[answerguy]

Just curious if anyone thinks it would be a good idea. For those that don't remember the 'old days' ; when a gun buyer went to a dealer he filled out a form (4473 IIRC) and had to answer the question " Are you a felon?". If he was a felon but said he wasn't he walked out with a gun.

[Joe Demko]

So you mean not only before NICS, but before waiting periods, too. If we're jumping in the wayback machine, let's go ahead and set the dial for when you could mailorder a Thompson SMG or a Colt Monitor.

[2nd Amendment]

Absolutely.

The only paperwork should be the receipt.

[Chris Rhines]

What they said.

- Chris

[Henry Bowman]

Ditto again.

[answerguy]

Henry, Chris, 2nd, Golgo (and everyone else who will pile on later);

You have no problem with felons buying guns? No reason to make it more difficult?

[Chris Rhines]

Nope. None at all.

- Chris

[Greg L]

Nope, none at all. The list of things that make people "felons" today is ludicrous. A true felon (in the traditional violent sense) will either already have a gun or know where to get one in short order.

Greg

[Derek Zeanah]

You have no problem with felons buying guns? No reason to make it more difficult? I don't. I'm of the opinion that everyone should have the right, and access to the means, to defend themselves and their loved ones. Even if they've been arrested and convicted in the past.

The question really assumes that sales from a gun shop are the way felons normally aquire firearms. I had a buddy in high school (late 80's) who bought a Colt 1911 with the serial number filed off for $50 -- NICS wouldn't have stopped him. Had a buddy in the National Guard who had 2 select-fire Uzis still in the cosmoline, and wanted to get rid of one for $500. Wouldn't have stopped that sale either.

Britain has more of a problem with "gun crimes" (and particularly "handgun crimes") than they ever have, and they've essentially outlawed civilian possession of them.

But no, I have no problem with a felon owning firearms. Assuming, of course, that I'm also allowed to own them.

[Tamara]

Would you be willing to go back to the old days before NICS?

Uh, does a big snake crawl low to the ground?

No gun purchase should be more complicated than my first one.

[ojibweindian]

I'd be willing to go back to old days where one could go into any department store, i.e. Sears, lay down some cash, get the gun I wanted, and have the cashier say "have a nice day". No paper work or anything, except for the warrantee form.

[answerguy]

... and of course it was just what I expected. "No new (gun) laws and get rid of the old ones".

Is there anyone who is not a libertarian who would like to comment on my original post?

[Tamara]

Did you purchase any firearms in pre-NICS days?

Was the world a safer or more dangerous place pre-Brady? Pre-GCA '68?

[Cal4D4]

Be careful how you set the wayback machine, Sherman, at one point we had to sign for ammo purchases also.

[ojibweindian]

"Is there anyone who is not a libertarian who would like to comment on my original post?"

Apparently not.

Has NICS, or the system before that, done anything to reduce your chance of becoming prey for a felon?

[triggertime]

Am I willing to go back to the old days before NICS? I think we should go back to the days before the GCA '68!

Here's a question for you, 'Should guns have serial numbers?" Guess what my answer is. ;)

[answerguy]

Because of the instant check and not the Brady waiting period I could (if I were gunless) go to the store right now and come home with one.

[answerguy]

Did you purchase any firearms in pre-NICS days?

Yes

Was the world a safer or more dangerous place pre-Brady? Pre-GCA '68?

My own personal world of safety han't changed much. Society in general has probably declined since 1968. Tamara; are you blaming it all on the GCA of 1968?

[answerguy]

What you say is:
Here's a question for you, 'Should guns have serial numbers?" Guess what my answer is.

What everyone hears is: "I don't want my gun traced back to me after I use it in a crime".

[LawDog]

Is there anyone who is not a libertarian who would like to comment on my original post?

Okay.

Yes, I would love to go back to the old-pre NICS days. Mostly because I, even though being a sworn officer, always have to wait the maximum three days to pick up the weapon I just legally purchased. :cuss:

See, Mom was not on US soil when she went into labor. And apparently, if you put 'Malta' in the 'Place of Birth' spot on the 4473 form, NICS automatically puts you in the 'Come Back Next Wednesday' category. :fire:

Anyhoo, back on topic. The pre-NICS days are also the pre-Assault Weapon Ban days. And the pre-Lautenberg Amendment days.

Cheap full-capacity magazines. An AR-15 I didn't have to mortgage my home to buy. An HK91 fresh off the boat from Germany.

*sigh*

Did felons get their paws on guns with more frequency in the Bad Old Pre-NICS days? No. Felons get their guns now the same way they've always gotten their guns - by by-passing whatever laws are inconviencing them.

Gun laws only affect the law-abiding gun-owners. Gun laws never affect those who don't follow laws to begin with.

A felon has already broken one or more felony statutes. Why should breaking one more bother his conscience any?

LawDog

[Flying V]

That's interesting. I put "Germany" next to Place of Birth, and I've never had to wait more than 10 minutes. I wonder what problem they have with Malta.

