|
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 9, 2013, 06:57 PM | #401 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
|
February 9, 2013, 07:05 PM | #402 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
February 9, 2013, 07:16 PM | #403 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
*shakes head*
|
February 9, 2013, 07:23 PM | #404 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
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, 08:09 PM | #405 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
Quote:
Damn it, if they're dangerous, put them in prison. It's harder to get weapons in there. Quit treating the rest of us like prisoners. We shouldn't be assumed guilty, then have to prove ourselves innocent to exercise a right. |
||
February 9, 2013, 08:21 PM | #406 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
They just make the preamble to every law they pass, "Because this affects interstate commerce," and away ... we ... go. |
|
February 9, 2013, 09:00 PM | #407 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
|
|
February 9, 2013, 09:40 PM | #408 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
|
February 10, 2013, 03:18 AM | #409 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
Ok, so now the "ordinary citizens" are encouraged to go around the "filters" of the NRA.
http://youtu.be/IzuHp2G_E_s Basically the lie is that "the people" want this, but the NRA is keeping that message away from Congress. So he wants "all the little people" to call the Capitol switchboard and beg government to protect them from evil guns, because the NRA is keeping the will of the people hidden. We, the people, not filtered through the NRA, need to light up the switch board. Does anyone remember the number? |
February 10, 2013, 03:56 AM | #410 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,340
|
Exactly! The real question is: Who exactly is passionate for gun control in the general population. No One! It us only activist politicians and paid organizations driving for gun control. The majority of voters are lukewarm either way, with a significant minority passionately against it.
|
February 10, 2013, 04:11 AM | #411 | ||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2012
Location: VA
Posts: 199
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/201...a-gun-research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Ti...ahrt_Amendment I'm a fan of data, and this is one law I'd like to see done away with. Maybe this is something we could all agree on as a minimum? |
||||||||||
February 10, 2013, 09:38 AM | #412 | |||||||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
As far as the "govt auditing your possessions," that's exactly what I expect to happen, once the govt figures out that a UBC law is unenforceable without registration. Quote:
Quote:
Why should we enact laws that, almost by definition, will only provide more hurdles to lawful gun ownership, while having no impact on possession by felons and the mentally ill? 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 10, 2013, 10:38 AM | #413 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
Quote:
"My analogy is correct. Would you do ID checks for alcohol sales? I agree with you that felons and mentally ill will get away with what they can. I will add most people to that list. People speed where the law isn't enforced. Background checks add a point where the law can be enforced. Don't kid yourself. " I agree that the background check law will slightly inconvenience a felon who wants to get a gun- he will have to get a girlfriend or family member to buy it for him. The problem with your analogy- these alcohol laws have reduced the amount of underage drinking, but they haven't significantly reduced the number of kids who have had alcohol at least once. Kids aren't getting drunk every weekend, but I don't think I've met anyone who hasn't had a sip of alcohol before he was 21. Everybody has done it once. The felon only has to buy the gun once. A firearm lasts longer than a six pack of beer. So UBC is not going to reduce the number of felons with guns. So the felons will still have guns. It might take a guy a few weeks to do it, but if he wants one, he's going to get one. In the process, you've put an undue burden on the rest of us. No more driving 20 or 30 miles and meeting someone halfway for a trade. no more handing down grandpa's shotgun to your son, without dropping money at your local dealer. No more $50 22 rifles for a kid to start out on. No more loaning a shotgun to your uncle to go hunting when he comes to visit. It's going to do nothing but trip up the otherwise law-abiding people. An incident over at calguns got me thinking. There's a guy over there who paid for a pistol from his friend. His friend died, and now he's in limbo while the family gets everything settled, because there's no one to transfer the gun to him. Imagine if I died today, just keeled over and had a heart attack- happens all the time. If we had this UBC law- even if they forced dealers to do it at $10 per transfer, I'm looking at $2000 to pass my collection down to my kids. And they can't take it until they're 18, because it all has to go through a dealer. What do we do to keep the guns? Does my wife pay $2000, wait for the kids to turn 18, and pay $2000 again? Put it in a trust? How do my kids go shooting or hunting- they don't own the guns, and the adults they go with won't be allowed to bring mine. Useless law that's going to screw over a lot of people. If you really want to be safe from dangerous felons, keep them in prison longer. And make it easier for us to carry. |
|
February 10, 2013, 12:19 PM | #414 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
The alcohol analogy is far from correct.
