The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 2, 2013, 08:35 AM   #301
WeedWacker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: Body: Clarkston, Washington. Soul: LaCrosse, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,532
The problem with mandatory background checks is the stigma of labeling the firearm as an object of evil, that we must determine that the end user has good intentions before trusting them with such devices. Society has moved this direction already. Look at the implementation of "gun free zones" and outlawing the practice of certain types of carry or magazines and ergonomic/cosmetic features. The object itself has been condemned as a means of destruction rather than salvation which is the status it should hold as per the founders in their provision of the second amendment. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington spoke highly of firearms as liberty's teeth and the means by which man maintains his freedom. Background checks are the foot in the door that could be the vehicle for further infringement of persons to exercise their right.

The biggest issue at hand, as is evidenced by the recent tragedies, is classifications of mental illness and how it will impact our ability to own firearms. Diagnosing a mental illness may take weeks and even then the initial diagnosis may be incorrect thanks to the myriad of symptoms that overlap. Someone with dissociative identity disorder being diagnosed with schizophrenia will forever carry the label of schizophrenic in their medical history. A major depressive episode diagnosis could follow you and interfere with purchases, all because your mother passed after a battle with cancer and you were grief stricken for a month. Who decides what mental illnesses prevent firearm ownership and what happens with a misdiagnosis? Who also decides which of us needs a psychological evaluation to determine competency to own and operate a firearm? I certainly don't want the government making those decisions, much less letting the IRS have control of my healthcare. (Oh, wait, too late... )
__________________
- Weed
Disequilibrium facilitates accommodation.
9mm vs 45 ACP? The answer is 42.
WeedWacker is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 09:05 AM   #302
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,312
Quote:
News Flash: They govt already has more information on you than you think. You pay taxes. You have drivers licenses. When a car is sold, the new owner registers it. Following some of y'alls logic, maybe they'll come confiscate our cars, or our houses using the info they already have on us.. and if they get our houses I'd imagine they'd get most of our guns too. Heck cars and houses aren't even protected by a constitutional amendment. Watch out for the mad run on those things when people realize that Obama is coming for them!
I would agree with the above post people can debate the merits of background checks or not but the argument that it couldn't be done are kidding themselves. Government agencies already have all the information they need on individuals they need to do checks especially after 911.

Here if i get stoped by police it takes a radio call and they have all they need to know about me.

They have background checks in the uk for firearms i have no problem with that. If people think they can't do the same in America they are wrong. So if people are against background checks there may be plenty of reasons for that but the government not being able to is not one.
manta49 is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 09:38 AM   #303
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
If people think they can't do the same in America they are wrong. So if people are against background checks there may be plenty of reasons for that but the government not being able to is not one.
If we as a people do not let it (the government), it cannot do it. It's as simple as that.

If we roll over and let it, we have only ourselves to blame.
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 10:41 AM   #304
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,312
Quote:
If we as a people do not let it (the government), it cannot do it. It's as simple as that
If that was the case there would be no gun control in America. The fact is there is already gun control in America the people let that happen. What makes you think they will prevent further controls.
manta49 is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 10:58 AM   #305
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
News Flash: They govt already has more information on you than you think. You pay taxes. You have drivers licenses. When a car is sold, the new owner registers it. Following some of y'alls logic, maybe they'll come confiscate our cars, or our houses using the info they already have on us.. and if they get our houses I'd imagine they'd get most of our guns too. Heck cars and houses aren't even protected by a constitutional amendment. Watch out for the mad run on those things when people realize that Obama is coming for them!
Are you sure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Founding Fathers
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. U.S. Const., Amend. IV
That's actually beside the point, though. I entirely agree that I don't want violent felons or the mentally ill gaining access to firearms. However, we have no reason to believe that UBCs will do that. What's more, just because the gov't has some information, or even a great deal of information about me, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that I should volunteer to give it even more.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 11:01 AM   #306
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
If that was the case there would be no gun control in America. The fact is there is already gun control in America the people let that happen. What makes you think they will prevent further controls.
At this point I feel you are trolling for any argument you can get.

The point is- people were elected into office and supported these things. If other people were elected who did not support them, they would not happen. It all comes back to the people who allowed these things to happen.

Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. It's not being productive.
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 01:30 PM   #307
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,312
Quote:
Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. It's not being productive.
I don't see how stating a fact about gun control in America is arguing. People have different views on forums that's sort the point of having them.

Quote:
The point is- people were elected into office and supported these things. If other people were elected who did not support them, they would not happen. It all comes back to the people who allowed these things to happen
True and if you think the issue of gun control for or against is top of the list when most Americans decide who to vote for you are kidding yourself.

Last edited by manta49; February 2, 2013 at 02:22 PM.
manta49 is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 03:56 PM   #308
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
True and if you think the issue of gun control for or against is top of the list when most Americans decide who to vote for you are kidding yourself.
Says the person who doesn't even live here.

I'm not kidding myself about anything, and it's presumptive of you to think so.
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 04:34 PM   #309
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
The fact is there is already gun control in America the people let that happen. What makes you think they will prevent further controls.
Well.....that's one of the few things you and I both believe is the truth.
For a country that's supposed to have our right to keep and bear arms uninfringed, we sure have a strange way of showing it...
& getting sadly stranger every day.