As for the Wayback Machine, I'd set it to 1933, gun law wise.

Addendum: Sworn peace officers should purchase firearms under the same rules which apply to all citizens.

[ojibweindian]

Your seeming short-sightedness and lack of knowledge amazes me.

In the good ole days, no one had to fill out a form, wait three days, or anything like that. Pay your money, get the gun. Pretty simple. Could felons get guns back then? Sure, just as simply and easily as they can today. Instant checks, etc, do virtually nothing to protect you and yours from felonious violence; they never have.

What NICS and the previous system do is enable the collection of data on lawful gun owners which, as we all know, can be used by unscrupulous politicians (in California, Maryland, Canada, etc.) for the eventual confiscation of lawfully owned firearms.

[4v50 Gary]

ojibweindian - I'm too young to know about when forms weren't required. Then again, I'm from PRK.

Then again, before the GCA of '68, you could mail order guns and "Zippy" the postman (back in those days the U.S. Postal service had a character they called Zippy) would deliver it to your doorstep.

[TallPine]

You have no problem with felons buying guns? No reason to make it more difficult?

No, for several reasons. For one thing, we got along without that restriction just fine for a couple of hundred years. Sure, there was crime - there always has been and always will be.

Second, dangerous felons should be in prison - no buying guns in there. After serving full sentence ... well, if they want to get a gun to do some dirty deed, they will get it some other way - probably by stealing it from you or me. Now, parole or probation is a different story - there can be specific conditions applied, of which "no firearms" may be but one.

Third, many felons are non-violent to begin with - tax evasion, perjury, drug possesion, etc ...

Fourth, and probably most inportant, for many persons this restriction applies to it is an ex-post-facto law which is blatantly unconstitutional.

[ojibweindian]

Gary

To be honest, so am I. My grandfathers, however, do remember the "good ole days", and I have talked to them at length about it. Some great tales!:D

[GhostShooter]

Ok as a Democrat (please hold your boos till the end) while I understand the reasoning behind not wanting a violent felons to have guns (notice I said violent) I really don't see how NICS is helping anything. First, how many felons are going to shell out the money we do to buy guns when they could get them much cheaper on the street with less hassle. Now, that being said, if I had to compromise I would get rid of the 4473 form not the instant check. No need for the 4473 form and the instant check could prevent those violent felons who for some reason have decided to goto the local gun shop to buy an illegal gun.http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/moreek.gif

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/2M16.gif

Let the Democrat bashing begin.....http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/pfohnmacht.gif

[answerguy]

What NICS and the previous system do is enable the collection of data on lawful gun owners which, as we all know, can be used by unscrupulous politicians (in California, Maryland, Canada, etc.) for the eventual confiscation of lawfully owned firearms.

This is the biggest reason against NICS anyone has stated.

Your seeming short-sightedness and lack of knowledge amazes me.

I'll be willing to match my knowledge against yours. What are the rules?:D

In the good ole days, no one had to fill out a form, wait three days, or anything like that. Pay your money, get the gun. Pretty simple. Could felons get guns back then? Sure, just as simply and easily as they can today. Instant checks, etc, do virtually nothing to protect you and yours from felonious violence; they never have.

Certainly felons who are in the criminal sub-system of society know how to go about getting weapons. There are many small time criminals who aren't connected like that. And NICS stops them. It also stops mentally incompetent (who hear will argue on behalf of the incompetent having unfettered access to guns?)
Also people who have RO's on them are less likely to get guns. I personally would have no idea how to go about buying a black market gun.

[Chris Rhines]

(who hear will argue on behalf of the incompetent having unfettered access to guns?) :D

- Chris

[answerguy]

Well Chris let's hear your argument.

[*8*]

Absolutely, I would want to be able to mail order a few machine guns without the hassles of a form 4 and endless waiting. I was reading an old newspaper ad, for a 20mm- anti tank, $189 shipped. The ad said something like, "Its devastating accuracy coupled with torrent like firepower were directly responsible for the frantic redesigning of nearly all allied armored fighting vehicles". It goes on to say, ""hurls a 1lb. armor piercing shell up to 4 miles."

I'm positive some of us already own these exotic weapons.. but it would be nice for the rest of us to be able to afford 'em. ;)

[BigG]

but a conservative. Yup, turn back the clock fer me, too.

[ahenry]

(who hear will argue on behalf of the incompetent having unfettered access to guns?) Who defines “mentally incompetent” you? I’d rather take the risk of the "mentally incompetent" getting a gun, and then doing something wrong with it (note the two events that must happen for one bad thing to occur) than support more unconstitutional intrusions against my liberty...and yours.

And who says that in the absence of laws they will suddenly have unfettered access to a firearm? Do you mean to tell me that gun dealers aren’t capable of deciding for themselves if they should sell a gun to a particular person?

[ojibweindian]

answer_guy

You pick.:D

"This is the biggest reason against NICS anyone has stated."

A pretty good reason and not without validity, as recent events in California, Maryland, Canada, Australia, Britain, etc. have shown.

