The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 5, 2013, 07:56 PM   #351
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
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.
mack59 is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 09:32 PM   #352
wet
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.
wet is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 10:29 PM   #353
Come and take it.
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?
Come and take it. is offline  
Old February 5, 2013, 10:35 PM   #354
BGutzman
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
BGutzman is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 08:39 AM   #355
MLeake
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 11:01 AM   #356
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
What a pile of crap. So, it cost $25.00 for a tranfer. This is less than a box of ammo.
Yeah... So when my oldest son moves out I have to pay to transfer him his 22, his 243, his 12 gauge, his 38... And the cheapest place around here does it for $40. So $160 just for him. I have 3 more kids. Why would I care? Because it's going to cost me a fortune, and won't make anyone safer.

Quote:
Lets face it, the truth is there is a group of business folks out there making a side living off buying and selling guns. They don't mean to sell to the wrong person but for a few bucks they might or might not care less. They will never know. They also want to limit their cost of business and do not want a record of transfer for tax reasons. Not to mention the cost of an FFL permit. They do not want to account for their total income. Tell me if I am wrong on this point.
Secondary gun sells are not the only type of business not wanting to report income.
There is already a mechanism out there to deal with people like this. Of you're selling guns as a business, you have to be licensed. They need to set a number or amount of profit or something. And they need to make it easier for people to get licensed- for example, let people get a license at home without getting occupational licenses from the municipalities. It's not the fed's job to enforce local zoning laws anyway.
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 02:32 AM   #357
j3ffr0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 157
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.
j3ffr0 is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 03:50 AM   #358
NWPilgrim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,153
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?
NWPilgrim is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 07:26 AM   #359
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 727
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.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 07:41 AM   #360
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
It might have stopped her from buying the 22 where she did, if NICS had been in place, if she had been involuntarily committed &/or adjudicated, if PA had reported the information correctly . . . While I agree that she shouldn't have been allowed to possess a firearm, there are a lot of "ifs" that go into that. What's more is that it might have simply turned her into a bomber.

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
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.
No, it's not "common sense." What the antis are doing is an all-out attack on our 2A rights. What you're doing is an attempt at appeasement.
__________________
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 7, 2013, 07:51 AM   #361
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 727
"This is common sense folks and it's pretty simple. "

The problem with that is too many people don't have any.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 12:05 PM   #362
budoboy
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.
budoboy is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 02:06 PM   #363
mrbatchelor
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.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 04:18 PM   #364
mrbatchelor
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
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 12:23 AM   #365
j3ffr0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 157
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.
j3ffr0 is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 12:33 AM   #366
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
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.
No, we still need laws against murder and stealing, if for no other reason than to provide a legal basis for prosecuting and jailing those who murder and steal. But anyone who actually thinks that those laws proactively *prevent* murders and thefts is misguided, at best.

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?
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 05:13 AM   #367
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,312
Quote:
But anyone who actually thinks that those laws proactively *prevent* murders and thefts is misguided, at best.
Yes Laws and and the penalties for braking them do stop some people from certin behaviour. I would probably park my car illegally on occasions what stops me is the fine for doing so. And what makes me pay the fine is the prospect of going to jail if i don't. Same goes for some thief's etc. Because some people don't obey laws is not a good reason for not having them.
manta49 is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 06:19 AM   #368
nate45
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
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 07:51 AM   #369
RazorbackMac
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."
RazorbackMac is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 10:07 AM   #370
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,204
RazorbackMac, nobody will actually know unless and until we see that text of the law that passes.
__________________
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 9, 2013, 10:12 AM   #371
j3ffr0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 157
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?
First there isn't a law against mentally ill owning guns, and there really needs to be. These are the people committing a lot of the high profile crimes that make people want to put restrictions on all guns for all people

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!
j3ffr0 is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 10:16 AM   #372
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
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."
I keep hearing this argument, and it doesn't make sense to me.

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.
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 10:20 AM   #373
AH.74
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
Quote:
Because some people don't obey laws is not a good reason for not having them.
Manta, you keep saying this. I don't see it as the best logic.

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.
AH.74 is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 11:49 AM   #374
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by AH.74 View Post
Laws are supposed to tell us what we can't do, not what we can do.
But this is exactly the Hobbes "Leviathan" social contract renegotiation that the elitists want us to accept. This is only about gun control on its surface.

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.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 12:35 PM   #375
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
First there isn't a law against mentally ill owning guns, and there really needs to be.
Why? I don't much care if the mentally ill own guns. I am very concerned about them possessing firearms. Oh, and there most certainly is a law against both selling to those who have been adjudicated mentally ill, and against possession by those who have been adjudicated mentally ill. See 18 U.S.C 922

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
Secondly existing laws aren't enforced and they do not sufficiently enable enforcement.
So adding more laws that cannot or will not be enforced seems like the right answer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
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.
Hogwash. Universal background checks on private sales serve no purpose. Common sense says that felons and the mentally ill will not abide by the law, and will not or cannot be prosecuted for failing to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
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.
There is no gun show loophole. The laws on sales apply regardless of location.

Quote:
Originally Posted by j3ffr0
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?
If you want to make that comparison, please go read some of the statistics on how many guns used in crimes can actually be traced to gun shows.
__________________
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  
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 05:59 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 0.16584 seconds with 8 queries