However - just because we have gun control is no reason we should swallow more...
Hal is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 06:13 PM   #310
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
manta49, should a rape victim, having been raped once by a neighbor, just shrug and invite him back to her home?
MLeake is offline  
Old February 2, 2013, 07:04 PM   #311
win-lose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 451
Quote:
True and if you think the issue of gun control for or against is top of the list when most Americans decide who to vote for you are kidding yourself.
It may very well be in 2014....
win-lose is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 05:49 AM   #312
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
manta49, should a rape victim, having been raped once by a neighbor, just shrug and invite him back to her home?
hehe - I like that...
I just might use that on Facebook but "soften" it up a bit by changing it to a mugging.

(We really do need a "two thumbs up" smiley"
Hal is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 07:12 AM   #313
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,312
Quote:
manta49, should a rape victim, having been raped once by a neighbor, just shrug and invite him back to her home?
People should really read my posts before posting. At no stage did i say there should be further gun control in America. I said they had background checks in the uk i and i don't have a problem with that and was pointing out that similar could be done in America if the government wanted to. I did not say it will happen or should happen in America. I was also pointing out that when people talk about gun control in America as if its something new that there already in gun control in America. My view is that further gun control in America will not make any difference regarding mass shootings . I do think some sensible common sense measures could be considered like requiring firearms to be safely stored when not in use. If only to stop children getting hold of them.

Quote:
Says the person who doesn't even live here.
Lots on this forum are happy to comment on crime levels gun control etc in the uk. Should they not if they don't live in the uk.

Last edited by manta49; February 3, 2013 at 07:27 AM.
manta49 is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 08:03 AM   #314
Bud Helms
Staff
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia
Posts: 13,013
Quote:
If we as a people do not let it (the government), it cannot do it. It's as simple as that.
Tsk, tsk! Just a note from the grammar nanny: can vs. may. One requires permission. The other requires ability.
__________________
"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion." - John Lawton, speaking to the American Association of Broadcast Journalists in 1995
Bud Helms is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 08:18 AM   #315
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
The fact is there is already gun control in America the people let that happen. What makes you think they will prevent further controls
Quote:
People should really read my posts before posting. At no stage did i say there should be further gun control in America
????

I'm sort of lost....

Quote:
I do think some sensible common sense measures could be considered like requiring firearms to be safely stored when not in use. If only to stop children getting hold of them.
Ahem....
When my kids were growing up, my Winchester .30/30 was loaded and hanging on the wall of the living room.
My kids had about as much interest in it as they did in weeding the yard of dandilions..

"Safety" is a state of mind/a learned activity - not some lock on something..
Hal is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 08:46 AM   #316
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
Lots on this forum are happy to comment on crime levels gun control etc in the uk. Should they not if they don't live in the uk.
It's easy to look up laws and statistics for discussion purposes.

I am not even going to pretend to know what UK politicians' thoughts and priorities are. Therefore I won't try to discuss them.
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 09:03 AM   #317
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,312
Quote:
I am not even going to pretend to know what UK politicians' thoughts and priorities are. Therefore I won't try to discuss them
Yes and i don't know what American politicians thoughts and priorities are. That's why i haven't tried to discuss them. But the Internet is a wonderful thing and i am sure i could look at American politicians views on firearms if i wanted to.

Quote:
Ahem....
When my kids were growing up, my Winchester .30/30 was loaded and hanging on the wall of the living room.
My kids had about as much interest in it as they did in weeding the yard of dandilions..
Yes you can speak on behalf of your children. But don't assume that other children or parents have the same safe attitude to firearms that you have. I haven't looked up the statistics but i am sure that lots of children are killed by uncured firearms in America. I think requiring them to be stored safely would be a small price to pay if it helped prevent such incidents.

Quote:
I'm sort of lost
Let me know part is confusing you and i will see if i can help.

Last edited by manta49; February 3, 2013 at 09:10 AM.
manta49 is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 10:49 AM   #318
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
Yes you can speak on behalf of your children. But don't assume that other children or parents have the same safe attitude to firearms that you have.
Back in the day.....having a loaded firearm in an accesable location was very common.
My .30/30 was on the wall (5 feet or so high)- out of reach of "small" children.
Sticking a loaded pistol on top of a bookshelf or dresser was also common.

Heck, back when I was a kid, just setting foot in a parents bedroom w/out them there was such a forbidden act it was unheard of.
A loaded gun atop a dresser in a parents bedroom was as secure as it would have been locked away in Ft. Knox.

Why? It had nothing to do with "gun control" or "common sense".
It was all about, as Aretha sang - R_E_S_P_E_C_T.
Kids respected their parents,,,,no,,,,kids respected EVERYBODY's parents.

Somewhere along the way - that concept became infected with a contagious disese. It's not dead yet - but - it's going under at an alarming rate.