"Certainly felons who are in the criminal sub-system of society know how to go about getting weapons. There are many small time criminals who aren't connected like that. And NICS stops them. It also stops mentally incompetent (who hear will argue on behalf of the incompetent having unfettered access to guns?)
Also people who have RO's on them are less likely to get guns. I personally would have no idea how to go about buying a black market gun."

You don't need the kinds of "connections" you imply to get your hands on a hot gun. NICS stops nothing. The mentally incompetent can grab 'em without NICS as well, or do we forget the Capitol Building shooting of a few short years ago? The guy, from Illinois, was/is schizophrenic.

RO's? Seriously, you think they stop abusive spouses from grabbing a gun and shooting their significant others?

[answerguy]

The current wording is:

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own afairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

Tell me what you find wrong with this.

[answerguy]

RO's? Seriously, you think they stop abusive spouses from grabbing a gun and shooting their significant others?

Like I said I wouldn't know where to go to buy a black market gun. Do you?

[ojibweindian]

answer_guy

Ever hear of self-incrimination? Anyone can get anything, if you know where to look and have enough cash.

[Chris Rhines]

Well Chris let's hear your argument. Okay, but you won't like it.

Every individual has the inalienable human right to own the property of his choice.

That's it.

Like I said I wouldn't know where to go to buy a black market gun. Do you?

Heck yes. I try and keep track of such things, just in case. ;)

- Chris

[2nd Amendment]

You have no problem with felons buying guns? No reason to make it more difficult?

Nope, it's none of my business who buys what and certainly none of the governments business. It's what you do with your purchase that matters. My personal opinion is: Do a crime with a gun, go to jail. Period. Goodbye, been nice knowing you, no, I won't come to visit. Maybe your grandkids will in 50 years...

[answerguy]

Every individual has the inalienable human right to own the property of his choice.

Regardless of how deranged or insane? No matter how many voices are telling him his neighbors want to eat his brains?
Just wait for him to committ his crime and then take his gun away, right? Do you find many people who agree with you?

[Tamara]

Sorry, but I'm not real keen on punishing somebody because they might commit a crime. A little too Minority Report for my tastes; all creepy and Orwellian and stuff.

If they're too dangerous to trust with a gun, they're too dangerous to trust with a Buick or a book of matches or even to be allowed outside without adult supervision.

[answerguy]

Tamara,
So that I might respond could you tell me what statement of mine you are commenting on?

[spacemanspiff]

why should i? no waiting period up here, and with that little laminated card from the Division of Concealed Handgun Permits i dont need to wait for a NICS clearance.

in fact, i just bought a winchester 1300 the other night from walmart, walked in and out in the amount of time to fill out the 4473 and have it rung up.

[answerguy]

why should i? no waiting period up here, and with that little laminated card from the Division of Concealed Handgun Permits i dont need to wait for a NICS clearance.

Are you sure about that? In Michigan my CCW says I don't have to go to the police department to get a purchase permit for a handgun, but I still have to go through the NICS check.

[Bacchus]

I don't want felons buying guns. But what does that have to do with the NICS system?

Two completely different topics.

[Chris Rhines]

Regardless of how deranged or insane? No matter how many voices are telling him his neighbors want to eat his brains? Yup.

Just wait for him to committ his crime and then take his gun away, right? Actually, no, not then either. At least, not in all cases. Just how detailed a description of privatized law do you think you can handle, eh?

Do you find many people who agree with you? Do you honestly think that this is even a consideration for me?

- Chris

[spacemanspiff]

Are you sure about that? In Michigan my CCW says I don't have to go to the police department to get a purchase permit for a handgun, but I still have to go through the NICS check.

must depend on the state laws. i've picked up one transfer without the NICS call as well as the shotgun. the store just has to fill out the sections on the 4473 that allow for no phone call. they record the effective date and expiration date of the CHP and some other stuff too.

[biere]

I think we have to go back to times before all this data base compiling because the government has been shown to not use things properly. The 4473s and the maryland shooter come to mind as the most recent.

And tamara beat me to the best reason.

The government will trust someone to drive a car. To live next to many small kids. To go to a grocery where common cleaning supplies can make bombs, killing gases, and other stuff. But they want to tell him he can't own a gun to protect himself. And there is a public library to educate him if he needs to learn about chemistry.

You deal with the actions of people. The object did nothing wrong.

Either someone should have all their rights including owning a gun and voting, or they should be in prison.

And the overpopulation problem is showing that it is way too easy to get into their system and lose your rights.

I really consider registering the item to be darn close to trying to burn books to limit knowledge. Someone wants to control that which should not and really can not be controlled.

[Justin]

Regardless of how deranged or insane? No matter how many voices are telling him his neighbors want to eat his brains? I would say that the odds of a person like this being around, and actually acting upon their delusions to eat human brains is probably nil. In fact, I would venture to say that even given all the schizophrenics, depressives, bipolars, sociopaths, psychopaths, and all other people suffering from mental illnesses who *might* represent a danger to others that the odds of being victimized by one are right about nil.

