|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 13, 2020, 05:23 PM | #76 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,968
|
Quote:
I agree with you about your words today being heard 20 or so years ago. we went from states with may issue or even no issue to shall issue, government infringements "sunsetting", et cetera.... today many of the same states that were leaders in 2nd amendment recognition are turning the other way, not because of a rise in crime but a failure of the voting public to support politicians that honor the 2nd amendment. |
|
January 14, 2020, 12:15 PM | #77 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,817
|
Quote:
If you'd care to define your standards, and show us where you think someone goes from lazy and apathetic to energetic and caring, I'll listen, though I may not agree with you 100%. The OP of the thread is Universal Background Checks sans registration. I believe it is possible. I don't believe it is right, but it is possible. Discussion of the general state of our gun rights, past and current state of efforts from both sides is related, but not directly on topic. There are times when valid topics deserve their own threads.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 14, 2020, 12:54 PM | #78 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2018
Posts: 218
|
Quote:
Since you dispute his opinion of vast majority, why don't you give us the exact, factually substantiated definition in percentages of what is the "vast majority". I think you have a lot of good points, but for most states, the 2A is not in jeopardy. And the state that is having a serious wake up call, VA, is not sitting quietly. People can repeat over and over "where were they during the election?" but they appear to have woken up now... and I don't think it is too late. I live in a state that has had Democrat majorities in the Governor's office, house and senate, and did not even think about pulling the garbage they are pulling in VA... and that could be viewed as the politicians just know better than to pull some crap like that. Apparently the socialist agenda driven democrats in my state, that is practically purple, don't see the majority of gun owners as lazy apathetic and out of touch. |
|
January 14, 2020, 01:07 PM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Many things are possible in principle. That doesn't make them true stand alone features in a real political system where the same motive for UBCs also supports other restrictions.
I don't see that gun owners are particularly apathetic on 2d Am. issues, but they also aren't categorically supportive of the 2d Am. Normal people aren't consumed by politics because they have things going on in their lives; any of school, work or family are likely to be a priority over travelling to DC to protest. The drive for greater restrictions does have an advantage in political terrain. People who've just heard of an outrage can, for a short period of time, believe that the source of the outrage is a priority. Someone whose greatest anxiety last week was what to serve at a dinner party may be led to believe that last week's school shooting 2000 miles away is a priority that demands a call to her congressman, or even just staying on the telephone to answer a survey question. The result is public polling in which support for a restriction may be highly variable and increases just after a prominent story. In contrast, people with a more complex than average view of a right to firearms possession may have less variable opinions, but express those opinions within the context of an ordinary life, i.e. one not dominated by political issues. The problem in dealing in concessions on this right is that one will be dealing with political opportunists who prey on constituents who periodically express their outrage at genuinely outrageous events. That sort of concession is a retreat, not a settlement.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
January 14, 2020, 02:17 PM | #80 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,817
|
I would also point out that, in some places, even were gun owners are not "lazy and apathetic" the system can still defeat us.