Where I'm not clear is this:
"At no stage did i say there should be further gun control in America"
is what you siad.
But earlier you said:
"What makes you think they will prevent further controls"

I'm reading the second statement as you saying that further controls are inevitable.
Then coming back and saying that you didn't say there would be further controls.
I'm a bit confused here as to exactly what it is you're trying to convey.
Hal is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 04:47 PM   #319
j3ffr0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 157
Quote:
My view is that further gun control in America will not make any difference regarding mass shootings . I do think some sensible common sense measures could be considered like requiring firearms to be safely stored when not in use. If only to stop children getting hold of them.
If universal background checks were required for every gun purchase and those background checks screened for mentally ill people Cho probably would not have been able to purchase the guns legally like he did, and the VT massacre really might not have happened. Even a straw purchase would have been unlikely, because it's not like Cho had a lot of friends. It's very probable that there would have been no massacre.

We had all better hope some new things are legislated to screen for wackos. Otherwise we ALL (not just the wackos) stand to loose more and more gun rights. I'm not a wacko, and I have no problems with the govt screening for wackos. If y'all aren't wacko, neither should you. If we can't get behind common sense solutions to keep guns out of the hands of wackos, then someone else will come up with solutions for us.... Don't believe me? They are working on some stuff now -- I don't like most of it, but universal background checks is one good idea. If you guys don't support something that makes sense, you might not like what they come up with. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. Even if nothing happens this time around, all it will take is for a couple more crack pots to crack off... When enough people get hurt, a tipping point will eventually be reached.

LaPiere is wrong about universal background checks. Think for yourselves folks. Don't be sheeple. LaPierre is actually more to blame than anyone (including Obama and Feinstein) for current .22 ammo shortage. He has many folks believing that Obama is coming for every bullet in the country, even .22 ammo evidently. He has many gun owners so afraid that they can't think clearly.

Unlike most of you, I do believe universal background checks can help stop mass shootings. Like most of you, I do not believe banning this gun or that gun or magazines is going to help in any significant way.
j3ffr0 is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 04:56 PM   #320
Battler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2000
Posts: 1,185
Lapierre is rallying up all gunowners to stand (generally) united against yet another ban. A side-effect of this is that gunowners of many stripes are buying up all the 22, exercising a legal *choice* to do so.

"They're not going to take *your* gun" is true in that at any given moment only a small percentage of gunowners' interests are under threat. I don't think it preferable for the NRA to do battle with the Feinsteins with only 5% of its strength. (Or whatever comes after, with the 5% they choose to fu** over next time).

He's getting some use out of *some* of those "duck hunters" every TV pundit seems to be in the last 2 months (well, not the ones on TV, I assume there are some in real life too).

Hang together. . . hang separately. . . all that crap.

Last edited by Battler; February 3, 2013 at 05:02 PM.
Battler is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 05:01 PM   #321
Battler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2000
Posts: 1,185
Quote:
LaPiere is wrong about universal background checks.
You really have to put yourself into the mindset of someone who is trying to deal with the problem (all the guns). The issue is one of triage:

1. Stem the growth in the problem (new people buying more guns).
2. Mopping up the problem

The most important thing in universal checks (logistically registration) is to pin the gun (and followup redtape to keep it, and ultimate surrendur) to a person, get rid of the "I sold it" crap they'd otherwise face.
Battler is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 05:51 PM   #322
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
Unlike most of you, I do believe universal background checks can help stop mass shootings.
Explain how UBCs can help stop mass shootings - and be specific about where benefits will be achieved.

The concept of UBCs has emotional appeal, but go through the specifics of how they would work to show they have a rational basis. FFLs are compelled to do background checks because they have to account for inventory, both incoming and outgoing. It becomes obvious very quickly if a dealer is skipping background checks. Many gun owners only do purchases and sales through FFLs and are already covered by background checks. What would compel other individuals to do background checks on transactions with family members, friends, or total strangers and how much benefit would be derived from background checks in each of those categories?
gc70 is online now  
Old February 3, 2013, 05:55 PM   #323
shogan191
Member
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Posts: 27
I'm confused. Can't we use an FFL for personal sales right now? If you want to sell a firearm to another individual why not just use an ffl and do a recorded transfer?
shogan191 is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 05:58 PM   #324
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I think most TFLers who have supported the checks don't have data to justify their support; I think their "support" is more often just the throwing of somebody else's baby to the wolves, in hopes of protecting their EBRs or high capacity pistols and magazines.

I also think that any subset that allows themselves to break ranks will find the antis use a different divide and conquer strategy in future, but will eventually get all the babies if those subsets don't learn better.
MLeake is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 06:11 PM   #325
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,312
Quote:
You seem to think you are quite the authority on our politics and our laws.
I don't think i am a authority on politics or laws in America. But i can see that further gun controls are now happening or being proposed. The idea that the people can stop it we will see. They have stoped some gun control in the past but not all. I will give you a example i bought a 25 rd mag for my rugger 10/22 on the package it listed a number of states that it couldn't be sold in America. If gun control concerns were high on the list of who people vote for in America how did president Obama get in for a second term. PS I don't mean to come across as insulting and don't think i am superior.
manta49 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.17754 seconds with 8 queries