Do you think we should start regulating knives, cleaning supplies, and electrical equipment for the same reason?

After all, the worse school mass-murder in the country was committed by a psycho(s) with guns. It was committed by a psycho with explosives. (Bath, MI, sometime in the 1920's.)

[TallPine]

who hear will argue on behalf of the incompetent having unfettered access to guns?)

Heck, we elect them to congress all the time.

So why not let them have guns - they couldn't do much more damage than they already are doing.

[triggertime]

"What everyone hears is: "I don't want my gun traced back to me after I use it in a crime"

So you're insinuating that any American citizen who understands the principles outlined in the Constitution and then holds the opinion that the gub'mint has no business monitoring, tracking or regulating the sale of firearms automatically possesses some form of criminal intent?

Ergo, Constitutionalists = Criminals? :rolleyes:

Don't paint with such a broad brush.

[80fl]

Posted by Ghost Shooter:

Ok as a Democrat (please hold your boos till the end)

I think we might be at the end: BOO!!!

Well, as has been posted above: There are more used guns for sale than there are new ones at any given point in time.

NICS and 4473's will NEVER do anything to stop crimes commited with a gun.

I'm not a felon, and I live in a rural area. I could leave my house now, and be back for dinner with several used guns. Guns, which you like to call "black market", but I simply call "used".

What makes you think you have the right to take MY rights away for fear of what someone else "might" do?

[Chainsaw]

Why does some sort of registration bother anyone here? You had to register to post your message on this forum. Ya Right Private Property. I had the right not to choose. Yada Yada

Do you people see that with cencorship/banning of any kind it is very difficult for us to mount any kind of an argument for anynonmous gun ownership. Most gunowners support one of the many agendas the "genunine"antis have proposed.

As the Devils Advocate, My question to you. Would you ok a released child molester the license/right to run a day care center?

All I'm saying is that we are guilty of wanting to control others behavior, while preaching this 2nd Amendment banter we show up as hypocrites.

[Greg L]

As the Devils Advocate, My question to you. Would you ok a released child molester the license/right to run a day care center?

The problem, as has been pointed out, is that most felons these days are nonviolent. The violent ones already know how to get a gun (and more than likely didn't get the one that they used before through any legal means to begin with) so one more rule to break won't bother them. The nonviolent tax evader didn't use one while filling out the forms but has now lost the right to effective self defense (and will more than likely be the one who will follow the rules (more or less) when released). Laws only apply to those people who obey them to begin with.

A child molester & day care center - no. A tax evader with a CPA license - no. A tax evader who wants to run a day care - sure if there wasn't something else that would prohibit them from doing so (I'm fairly sure that felons aren't allowed to work with kids or at least places that require background checks).

Greg

[Wildalaska]

To chainsaw...bravo

To the rest of you (and I am preaching to the inconvertable, but gotta say it)

The 2nd amendment, like all the other portions of the BofR, are interpreted by the SCOTUS. In Freedom of Speech, Press, Relgion, Search and Seizure etc, the Court has historically attemtped to forge a middle ground balancing the needs of society as a whole vis a vis a"right" guaranteed by the Constituion Thats the beauty and superioirty of our system...the rule of law...you may not agree with what they say, and many do not, but the law is the law.

Cry and whine all you like, but the Court, in the best possible outcome that realistically will occur will in fact rule that the 2nd A is an individual right that is subject to reasonable restrictions. What is a reasonable restriction. Its a balancing test...

Using that test, many of the laws on the books today, including the NICS check..pass muster. Some do not.

But to sit here and again argue that Felons have the "right" to buy guns...that is silly..and it destroys the credibility of our movement as a whole.

[Tamara]

I'm beginning to wonder what "our" movement is.

Are there any current gun laws you don't like? :confused:

[TallPine]

Wildalaska:

Just remember, the Supreme Court upheld slavery at one time.

"Law is law" but that doesn't make it right.

I'm sure the holocaust was also "legal" in Germany at that time.


"call me ... inconvertable ..." (with apologies to Perry Como) :)

[Chris Rhines]

Chainsaw - Yeah, right, private property, blah blah blah. May as well ignore it, it's only the most critical aspect of the entire damned argument!

If you can'y understand the difference between registering to participate on a private internet forum and being forced to register your personal property with the government, methinks you should just quit discussing the issue.

Wildalaska - Why are you even pro-gun? Seriously.

- Chris

[gwalchmai]

I'm beginning to wonder how long it will be before we are all simply declared felons at birth.

Resp.
g;)

[Wildalaska]

Are there any current gun laws you don't like?

Yep most of them, that doesn't mean that they are unconstitutional...

Unconstitutional ones: The assault weapons ban, the magazine ban come to mind...

[Chris Rhines]

I see, so NFA34 somehow doesn't contradict "...shall not be infringed?"

Sigh. Life save us from our allies...

- Chris

[Wildalaska]

Just remember, the Supreme Court upheld slavery at one time.

yep it did...and many opposed it...and the sup crt ultimately changed course.