Its not just about us standing up and defending our rights, its ALSO about how effective the other side is convincing people who don't know better that their lies are the truth. Even if the other side doesn't demonize us (they want guns, guns=bad so they= bad) or marginalize us (they're just fringe lunatics conspiracy nuts), their side has a huge advantage over ours. First and foremost (and don't ever forget it) they are willing to lie and say what ever is needed to support their cause, AND they think its RIGHT to do so. Our side generally holds that its wrong to lie. Second advantage they have is money. Third is a form of class warfare. Indeed it can even be a form of snobbery. "Good" people don't have guns, don't like guns, and when guns are absolutely needed they hire people to use them. Some times they actually say it, but even when they don't they imply that if you like guns, or even believe in the right to have them, then you are not "good" people. I live in a state where a UBC law was defeated in the Legislature, repeatedly. Failing to get their law through regular channels the backers got it put on the ballot through the initiative process. They then launched a massive PR campaign targeted on the metro areas. They got it passed in those 5 counties. Every other place in the state voted it down. 5 aye, 37 nay...the Ayes have it! wait..what??? how's that right?? Well, son, those 5 have more votes than all the rest of you combined, that's Democracy, boy!! SO, its state law now... Our side has a built in disadvantage as we generally believe in individual choice and honesty. One side trumpets "do what we say and you will be safe" and all we have is the truth and what we believe, that "you have the right to choose and no one can guarantee you will be safe." Rational thought holds its own against Fear only up to a certain point, after which Fear runs rampant, for a time, and doing tremendous damage while on the loose. What is that point? How to we prevent getting there? Its different for every issue and every culture and subculture. Where were the strident calls for gun bans and UBCs and all of that in 2002, 3, 4 5, etc? The same people who pushed gun control in the 90s were still big players then, many still are today. 9/11/2001 knocked the US gun control movement on its ass, for about a decade. Why? If you understand "the Riddle of Steel" you know why. They don't get it. It is the hand (the WILL) that matters, not the steel. They only see the steel, or at least that's the way they act. The current push for a national UBC, where every purchase and transfer is checked and only people who are authorized under law can get guns is a fantasy. NO system can deliver that, And the choices we are given will not, and cannot even remotely live up to the promises being made for them. People who actually THINK about things recognize this. (and that includes people on their side as well as ours). People who go only one what they get told, don't. Election results lately seem to indicate that there are more who don't, than who do. This becomes a problem when your system relies on just numbers of votes.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 14, 2020, 05:17 PM | #81 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,312
|
Quote:
Also, maybe we need an "electoral college" for counties/states...you know so the low population counties don't get steam rolled. |
|
January 14, 2020, 05:53 PM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 23, 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 2,968
|
dream on. voter apathy is what created this. the "it won't happen here" mentality is what created this. folks in Texas say this crap today but are blind at how Austin and Houston are proving them wrong... and they think it won't spread.... Virginia is getting the government they allowed. if you keep Mitt Romney'ing your way around political issues you will get exactly what is happening to Virginia now. and please, save the melon labe stuff for bumpers stickers because there's been plenty of opportunity for that and the resistance is only internet anger. you will be Ruby Ridged if you openly defy this next round of 2nd Amendment infringements. I hope Virginians will be able to take the same coping theory as the folks in Ca, Ha, NJ, Md, NY, Ct, Ma, RI, did I miss anyone?
|
January 14, 2020, 06:12 PM | #83 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 196
|
|
January 15, 2020, 09:12 AM | #84 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,342
|
Quote:
....and when we propagate lies about "vast majorities" we are just lowering ourselves to the level we despise in the other side, and our ability to convince others, reduced. |
|
January 15, 2020, 01:04 PM | #85 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,817
|
Quote:
one does not ALLOW rights. If it is something that can be allowed, then it is NOT a RIGHT. Its a language trap. Using "allowed" and "permitted" diminishes the status of rights (all of them) by inferring they are NOT rights but something that the govt must give permission or you don't have it. I know what you mean, we all know what is meant, and we all speak "sloppily" but when we do, over matters such as this, it reduces their importance, implied, if not actually. I don't think we should say things like "the neutral majority allowed us to keep our rights.." I think it should be stated "the neutral majority prevented the anti-gunners from stripping us of our Constitutionally protected rights.." And note, I say Constitutionally protected, not given. The Constitution GIVES NO RIGHTS. The Bill of Rights, gives no rights. It is a list of restrictions on Government. This was intentional.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 18, 2020, 01:32 PM | #86 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2007
Location: Illinois - down state
Posts: 2,403
|
Wow. Thanks to all who have posted here.
I'm still working my way through all of this. Lotta gray areas.