And the first reason is that one can visually tell a child from an adult. Ok, it may be tough to tell a 17 year old from a 22 year old at times, but there is no difficulty telling a 12 year old from a 50 year old. There is no visual way to tell a prohibited person from a non prohibited person. Are you going to propose that a convicted felon, or someone adjucated incompetent be marked indelibly, so that mark can be shown as "proof"? Another thing to consider, the real reason background checks will not stop bad people from getting guns is that background checks only turn up info about people who are already in the system. No matter what the bad guy has done (or plans to do) the ONLY thing a background check can show is if that person has been in trouble with the law, before the attempted gun purchase. Background checks are completely usless against the spree killer who has not broken the law before going on a rampage. And what good does a background check to when the prospective buyer already owns a gun, or several? NOTHING! All it does then is add some complexity to the sale, waste some time, and waste govt resources. Universal background checks is an unworkable feel good solution to an incorrectly percieved problem. And, even if adopted, what good do you think it would do when our govt "doesn't have the time" to prosecute those who break the law when trying to buy a gun? If our own govt doesn't enforce existing law, why do you think they will do any more with another layer of law added on top of what is already being ignored? Another point, the system is flawed. Take a look, a real look, not just what some agenda driven politician spouts off, and you will find that the overwhelming majority of delays/denials by the system are false positives. Now, you think it's a good idea to increase the workload of the system by a huge amount (double? triple?)? What do you think that will cause? Most likely excessive delays, maybe even crash the system. And here's yet another point, those people who would willingly sell to someone of "questionable status" today, will simply ignore the law. THe only real effect of a requirement for universal background checks will be to hugely increase the blackmarket, along with creating a new class of criminal, those who "transfer" a firearm without a check. Look at the wording of the proposed laws..you won't be able to transfer (and that includes lend) a gun to anyone you know is not a prohibited person, until after the govt tells you that you can. TO me, that is total BS! If my son comes home on leave, from defending our nation in some third world pesthole, with a machine gun that the govt gives him to use for that purpose, I can't take him shooting at the range, or hunting without first having him pass a background check before I can loan him a gun to do it with? Otherwise I am breaking the law? ITs BULL! and worse. Why is it that these supposedly educated people in politics will not write laws that do not insult the innocent, and maybe, just maybe stand a chance of punishing the guilty? They ought to be able to do it, but I haven't seen any evidence of it, lately.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
February 10, 2013, 01:33 PM | #415 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
Don't know if anyone's posted it here or not. Sums up my view on the issue.
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/01/univ...bsolutely-not/ Last edited by Spats McGee; February 10, 2013 at 01:38 PM. Reason: Removing copyrighted material |
February 10, 2013, 01:47 PM | #416 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
February 10, 2013, 02:09 PM | #417 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
Quote:
The answer is they are not. The only reason they want it is to misuse the law to prosecute people selectively, and to enact backdoor registration. |
|
February 10, 2013, 02:11 PM | #418 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
|
|
February 10, 2013, 03:00 PM | #419 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
|
|
February 10, 2013, 03:26 PM | #420 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
|
"They could be made to enforce the laws. "
That's fine. But until they start doing that, it's useless to pile on more laws that are impossible to enforce. |
February 10, 2013, 04:20 PM | #421 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
Is this all you can do, keep retorting with one-liners? Nothing anyone says will make any difference to you, will it? How do you just "make" them enforce the laws? If they won't or can't enforce THESE EXISTING laws, how can they enforce new laws on top of those? Does this make any sense to you? Or are you just going to keep on disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing? |
|
February 10, 2013, 04:51 PM | #422 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,340
|
People so in favor of universal background checks should lead by example and get themselves re-checked annually for all your guns. Not needed for you, you say because you are law abiding and will not commit violent crime with them? Hypocrites. Either set the example you want to foist on everyone or keep quiet.
I have never met a person adamant about taxes or laws that is willing to subject themselves to a higher standard as an example. They either are not affected by said law/tax or don't feel it applies to them, just others. Lots of sound reasoning why UBC do not work, and how they erode liberties, yet a couple of guys are so insistent this is needed. Here is a clue: If you actually own any guns it us purely by the efforts of those before you that resisted such incremental infringement laws. If people such as yourselves wrote the Bill of Rights and had majority congressional control then none if use would be owning the guns today we enjoy and rely upon. You act as parasites enjoying the liberty to own guns but actively working to undermine that very right. Make no mistake, there is no such thing as "reasonable gun laws". Gun grabbers have repeatedly stated they are merely steps toward elimination of all guns. Your obstinate support of more gun laws expose you as either a naive tool, hypocrite or subversive plant. |
February 10, 2013, 05:12 PM | #423 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
|
Quote:
I am not saying there should be any more laws or they should be enforcing the current laws. What i am saying is that is that this notion that its beyond the American government agencies to enforce the laws if they wanted to is mistaken. So the fact that they don't enforce some laws at the present does not follow that they couldn't in the future. There are plenty of arguments and reasons why further gun controls should not be introduced. But the government not having the capability to so if they wanted is a poor one. |
|
February 10, 2013, 05:28 PM | #424 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
|
>manta49: "They could be made to enforce the laws. "
>2ndsojourn: That's fine. But until they start doing that, it's useless to pile on more laws that are impossible to enforce. We have an untrustworthy nephew (the government) who we think is trying to steal our jewelry (our rights), and currently has a key to the garage in order to mow the lawn (FFL transfers). He complains that he cannot mow the lawn without a key to the main house (UBC), and manta thinks that's exactly what he needs. However, once the jewelry is gone, it's gone for good.
__________________
"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 |
February 10, 2013, 05:33 PM | #425 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 13, 2008
Location: Hermit's Peak
Posts: 623
|
Quote:
But it doesn't change the fact that there is no real purpose to passing new laws if the ones in existence are not being enforced. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|