And youre correct..law is not necessarily right..but to substitute our judgement destroys the rule of law...

I'm sure the holocaust was also "legal" in Germany at that time. Equating the holocaust with the Brady bill is an insult to the dead IMHO

[TallPine]

And youre correct..law is not necessarily right..but to substitute our judgement destroys the rule of law...

So does expressing my (our) opinions destroy the rule of law also?

Oh, and remember the holocaust victims were disarmed first.

[Drjones]

So we have WildAlaska again proclaiming that "The Law" is infallible and demands respect just because.

We have Chainsaw making a wonderfully eloquent argument which ignores the fact that:

a) Registration does and has led to confiscation

b) Gun owners have been making compromises since the beginning, and all it has gotten us is MORE and MORE restrictions.


Chainsaw, of the over 20,000 gun laws already on the books, which of them do you think fails to go far enough?

[OF]

Wildalaska: I think that you misunderstand the whole 'rule of law' vs. 'rule of men' issue. You have it, actually, completely backwards. The 'rule of law' is the Constitution. The courts interpreting that law to mean something it does not, as they clearly do often with the 2nd, is 'the rule of men'. If the 'rule of law' changes over time as it is re-interpretted by the courts how was it ever the 'rule of law'? The Constitution is the law, not the court.

- Gabe


"The Constitution is the fundamental law for the federal government. If that government's own courts can arbitrarily change it's meaning, the government becomes a law unto itself --- that is a lawless government, a government of men, not of law."
-- Joseph Sobran

"We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts - not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution."
-- Abraham Lincoln

"Though written constitutions may be violated in moments of passion or delusion, yet they furnish a text to which those who are watchful may again rally and recall the people. They fix, too, for the people the principles of their political creed."
-- Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1802. ME 10:325

[Peetmoss]

I would have no problem with NICS IF I trusted the goverment not to abuse and use the info Thats never goining to happen though. So hell yes down with NICS.

[ojibweindian]

GRD

Well said!

[Blackhawk]

Yep. First gun I bought from a store involved plunking down $50 and walking out with the gun. Didn't even leave my name, and got a cash receipt.

[G-Raptor]

The whole Brady Bunch NICS crap makes the STUPID assumption that because a bag guy can't pass a background check that he can't get a gun. How assinine is that?? Most of you could get an "illegal" gun on the way home from work if you were willing to take the risk and pay enough for it. Geez, when has a law ever stopped a BG from doing ANYTHING.

"Drugs" have been illegal in for decades. We spent billions (and are spending more every day) fighting the so-called WOD. Thousands and thousands of police are working on this full time, every damned day - yet you can walk into any high school and score in half an hour. That should tell you something.

I say not only should we drop NICS, we should get rid of the '68 GCA. The 4473 is one of the dumbest pieces of government snooping I've seen. The whole process only inconveniences law-abiding citizens. If a criminal wants a gun, he'll get one.

[Wildalaska]

So does expressing my (our) opinions destroy the rule of law also?

Nope..but certain opinions do "turn off" the great undecideds..

Thats a lesson that the antis have learned and we havent...

[Chainsaw]

First off, I have had a tuff time articulating my position here. I have been completely misunderstood.

I am against most any rule and regulations that exists today. I believe that most rules and regulations are unnecessary. I believe that we could live by the 10 commandments or what you are told in 1st grade etc. Is my idea a perfect one? Probably not, but I would take my chances with jungle law versus what we have now.

The trouble as I see it is that we are hypocrites when it comes to living in total freedom along side our neighbor without all these rules and regulations encumbering our lives.

Why should we expect these antis to go away when most of us support some or many of the arguments on freedom that they espouse? ie; Smoking-cell phones-drivers license-zoning rules-rules on what pets we own- The list could go on.

And yes registering for a forum is what lots of us call the slippery slope when it comes to losing our rights. When registering we agree to a certain behavior. When buying a firearm we agree to a certain behavior. You say they are not related, I can follow that train of thought clearly, but those that wish to remove our freedoms cannot and will not. This will be used against us by unscrupulous people that are nowhere near as nice as us.(That is a story in itself)

You know, there are lots of good arguments in this thread on many good points concerning freedom, but IMO until we back those with certain lifestyles we may not quite agree with, don't expect anyone to get too fired up to back ours. These "genuine" antis are experts at pitting one group of people against another, and gunowners and hunters are easy to cause rifts between.

WE ONLY HAVE THE FREEDOMS WE ARE WILLING TO DEFEND AND AFFORD OTHERS------------Chainsaw

[TallPine]

WE ONLY HAVE THE FREEDOMS WE ARE WILLING TO DEFEND AND AFFORD OTHERS

Excellent!

Another one from me: "My tolerance for you should overlap your respect for me, and vice versa"

[Mark Benningfield]

Hello All.

Wow, this is a hot one! Okay, where to start?