Here in IL we have to have a FOID card. That's the state. And when I buy a gun from an FFL I have to have the NICS run. That's the Feds. The one thing I like about the FOID is that I'm a touch more comfortable selling a gun to a private individual. They have to have a FOID card and that means they have passed a state level background check. The one thing I like about the NICS is that they have to run it every time I'm buying a gun. Which is SUPPOSED to mean there is no federal record of my firearm purchases. There would have to be serious corruptions at a high federal level for the feds to be recording every gun purchase in the USA. YES, I KNOW WE'VE EXPERIENCED SERIOUS CORRUPTION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. But the way we know there has been corruption is that they get caught. Someone from the opposing party catches the corruption and slams the perpetrators to the mat. We have an imperfect governmental system, but when I look around the world . . . I'm still glad this is home. Life is good. Prof Young Last edited by Prof Young; January 18, 2020 at 01:32 PM. Reason: left of ending salutation. |
January 18, 2020, 03:17 PM | #87 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
Quote:
I guess it depends on your definition of "corruption." To me, the word "corruption" carries a connotation of a public official using his/her public office for some sort of private gain. Suppose, in the case of federal background checks, nobody involved is out to put any money (or other tangible or intangible assets) in their pocket, but they just think that the .gov "should have" a more permanent record of who is buying guns. So they just don't bother to destroy all those records that are supposed to be deleted after ___ days. Personally, I would not be at all surprised if that's what is happening, but I don't think I would ascribe it to "corruption." I'm more inclined to ascribe it to ideology.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
|
January 18, 2020, 05:27 PM | #88 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 6, 2010
Location: South Texas
Posts: 316
|
I used to sell guns for a living, we had paper forms and the ATF did sometimes come in to look at data for gun purchasers. I even had one try to get info over the phone, that person I denied because there was no way to determine if the person on the line was real. Now we submit an electronic copy to the FBI, I find it hard to believe that they don’t keep a digital record of our purchases. They claim they do not but I doubt it. The information is uploaded to their server and we typically get an instant response.
|
January 18, 2020, 06:46 PM | #89 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,817
|
Quote:
I suppose its a point of view thing. I just hate the idea of #1 having to prove my "good standing" every single time and #2, the more times I get run the more chances the flawed system could come back with a "false positive" which would be a royal pain in the butt. PERHAPS, just perhaps, mind you, perhaps we should have them keep the records. That way when I go to buy another gun they can look and say "oh, Mr AMP, you already have 47 (or 17 or even one) guns so another won't make any difference. Here ya go! have a nice day!" Of course, they wouldn't do it that way, and the potential for abuse is huge, so I don't really advocate for that. Just wondering why couldn't we do it that way?? And yes, I know the answer, because some people don't want done that way and have the authority to prevent it. wasn't there a case a few years ago where the FBI "got caught" keeping data they were supposed to have purged? Didn't it go to court? I don't remember. I do remember there was a claim that the "needed to keep the data longer than the law allowed for, in order to comply with..." something else I don't remember now. Not sure how it turned out, but I think they got spanked. IF they didn't they should have been. Quote:
I would put following your ideology, and not the law, as a degree of corrupt behavior. just for a different kind of "profit" that isn't money. Of course, I'm narrow minded enough to put "activist" judges in that group, as well, so take it for what you think its worth.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
January 19, 2020, 01:13 PM | #90 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,342
|
Quote:
So much of this has come down to deviating far from the original intent of this thread. Much of it because folks want to make it much more complicated than it really is. In reality, it would be very easy and very possible, to have UBCs without registration. As I said before, for the most part, we have it now, not only at the Federal level, but at many state and local levels. I think the process could be simplified and made much more user friendly, and also, that it does little to stop criminal from getting guns. |
|
January 19, 2020, 02:47 PM | #91 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,817
|
None of our rights is absolute and without limits, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" is a long accepted limitation, and applies to a lot of things.
