP. Roughly 85% of the calls to the FOID office during the last quarter of 2010 were not answered. As well as multiple procedural and policy issues, such as failures and inadequacies in the reporting. Seems like a great example of programs like that or universal background checks being a good idea... In actuality it highlights a number of the issues that need to be ironed out with current systems before any further laws are passed in the name of "public safety". |
|
January 26, 2013, 07:12 PM | #107 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I do understand that you don't want people meddling into how you sell your guns. That is a fair argument. I don't want to people to sell guns to criminals and other prohibited unintentionally. I understand that some people will be willing to break the law and do it anyway but most people are law abiding and won't. I believe the inconvenience to us will be minimal, possibly even beneficial in other ways. If we lived in a town with a communal well and everyone brought their own bucket to the well I would want you to clean your bucket before you drew water. This is inconveniences you I know but it is better for everyone in the long run. Can you still get water? Why yes, you can still get water. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
||||||
January 26, 2013, 07:16 PM | #108 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Alabama Shooter, unless I missed it, you have not addressed the Trojan Horse aspect of such a system as a backdoor way toward full, national registration.
Please do. |
January 26, 2013, 07:26 PM | #109 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
January 26, 2013, 07:31 PM | #110 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
My way, the police and courts deal with people who are actually caught breaking laws.
Your way, which restricts a right and therefor requires significant justification, helps set the stage for confiscation. So, support your argument and address the issue YOU would create with your CHANGE TO THE STATUS QUO that would RESTRICT A CORE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. It really is that simple. The onus is on you. |
January 26, 2013, 07:36 PM | #111 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|
January 26, 2013, 07:38 PM | #112 | ||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||||
January 26, 2013, 07:41 PM | #113 |
Member
Join Date: August 21, 2007
Location: Queen Creek, AZ
Posts: 16
|
The ONLY thing I agree with is the "universal" part.
I believe in every state: A stop sign means stop a speed limit sign means the same thing I must be 18 to purchase tobacco I must be 21 to purchase alcohol So what is the problem with firearm transaction laws being the same for every state? Wouldn't that make it easier for legal interstate sales and easier to prosecute illegal sales? |
January 26, 2013, 07:42 PM | #114 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Alabama Shooter, Diane Feinstein famously told 60 Minutes back in 1995 that if she could have mustered the Senate votes required, she would have gone for full confiscation. New York's new law requires owners to dispose of magazines a year after the law goes into effect. Illinois is still under a ban, until the Court tells them time is up for a carry program.
So I am not prognosticating, I am going by the past words and actions of the people who are currently pushing for universal background checks. If you don't see the distinction, you are either not as smart as you had seemed, or you are a mole. Last edited by MLeake; January 26, 2013 at 08:19 PM. |
January 26, 2013, 07:48 PM | #115 | |
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
|
Quote:
|
|
January 26, 2013, 07:52 PM | #116 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
|
Quote:
The problem? See everything above in the thread. Interstate transfers with limited exceptions already require an FFL and as such a background check. Furthermore, they(the feds) already fail to prosecute many firearms offenses, it would not make it any easier as they choose not to already. |
|
January 26, 2013, 07:55 PM | #117 |
Member
Join Date: January 22, 2013
Location: Rogers, Arkansas
Posts: 36
|
This is all so much noise. Even proponents of the UBC admit that background checks don't prevent criminals or other restricted persons from getting weapons when they want them. They simply steal them or buy them on the black market. The only people being constrained by the law are law abiding citizens, which to my mind, means that it fails the effectiveness test required to restrain a constitutional right.
Whether or not people consider universal background checks a reasonable measure, imho it craps all over several rights and should either be dropped from consideration or reworked into a proposed constitutional amendment. |
January 26, 2013, 08:08 PM | #118 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Posts: 1,433
|
Tyme wrote:
Quote:
Glenn, I realize this post is not focused on the background check issue, but as a retired government attorney I felt the need to correct these errors in Tyme's post. And, I felt this public response was more appropriate than a PM.
__________________
Vietnam Veteran ('69-'70) NRA Life Member RMEF Life Member |
|
January 26, 2013, 08:20 PM | #119 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 30, 2010
Posts: 3,513
|
I live in Mass where I had to pass a background check to obtain my license, and every time I buy a firearm they have to call the FBI to run a quick check on me. Never really bothered me that all my guns are registered and I need to pass a background check. I'm not a criminal, nor do I intend to use my guns in criminal activities. My only problem is the call every time I buy a gun. Usually it takes them 5 minutes, but with all stuff going on lately the call can take up to an hour.
|
January 26, 2013, 08:35 PM | #120 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
|
Quote:
Really? A mole? You don't like my argument so now you want to cast aspersions? This thread was going really well with such civil discourse and no personal attacks too. So much for that. Clearly I don't tote whatever the main line is here but that does not make a "mole". Sad really I thought you were better than that. The people who are pushing for background checks are not the same people who are pushing for confiscations. Background checks are supported by the vast majority of Americans. Confiscations are not. The confiscators are pushing for every measure possible but their goal is confiscation. By trying to lump all the people who want background checks into the confiscation camp you all you are doing is creating a long list of opponents who would otherwise not be opposed. The "if you are not for me you are against me" idea is a bad one. You only see enemies that way. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. |
|||||||
January 26, 2013, 08:35 PM | #121 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
And what if they did not dispose of your transaction info, and next year Massachusetts passes a capacity ban with no grandfathering, and uses the info they were not supposed to keep in an attempt to confiscate some of your guns or magazines, Dragline45?
Will you care then? Honestly, I am sick of idiots who say, "Well, I have nothing to hide... maybe you do." FYI, I am a retired Navy officer. I held a TS/SCI, and in my current civilian gig I still hold a TS. I have had firearms training from instructors ranging from Drill Instructors to 18B to Combat Controllers on the military side, and from Mas Ayoob on my own time. I get periodic SSBI investigations. I do not have anything to hide. (BTW, unlike some of you - Dragline, manta, Alabama, Apom, etc - I use my name as a screen name here. M Leake. Who is hiding things, again?) I have seen what happened in the UK, Australia, and Canada; I have followed the quotes and legislative gestures of major gun control advocates in the US; and I think Dragline45, AlabamaShooter, et al are either extremely naive or else in denial as to the potential threat. |
January 26, 2013, 08:45 PM | #122 | |||||
Member
Join Date: August 21, 2007
Location: Queen Creek, AZ
Posts: 16
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
January 26, 2013, 08:56 PM | #123 | ||||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
I ask, but note that in some things, I do not care what the "vast majority of Americans support." That's the beauty of Rights. They're not subject to mob rule. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||||||||
January 26, 2013, 09:03 PM | #124 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Cost to the dealer from the Feds is zero. The dealer still has to spend time, and assume liability, and where I live the standard dealer charge for a transfer is $30.
Edit: I also do not assume all those in favor of background checks are antis. I do assume they have not considered the serious potential for myriad abuses. |
January 26, 2013, 09:18 PM | #125 |
Junior member
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: The "Gunshine State"
Posts: 1,981
|
It sure would be nice if every person of voting age had to pass a basic civics class in order to vote.......how are so many on here so naive about government, the Constitution, and their rights that they are willing to cede even more power to a central fascist government?
Have we learned nothing over the last 20 years, let alone the last 50? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|