First, to answerguy:
Nope, I'm not Libertarian, I'm Republican. My question to you is:
Since you think that ex-convicts and persons who are mentally deficient are not to be allowed the right to arm themselves, why do you consent to their right to liberty or to life?

To Wildalaska:

Equating the holocaust with the Brady bill is an insult to the dead IMHO
Go carefully here. The "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" did not happen overnight. It started slowly and "innocently" enough. As they would tell you at The Holocaust Center, if there were one message to come back to us from the horror of the ovens, it would be "Beware!"

[lapidator]

answerguy said,
I personally would have no idea how to go about buying a black market gun.

Well that's because you haven't been to Violent Criminal University... a/k/a prison.

"Guns 101: where to get them now that you'll fail NCIC" is probably a Freshman course.

"Guns 201: How to gun laws work for you" is a Sophmore class.

"Guns 301: Safe work zones" is focus is mainly on CA, MA, MD, NJ -- Junior level

"Guns 401: Teaching what you know" keeping the knowledge alive -- Senior level, must also oversee the lab section for Guns 101 students

"Guns 501: Proactive help for new felons" Graduate level course on how to become a Legislator

lapidator

[Drjones]

Why should we expect these antis to go away when most of us support some or many of the arguments on freedom that they espouse? ie; Smoking-cell phones-drivers license-zoning rules-rules on what pets we own- The list could go on.

And that is where you are WRONG in your assumptions about us.

Since discovering TFL, I have had a radically huge shift in my beliefs and ways of thinking.

I now look at things like smoking taxes/restrictions/etc. as restrictions on FREEDOM. If you WANT to kill yourself smoking, well, that's your business. OTOH, having a "non-smoking section" in a restaurant, club, or anywhere, is like having a "no-peeing section" in a pool. It doesn't work.

But I digress...

Besides, who here EVER cried for MORE regulation/restriction of ANYTHING, huh chainsaw???

[GhostShooter]

Posted by 80fl

I'm not a felon, and I live in a rural area. I could leave my house now, and be back for dinner with several used guns. Guns, which you like to call "black market", but I simply call "used".

What makes you think you have the right to take MY rights away for fear of what someone else "might" do?


Hum.. I must have missed something in my post when did I call used guns a "black market" or say I wanted to take away your rights? In fact I said that I would take all the laws away but IF I had to compromise I would leave the NICS system. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/nono.gif Why don't you try reading what I posted instead of automatically assuming that because I said Democrat I'm a gun grabber.http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/mad.gif Believe it or not there are pro gun Democrats out there who believe in the second amendment so don't automatically lump everyone togeather.http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/stick.gif

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/2M16.gif

[LawDog]

Addendum: Sworn peace officers should purchase firearms under the same rules which apply to all citizens.

I do. Thus the three day wait. :banghead:

The only difference between sworn officers and other citizens in my neck of the woods, is that some gun companies will waive some of the taxes on some guns if a sworn officer buys them.

You still have to go through the NICS system, though, sworn officer or not.

If your Department issues you a gun (bought by the department), you don't have to go through the NICS system, but you don't actually own the gun, either. Of course, by that time the officer has gone through a background check the NICS people can only dream of. (Addresses for last ten years? Bank account numbers for last ten years? Complete list of debts?)

Give the gun-grabbers enough time, and background checks like officers get to be employed will be the minimum NICS standard for everybody who buys a gun, not just officers. :fire:

LawDog

[Byron Quick]

NICS really doesn't affect me that much. CCW applies in lieu of NICS in my state. I'd much rather see the 1968 GCA and the 1934 NFA repealed.

[citizen]

Lawdog; not if I'm President!!!!:uhoh:



Seriously; as dire a prediction as I could ever imagine.
Thankfully, I disagree; am more optimistic.
Though your words ring true.:fire:

[Shooter 2.5]

Yes
Heck yes
Absolutely
Positively

If a felon is dangerous, what are they doing out of jail?

[OF]

Chainsaw,

Well said. I really think there is just one point that we are either still miscommunicating over, or are just in plain disagreement over. As far as I'm concerned, respecting freedom for others includes respecting a private enterprise or individual's wishes - even if they are offensive to me. If a private enterprise, say a restaurant, wants to go 'no smoking', that's their business, and I won't force them to do it any other way. That's respecting the freedom of the proprietors to run their property/business the way they wish.

I know where you're coming from re: registration for this site vs. gun registration in principle. But it's not registration that is dangerous, it's registration with the gov't that is dangerous. I can choose not to register here and there is no consequence. Choose not to register with the gov't and there is indeed consequence.

Registering for the forum and registering your guns with the gov't are only similar in that both phrases have the word 'register' in them. There is no hypocrisy, and no slippery slope from one to the other. You would hope that people would be smart enough to see the difference between registering at the hotel front desk, registering at the forums and then be able to stop the addiction before the point where they start registering their guns out of habit.

- Gabe

[BogBabe]

Put me down for pre-NICS, pre-Brady, pre-4473, and pre- all the other gun laws in existence.