Some feel the current system is swinging just barely beyond our nose, and are concerned future swings will move closer. Some feel we are already being slapped in the face and worry that the open hand slap will become a closed fist. Several people in this thread have proposed ways background checks could be done without creating data that is, or could be used as registration. Every proposal of this kind has been rejected by the other side. They want (even demand) a system that either directly links (registers) individual owners with individual guns now, or will allow them to do so in the future. What is it we fear?? What we fear is that if they get the legal power to do so, they will have a list that allows them to come to your home and say "Mr AMP, you bought a Snort & Wonker .377, serial # 12343 july 31st 2021, produce it now for surrender or acceptable proof where it went, or you're coming with us!" (the other thing we fear is that it would not be a polite knock on the door, "time to give it up now, sir" but a middle of the night swat type raid where they tear apart your house looking, BEFORE they ask "politely".) I may not see the "big picture" but I cannot see what any good a registration is, if NOT to lay the ground work for what we fear. Here is another point to consider, seldom brought up. Mandatory UBC laws, with or without a registration component, remove your legal ability to use your own judgement. All that is ever mentioned is how the check lets you know that the stranger who is buying is OK according to available records. Nobody (but me, it seems) mentions that the blanket coverage requirements of the law don't let me make my own decisions. And that if I want to sell, trade, give, or otherwise "transfer" a gun to someone I've known for decades, I still have to have the check done on them. Sure, its small potatoes in the big picture, but there is a principle involved here, that I don't think should be completely overlooked.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 20, 2020, 08:29 AM | #92 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 1,475
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer "Tools not Trophies” |
|||
January 20, 2020, 08:59 AM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 777
|
You put that shoe on your own foot.
__________________
Playboy billionaire Retired Colonial Marine 1st to walk on the moon without a spacesuit |
January 20, 2020, 09:26 AM | #94 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 777
|
I did no such thing.
Quote:
That's like high school debate team level knowledge. Quote:
I made no such dispute as his assertion was a sort of false dichotomy, I specified no "percentage". As for definition of "vast" and "majority", try these on for size: https://www.merriam-webster.com https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/ https://www.oed.com I stand by my original statement, I even provided two examples that help support it. We very well may get another today... or not. It doesn't make me happy to make such a statement, but the fact remains that our Liberty and the Constitution itself are in a world of hurt. Not solely due to the left being masters of destructive, unconstitutional behavior, but largely due to the ever increasing laziness, apathy, and ignorance of the American people. As I also stated above, if my 25yo self heard me saying such things as I do today... I would have likely said "You're crazy old man". But the facts that surround us today speak for themselves, I fear for the future of the Republic.
__________________
Playboy billionaire Retired Colonial Marine 1st to walk on the moon without a spacesuit |
||
January 20, 2020, 08:49 PM | #95 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 19, 2011
Location: Winter Park, Florida
Posts: 470
|
Eh, the above is a bunch of NRA noise. It's time to keep guns out of the hands of nut cases. Universal background checks need to be put in place. I happen to be NRA x many years. I get it that universal checks are not perfect.
.02. David. |
January 20, 2020, 09:23 PM | #96 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 777
|
I agree, but not at the expense of law-abiding citizens.
How about... oh I don't know... locking up adjudicated "nut cases" in mental institutions? BTW Who decides what a "nut case" even is? Local LE? A family member? A judge? Big government? As it stands today, there are many pushes from many directions that may very well classify law abiding citizens as a potential "nut case", simply based on their words. Which is abhorrent!
__________________
Playboy billionaire Retired Colonial Marine 1st to walk on the moon without a spacesuit |
January 20, 2020, 10:22 PM | #97 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2015
Posts: 777
|
Quote:
Population of Virginia = 8,535,519 Likely number of gun owners ~ 2,845,000 Initial LE estimates of 2A rally attendance ~25,000 Indicating less than 1% of likely VA gun owners bothered to show up today Now I'm sure many will say "Oh that estimate is way off, there were way more than that!" Ok, multiply by ten... Which still indicates less than 10% of likely VA gun owners bothered to show Sigh...
