|
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 |
February 5, 2013, 07:56 PM | #351 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Bottom line is such a law will not and has not been shown to reduce crime here or anywhere else. It will be disobeyed by millions of otherwise lawful citizens, fostering more contempt for the law. If it has a registration requirement, which is the only way to even theoretically monitor compliance with a requirement that bans private sales and is universal, then 60 some million of your fellow citizens will become criminals, as 65 percent of gun owners have self identified in polls that they would not comply with registration and that is probably low as in Canada non-registration of long guns was estimated to be at 70 percent. Such a law would be not even be a minor inconvenience or hindrance to criminals as straw buying acquaintances or third parties will merely claim the guns were stolen as would family members and it doesn't cover theft or illegally imported firearms.
Do people really believe that such a law would prevent those with evil intent from getting guns anymore than drug laws or prohibition have stopped people from getting drugs and alcohol? Drugs are totally illegal and it's easier for young kids to get them than alcohol, though neither are that hard to obtain. The downside is that we have seen examples of registration leading to confiscation down the road in many countries. Feinstein's original legislation even had a destruction or turn in requirement for grandfathered so called "assault weapons." Gun owners in NY and CA would could also attest to registration and requirements to turn in or get rid of firearms and magazines. There is no rational reason to pass such legislation. The motives of those who push hardest for it are from a desire for control. Heinlein was right, there are two kinds of people in this world, those that want to control others and those that don't. Gun Control laws don't work. If it makes someone feel better to conduct all their gun transfers though an FFL then have at it - transfer that rifle to your son or daughter and pay for it and make a paper trail. Pay an FFL to transfer that shotgun to your uncle who is borrowing for hunting season and then pay for a transfer back. Just don't pass a law that makes 70 percent of your peers criminals and will do nothing to prevent crime and just create more criminals and more crime when the majority of otherwise lawful gun owners ignore it. I have an FFL, I follow the law, and I don't want the business, even though it would bring in thousands of dollars a year. We have too many useless laws and regulations as it is. In my NSHO the gun control - Gun Free zone laws and regulations have directly contributed to these mass shootings. We need to be getting rid of restrictions not adding more. |
February 5, 2013, 09:32 PM | #352 |
Member
Join Date: October 2, 2011
Location: ID.
Posts: 89
|
I wrote to my congressmen to address my concerns of giving more power to the fedral government. I have been assured by two of them they will not support "ANY" more new laws encroaching on my second ammendment rights.
May I suggest, all of you do the same? Thanks. |
February 5, 2013, 10:29 PM | #353 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
This article from gun owners of america kind of points toward my beliefs on background checks.
http://gunowners.org/news02042013c.htm The government knows a lot more of what we own than we think. If you go with a universal background check, with the current software they are running. they will know basically everything. It is de facto gun registration. It seems on this very site several members recollected gun dealers being visited by ATF who went through their records over the last several months. Were they making digital copies of the form 4473s? |
February 5, 2013, 10:35 PM | #354 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Manta I could answer your question but it would break forum rules... Probably the best thing I could say is people have just gotten too comfortable here, if it requires critical thinking skills, that's just too much effort for a wide swath of our citizens...
We are the new Roman empire, same problems, same solutions and one day the same result...
__________________
Molon Labe |
February 6, 2013, 08:39 AM | #355 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
BGutzman, your thoughts echo a conversation a friend and I had just last night, with regard to Rome, the mob, the dole, and the fall.
Then again, mainstream America isn't known for its strong grasp of history... or foreign languages... or math... It's very interesting, traveling abroad, and learning the stereotypes different cultures have about us... and not being able to refute a good many of them. Edit: The flip-side is, many of the stereotypes we hold about various cultures are also grounded in reality. While we have our flaws, and plenty of them, I am always happy to get back home - even if I am disgusted with our state of affairs in education, personal responsibility, ceding of more and more power to the feds, etc. Last edited by MLeake; February 6, 2013 at 08:44 AM. |
February 6, 2013, 11:01 AM | #356 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 7, 2013, 02:32 AM | #357 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 199
|
Universal background checks where mental illness is reportable would have stopped this woman who was in and out of mental hospitals all her life from purchasing a 22 rifle and going on a shooting spree at a mall. I just saw a piece on her on the ID channel. The woman is even on record saying that she should have never been allowed to buy a gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist As I've said before, I also believe they would have stopped the Virgina Tech shooter and many others I have never even heard of. The more crazy people the buy guns and do stupid, crazy stuff with them -- the more the government really will want to start taking away guns. If you're like me and you don't want the govt to take away your guns, maybe you should support something that has a chance of keeping wackos from getting them in the first place. This is common sense folks and it's pretty simple. |
February 7, 2013, 03:50 AM | #358 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
Liberty is not about maximizing safety at all costs. Especially when such associated events are so rare and cause a minuscule percent of all homicide deaths.