Criminals will always be able to acquire all the firearms (or other weapons) they want. All the gun control laws do is make things more difficult for law-abiding citizens. And create databases for future confiscation.

[Wildalaska]

The "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" did not happen overnight. It started slowly and "innocently" enough. As they would tell you at The Holocaust Center, if there were one message to come back to us from the horror of the ovens, it would be "Beware!"

I neither can totally agree or disagree with that statement, regardless the Holocaust historically is a subject that probably isnt proper for this Board...so Ill forgo further debate on your statement...

[Chainsaw]

GRD, I have no quarrel with private property rights. A proprietor can count on me to follow the rules if I partake of his establishment. I follow your thought process completely in your last post.

However, what many on the "other" side have pointed out to me is that here and many places on the net we have discussion boards that require some sort of "control" of our behavior. We know why it is that way and we can agree or disagree to particpate like we do in other situations. The antis however ask me that why is control good in one situation and not in others? That is what they preach and the viewpoint they take in most matters they deal with, that is control of ones behaviors. They see an entity/government as having to control most aspects of life. They have been quite successful with this argument.

Many anit's find things we see as offensive of no real harm or present danger. We see a picture of a person in a certain behavior as pornographic, they see the same person in fatigues holding a battlerifle as obsene. BTW I'm not pushing porn, just citing an example the antis have used against my arguments.

I as much as anyone else don't want to lose my rights, but until we start championing others rights, we will not achieve success in retaining ours. Thanks GRD for the inciteful responce. I think we agree.

[Wildalaska]

Wildalaska: I think that you misunderstand the whole 'rule of law' vs. 'rule of men' issue. You have it, actually, completely backwards. The 'rule of law' is the Constitution. The courts interpreting that law to mean something it does not, as they clearly do often with the 2nd, is 'the rule of men'. If the 'rule of law' changes over time as it is re-interpretted by the courts how was it ever the 'rule of law'? The Constitution is the law, not the court.

Sorry your statement is a logical fallacy. On one hand you claim that the Courts construing the constituion means its "Rule of Men". On the other hand, you claim the Courts are misinterpreting the 2nd am..thats in your view....so you are no different than a Court interpreting, right..???

The Rule of Law means that the Courts, who are charged with the duty of interpreting the constitution, have the last word..not you, not me, not Sarah Brady or Randy Weaver or Chalrton Heston or Chucky Schumer,,,but the Courts...and if the views of what is constituional or not evolve over time, that is becasue our constitution is a living, sacred document that forms guidlines and rules for govenrments relations to its citizens...

[mpthole]

Wow, this is a hot one... Here's my 2 cents: Repeal the GCA '68 and NFA '33 (?) and any other "gun-control" law. They don't do a darn bit of good.

And as far as other sub-topics go... don't remember who originally wrote this:Why should we expect these antis to go away when most of us support some or many of the arguments on freedom that they espouse? ie; Smoking-cell phones-drivers license-zoning rules-rules on what pets we own- The list could go on.

I have to agree with DrJones response earlier. These assumptions are wrong, wrong, WRONG. I for one don't support ANY of these things. I cannot even tell you how much it chaps my hide to have to ask the government for "permission" to remodel my house or to make some small improvement like adding a deck. A "building" permit? ***?!? Or "licensing" my dog. Again - ***? Don't even get me started on driver licensing.

The government is about two things: Money and Control. And in my opinion, the less government the better.

:cuss: off :fire:

[Byron Quick]

Chainsaw,

The fact that I require certain knowledge about visitors to my home as well as certain standards of conduct by them while in my home is not analogous to gun control by the government. The gun control advocates with whom you converse are comparing apples and oranges. You haven't noticed it.

The most basic inequality between the two is that you do not have a constitutional right to act as you please in my house. You do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms without infringement by the government.

[80fl]

As posted by Ghost Shooter:

Hum.. I must have missed something in my post when did I call used guns a "black market" or say I wanted to take away your rights? In fact I said that I would take all the laws away but IF I had to compromise I would leave the NICS system. Why don't you try reading what I posted instead of automatically assuming that because I said Democrat I'm a gun grabber. Believe it or not there are pro gun Democrats out there who believe in the second amendment so don't automatically lump everyone togeather.

Easy there scooter: Only my "boo" was in reference to you.:D

The remainder of my post was in reference to earlier posts.
Sorry, I should have made that clear earlier.
You're a Democrat; I don't agree with you politically, but if we're on the same side on the 2nd, we're good to go.:)

Wild Alaska.....Just what part of California are you from?:evil:

You alluded to a child molester running a day care: Exactly where in the BOR is he afforded that right? I must have missed that part.

[Marko Kloos]

You alluded to a child molester running a day care: Exactly where in the BOR is he afforded that right?

The Bill of Rights does not afford any rights to anyone. It recognizes pre-existing rights inherent to all humans, and it acts as a limitation on the actions of government, not private individuals.

The proper way to ask that question is, "Where in the Bill of Rights is the State afforded the authority to prohibit a child molester from running a day care?"