__________________
Playboy billionaire Retired Colonial Marine 1st to walk on the moon without a spacesuit |
|
January 20, 2020, 10:43 PM | #98 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2018
Posts: 218
|
Quote:
You crunch some numbers on NRA members the GOA and throw in a little extra... and then you do some more math by adding in forum subscribers and that is your highly educated OPINION of the VAST MAJORITY? Oh... and thank you so much for the dictionary links. Have you ever wandered into your local LGS after a mass shooting or terror attack and see empty shelves? Not even a NAA 22lr is left on the shelves where I live. All the stores throughout the state and neighboring states get wiped clean. Online, rifles that had 100+ in stock suddenly become Out of Stock. What about trying to buy ammo online? Out of stock. Suddenly all the CCW classes are all booked up. My opinion is that it was not the NRA and GOA members, that from Jan 2009- Jan 2016, who were the ones forming lines in gun stores and buying up every single box of ammo and signing up for basic CCW classes... my opinion is that it must have been a portion of that lazy apathetic vast majority you speak of. Record number of FBI background checks for gun purchases month after month... I didn't see those numbers in your calculations... these people probably did not rise above your standard of lazy and apathetic. I lost count of how many times this happened from Jan 2009 - Jan 2017. All because someone else doesn't Cite things to your satisfaction despite your less than high standard of fact gathering, you don't have to tear their opinion down point by point as if that is why you were put here on earth. Last edited by American Man; January 21, 2020 at 05:59 AM. |
|
January 20, 2020, 10:51 PM | #99 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,459
|
Quote:
I don't think very many NRA members would argue with keeping guns out of the hands of nut cases. The problem is, how do you accomplish that without further trampling on the rights of the not-nutcases to keep and bear arms? The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." According to Samuel Johnson's 1785 dictionary of the English language (which is about as close as we can come to being contemporary with the drafting of the Bill of Rights, and therefore represents our best chance of understanding what the words were supposed to convey), the word "infringe" means: Quote:
Quote:
Since background checks are an impediment, an inconvenience, sometimes an unjustified barrier, IMHO it's difficult to argue that universal background checks are in any way consistent with the intent of the 2A. Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic |
||||
January 21, 2020, 01:03 AM | #100 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,817
|
Quote:
Lots of people support the cause but have lives where they are unable to take time off work, leave friends and family and travel across the state or the country to stand around for a few hours where some myopic politician can physically SEE them. (and without compensation for their expenses, either) There's no wacked billionaires providing busses and refreshments on our side. A lot of us just don't have the deep enough pockets to pay our own expenses even if we had the time, which many (possibly that "vast majority" spoken of) do not. Doesn't mean we don't care, or necessarily that we are lazy and apathetic if we cannot meet your arbitrary standards. Ever hear of the 1-10-100 idea? Probably not, it predates the Internet, and most of the "modern era". It's a rough rule of thumb that used to be used by newspaper editors, and political staffs, and such people who were involved in listening to public opinions. Back in the days when it took more effort to send a message than just a few minutes banging on the keyboard and then hitting "send". They figured that for every person who actually took the time and effort to write a letter (the 1) there were at least 10 people who felt exactly the same and didn't "bother" to write, and a 100 that agreed in general. I think tis wonderful that there were "25,000" people who spent their own time and money to show up on a Monday, a holiday for many, in JANUARY in a place that isn't sunny and warm in January, just to give a visible showing of their opinions and displeasure with the proposed laws. and, as to this... Quote:
Perhaps its time for a different approach. Instead of trying to keep guns from the nut cases, why don't we work on keeping the nut cases from guns (and everything else they can use to harm themselves or others) ??? I don't think we could do a worse job taking that approach. On the other hand, it would cost more, so I doubt many would support it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
|
|