Just because an infringement may have saved a handful of lives over the last 30 years is not a sound reason to negotiate away an essential liberty. We all know the quagmire "mental health" exclusion can lead to. You want to own a gun? Well, that indicates pathological paranoia, you are mentally unfit, so may say the state paid psychologist, or will it just need the child welfare clerk to deem it so? |
February 7, 2013, 07:26 AM | #359 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
j3ffr0
"Universal background checks where mental illness is reportable would have stopped this woman who was in and out of mental hospitals all her life from purchasing a 22 rifle and going on a shooting spree at a mall. I just saw a piece on her on the ID channel. The woman is even on record saying that she should have never been allowed to buy a gun. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Seegrist As I've said before, I also believe they would have stopped the Virgina Tech shooter and many others I have never even heard of. The more crazy people the buy guns and do stupid, crazy stuff with them -- the more the government really will want to start taking away guns. If you're like me and you don't want the govt to take away your guns, maybe you should support something that has a chance of keeping wackos from getting them in the first place. This is common sense folks and it's pretty simple. " Correction: It would have prevented them from purchasing a weapon legally. |
February 7, 2013, 07:41 AM | #360 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
February 7, 2013, 07:51 AM | #361 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
"This is common sense folks and it's pretty simple. "
The problem with that is too many people don't have any. |
February 7, 2013, 12:05 PM | #362 |
Member
Join Date: February 22, 2011
Location: Northern CO
Posts: 38
|
I don't know if this sentiment has been expressed yet on this thread, but here is my thought on universal background checks:
As an IT professional with several years of experience with many different database applications, I have seen many customers purchase database applications for their companies for tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of dollars. What typically happens is that the company manages the data fairly well at the start, but as time goes on, the data becomes stale or invalid. Then the company tries to use the data to look up customers or prospects and the information they get out is so bad they begin to hate the database application itself. They say things like "this is useless" and "I can't believe we spent all this money on this piece of junk program" when, all along, it wasn't the application but the data integrity that was the problem. They end up trashing the application and going with another product, sometimes even spending more money thinking that will solve their "problems". However, the data remains bad so they end up right where they left off with the last application. If a company goes through the process to clean up the data, they find that their experience with the database application is much better and their company is much better off. Input - Output. What goes in is what comes out. I see glaring similarities with universal background checks and the scenario above. Forcing more people to get background checks on a system that doesn't contain complete or correct information won't make a lick of difference. What will happen is that even more people who should fail the background check will not. Then the politicians will say "How can it be that we passed all this legislation for Universal Background Checks and 'Johnny Mass Murderer' was still able to pass the NICS and buy a firearm at a gun store?" Then, as we've seen before when similar measures have failed, they will attempt to enact MORE gun control legislation, when all along in this case, it was the data that was causing their system to fail. Of course, the investigation(or lack thereof) of failed background checks is another matter. Many politicians see that the data available to the NICS needs to be cleaned up and more complete, but they seem to think they can enforce universal background checks WHILE trying to get the NICS in order. What I have suggested to all politicians I have written to is that they get the data in the NICS cleaned up and stabilized first and then see how much that alone affects gun crime before they even consider forcing people through an already broken system. -Bryan Last edited by budoboy; February 7, 2013 at 12:11 PM. |
February 7, 2013, 02:06 PM | #363 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
Apparently even CNN is becoming willing to report more about Biden's gaff that the new laws won't help curb violence.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...omment-page-2/ True, this is a blog posting, not a report. But I'm sure many have seen the video clip. If not just search around a little. Well, if the "law won't reduce violence" what the devil is it for? If the press corps can get it through their heads that they've been played like a fiddle for the past four years we might get a little bit of accurate reporting on this administration. They need to have a tingle running up their leg. It just needs to be a redirected tingle.
__________________
"The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King, Jr. NRA Endowment Member Last edited by mrbatchelor; February 7, 2013 at 02:42 PM. |
February 8, 2013, 04:18 PM | #364 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
Coburn and Manchin seem willing to sell us down the road.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/02/0.../?subscriber=1 |
February 9, 2013, 12:23 AM | #365 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 199
|
Yes -- universal background checks will prevent felons and mentally ill from purchasing firearms legally. That is the point I believe. No -- It may not prevent them from purchasing them in all cases, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law against it with stiff penalties.
Following the logic of some folks, maybe we should do away with laws against murder and stealing, because the people who really want to still do it anyway. |
February 9, 2013, 12:33 AM | #366 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
|
Quote:
Felons are already prohibited from even possessing guns legally, much less buying them legally. So in those cases, how will the universal background checks be more effective than the laws already in place? |
|
February 9, 2013, 05:13 AM | #367 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
February 9, 2013, 06:19 AM | #368 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
|
President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, etc are fond of saying that "if one life is saved" banning assualt weapons, high capacity mags, etc is worth it. I disagree.
If a background check stopped one Cho though, which it would have, if the mental health records were correlated with identity. I think that would be worth it. Could he have maybe then got a firearm on the black market? Sure...maybe, but he wouldn't have got one legally.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ (>_<) |
February 9, 2013, 07:51 AM | #369 |
Member
Join Date: October 7, 2010
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Posts: 43
|
Anyone have an clue what would happen in the case of Conceal Handgun License holders doing a transaction if universal background checks were implemented? In Arkansas, as a CHCL holder purchasing from an FFL, I fill out a 4473 for records purposes but no background check is required. No clue how that would change if this actually gets up and running. Personally, I would be against the "public" being able to run a check on me based simply on principle. Who knows how many crazy people would pay the fee required to run a check on someone that isn't even purchasing a gun from them just to "better know their neighbors."
|
February 9, 2013, 10:07 AM | #370 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
RazorbackMac, nobody will actually know unless and until we see that text of the law that passes.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
February 9, 2013, 10:12 AM | #371 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 199
|
Quote:
Secondly existing laws aren't enforced and they do not sufficiently enable enforcement. Saying a felon can't own a gun, but not making sure a check is done when one is sold is exactly like not doing ID checks when selling alcohol. If people aren't checked out by those selling, a kid who should never have alcohol in the first place might become an alcoholic by the time he's twelve. ID checks when selling alcohol or tobacco is common sense, and so is background checks when selling guns. Sell responsibly. Know who you are selling to, or you are part of the problem. The law against minors possessing and consuming alcohol probably doesn't do as much as the law that says stores must check IDs before selling alcohol to minors. It's this second law that makes it less readily available to them. We need another law too to make guns less readily available to the mentally ill and felons. We need to close the gun show loop hole too. Do you not think if an alcohol show came to town where IDs weren't checked by some vendors at all, that any kid who wanted to stock up on alcohol wouldn't be there? Hee Haw... We need the law! |
|
February 9, 2013, 10:16 AM | #372 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
We're not talking about a system designed to do mental health or history checks. We're talking about NICS, which is specifically designed to give a "proceed", "delay" or "deny" response. They also ask you for information about the gun in question. You're not going to learn specifics about your neighbors- nothing you couldn't learn by checking public records, if you really want to know. Last edited by AH.74; February 9, 2013 at 10:24 AM. |
|
February 9, 2013, 10:20 AM | #373 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
Let's flip it around. "Because some people obey laws is a good reason for having them." I don't see this as the best logic either. Laws are supposed to tell us what we can't do, not what we can do. |
|
February 9, 2013, 11:49 AM | #374 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
Quote:
The nameless "they" want to abandon the Lockean concept of individual responsibility and self governance to be replaced by the state. In this model everything is forbidden, and laws grant permission. I had an acquaintance from the USSR studying at our local university many years ago who was astonished that at an intersection which had a traffic signal with a left arrow as well as a solid green light you did not have to wait for the left arrow if there was no oncoming traffic. He explained that in Russia the left turn would be automatically forbidden until the arrow grants permission. Everything is automatically forbidden until permission is granted. Prior to the 2008 election I tried to explain to my brother that what we were really voting on was whether America was going to remain a free country or not. It will take 30-40 years, but it won't even be recognizable. However, as an example of how well the centralist play the media for fools, he honestly and truly believes that the gun control laws have gotten so lax over the last 50 years things are getting out of hand. He truly has put it out of his mind that the Sears and Montgomery Wards catalog had pages of guns that as mere teenage boys with our tobacco money we could order through the mail. It's all the NRA's fault. Last edited by mrbatchelor; February 9, 2013 at 11:54 AM. |
|
February 9, 2013, 12:35 PM | #375 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
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. |
|||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|