[Tamara]

Let me go back and check my Constitution again. Hmmm... raise & train militia, post offices (bad idea, Franklin), military budgets not to exceed two years, borrow money, regulate commerce among states and with foreign nations, coin money... Nope, nothin' about "Licensing Day Care Centers".

[GregoryTech]

However, what many on the "other" side have pointed out to me is that here and many places on the net we have discussion boards that require some sort of "control" of our behavior. We know why it is that way and we can agree or disagree to particpate like we do in other situations. The antis however ask me that why is control good in one situation and not in others? That is what they preach and the viewpoint they take in most matters they deal with, that is control of ones behaviors. They see an entity/government as having to control most aspects of life. They have been quite successful with this argument.

Please reconsider the notion that "registering" on a web site is anything at all like registering your firearms. They are so vastly different, it's almost ridiculous to have to explain it.

The first is the requirement to "register" to use someone else's private property, over which they have the right to control in any manner they see fit. Hotels ask their guests to register, you must register to use the shooting range, the go-cart park asks all drivers of their little cars to register, and every time I walk into someone's home, I register either by default (they know who I am) or I am introduced. Private property under the control (yes control) of a private individual is not the same things as government mandated registration. If you don't get that, then I can't help you. But the argument is empty and the analogy doesn't work.

Where we do agree, however, that it takes a liberal's mindset to support a ban on smoking in private establishments, even those accessible to the public. It is limiting the freedom of a property owner to do what he wants with his property. I do not smoke, and I hate the smell of smoke. But I would never support a law that required privately owned establishments to ban smoking. If the owner wants my business, then he can make up his own mind. If he wants the business of those who don't mind the smoke, that should be up to him. If I wanted to open a restaurant that allowed ONLY smokers, then I should darn well be able to. My property, my rules. Don't like it, vote with your wallet or open your own place. Unfortunately, I live in FL and no longer have the right to make those decisions about my privately owned property.

[gwalchmai]

Excellent post, GregoryTech.

[Chris Rhines]

The Rule of Law means that the Courts, who are charged with the duty of interpreting the constitution, have the last word..not you, not me, not Sarah Brady or Randy Weaver or Chalrton Heston or Chucky Schumer,,,but the Courts...and if the views of what is constituional or not evolve over time, that is becasue our constitution is a living, sacred document that forms guidlines and rules for govenrments relations to its citizens... Sounds like the 'Rule of Law' is just a cryptonym for 'Rule of a Small Number of Men, Not You.'

Here's a question for the house: Why should I, a moderately intelligent (heh...) and ethical sapient being, even bother to obey the laws of this country, given that said laws are crafted by people provably less intelligent and provably less ethical than myself?

"Of course I'm above the law. And so are you." - L. Neil Smith

- Chris

[OF]

Wildalaska,

The Constitution is most certainly not a 'living' document that can be interpreted as time goes on. The courts job is to ensure that newly created law as written by the legislature is in accord with the powers granted the legislature by the Constitution (which is the document through which the people have granted gov't it's authority). If the Supreme Court decided 50 years from now, due to changing language usage, that the word 'arms' meant 'little pink flowers' do you believe that they have the authority to interperet the 2nd to mean you have the right to keep and bear little pink flowers? That absurd example is no different from the 'interpretation' of the word 'militia' to mean the National Guard or the 'right' of the state.

The Court is not the 'law'. That is what I mean when I say that what you are proposing (that the Court is the supreme interpreter of law) is the 'rule of men'. The use of the word 'interpret' in relation to the courts is distracting, IMO. They have no power to 'interpret' the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of this country and it is written in very plain language. Any reasonably educated American should be able to clearly understand the meaning of 'shall not' and 'the people'. The court is there to ensure that the other two branches of gov't do not violate the written constitution, and thereby infringe on the rights of the people.

The supreme power is in the hands of the people. A minimum of that power has been granted to the gov't (which includes the courts) from the people via the Constitution. But power is always fully vested in the people. No branch of gov't has the power to violate it in any way. The amendment process is the only tool given them.

Did you read any of the 3 quotes I provided? They make pretty clear how those men saw the relationship between the people, the courts and the Constitution.

- Gabe


PS: Here's a couple more quotes that may help clarify this.

"In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief in the chains of the Constitution."
-- Thomas Jefferson


"...in the chains of the Constitution." Doesn't sound too wishy-washy to me. The Constitution is not available for interpretation by gov't (men). It is compared here to 'chains'. Chains upon men.


"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us."
-- Thomas Jefferson Letter to F. W. Gilmer, 1816


This next one speaks of the right of the jury to come to a verdict in spite of the law. Ultimately, the people are in charge not the courts or the legislature.


"If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence ... and the courts must abide by that decision."
-- US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006


"...and the courts must abide by that decision." Because the court is not in charge, the people are.

[ojibweindian]

GRD

Well said!

[Hawkman]

Repeal'em all. (I happen to be halfway through my second reading of "Unintended Consequences". Does my heart good):fire: