I am going to say it - I like the idea of universal NICS checks


PDA






bushmaster1313
January 17, 2013, 08:52 PM
I also think it important to separate the proposed universal NICS check from other more onerous legislative proposals.

P.S., I am a member of the NRA, cherish my right to keep and bear arms, own a NJ legal XM-15 E2S that I want to keep, and I can hit a 6 inch target at 100 yards with my .357 Magnum revolver.

If you enjoyed reading about "I am going to say it - I like the idea of universal NICS checks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JVaughn
January 17, 2013, 08:54 PM
Good Lord man, why?! This is how total registration starts, which always leads eventually to confiscation. It's like saying its ok to censor some speech or ban just one religion.

rbernie
January 17, 2013, 08:55 PM
I think it foolish to like something that has demonstrated ZERO impact on any gun related crime statistic. I further think it horribly selfish to like any restriction on other folks ability to buy a gun that, by the DoJs own statistics, imposes an incorrect block on more than ten thousand folk ever year. And that's the number that successfully appeal instead of just walking away....

For shame. :eek:

MachIVshooter
January 17, 2013, 08:56 PM
Well, I'm getting used to the fair weather "allies" here, so this is not too surprising.

MOHunter
January 17, 2013, 08:56 PM
You are Toast on this Forum!!! Many have come before you and got lambasted! ha ha ha Get on your flame proof underwear!

Leanwolf
January 17, 2013, 08:58 PM
So you believe that no worker peasant or serf in the United States should be allowed to sell his or her private property to another worker peasant or serf, without getting the permission of Big Brother and Big Nanny in D.C., huh?

Of course it can only follow that you believe anyone who would violate the dictate, should be sent to prison ... or killed by Big Brother's enforcers' guns, should he or she "make a furtive move" when being arrested.

L.W.

SuperNaut
January 17, 2013, 08:59 PM
You and the Brady Campaign makes three.

M-Cameron
January 17, 2013, 09:03 PM
I am going to say it - I like the idea of universal NICS checks


I am going to ask a serious question.......Why do you support Universal NICS checks?

mberoose
January 17, 2013, 09:05 PM
You know, you could always do what a lot of people do when selling a long gun privately - just require a pistol permit, even if the law doesn't.

To me, that's a far more acceptable personal insurance plan than the alternative of NICS checks every time, even though I don't believe in either. At the end of the day the law specifically stipulates you cannot KNOWINGLY sell to an ineligible person.

Not for nothin, but there's really no room to budge if you value your 2A rights...we know the agenda, we know the intent, we know the endgame. Give them an inch....etc. May not happen tomorrow, or 5 years down the road, but its been made crystal clear what the ultimate goal is.

sig228
January 17, 2013, 09:06 PM
I hope you still like the idea when you have to pay an FFL to do a transfer to one of your own family members.

kimbershot
January 17, 2013, 09:07 PM
buying in a lgs as a ct resident--my pistol permit was golden. didn't have any wait periods but i did have to fill out the fed and state paperwork. the dealer then called the state cops to get an approval and then the transaction was completed. state cops, dealer and i got paperwork describing the deal (registration).

in sc, my new state, i went through the procedures to obtain my permit. when i buy a gun at my lgs, i fill out the 4473, show my permit and drivers lic. give them the $$ and walk out with said gun an sales receipt.

retail purchases create a paper trail--to what extent, depends on the state.

i don't do private sales unless it's with a friend. i've sold via consignment or via gunbroker, as i just don't want to deal with strangers or assume any liability of selling to a crazy.

Hunt480
January 17, 2013, 09:07 PM
I am going to say it-your fearsome confused!!! or somethin?

chipcom
January 17, 2013, 09:08 PM
Make it transparent (no criteria added willy-nilly in secret, like Presidential kill lists and no-fly lists), ensure there is a fair appeals process, independent oversight and fund it adequately and I might consider it. Otherwise, fogedaboudit.

Adam the Gnome
January 17, 2013, 09:10 PM
Didn't that lunatic STEAL the guns he used? So none of this will ever prevent that from happening.
If anything we should get a safe from the gubbermint. Best gun control around, like leash laws!

KAS1981
January 17, 2013, 09:12 PM
Like all gun control laws, it might sound good on the surface.

However, universal background checks still would not prevent the illegal sale of arms between private parties.

It's already illegal to sell a gun to somebody you know isn't legal to own one. Criminals selling guns to other criminals don't care about that, they still do it. So why would they care about a background check requirement?

Sure, universal background checks might stop a few honest guys like me from unknowingly selling a gun to a bad guy, but it wont even come close to curbing the majority of illegal private sales.

EBK
January 17, 2013, 09:21 PM
Not just no But hell no

Why should I have to go througha third party to sell my own property?

tyeo098
January 17, 2013, 09:23 PM
I belong to a separate forum where there is a lot of camaraderie between members of the local area. We all know each other and vouch for each other regularly. We are all collectors, hunters, target shooters.

55 Million gun owners did not commit a crime today. Or yesterday.

You have a better chance of winning the lottery 4 consecutive times.

ZeSpectre
January 17, 2013, 09:29 PM
bushmaster1313

You are in NJ so I'm going to cut you a little slack and I'm being serious, not snide, when I say this. You, in NJ, have no idea just how badly NJ is a "nanny state", how much it regulates and controls and coddles and swaddles it's "citizens".

They don't trust you to pump your own gasoline for crying out loud.

Anyone brought up in that environment is going to recoil in terror at the notion that everyone should have an UN-infringed right to buy firearms....and then we'll deal with those who demonstrate their incompetence AFTER they've done something wrong. And if they've already done something wrong on a scale that they should be restricted from owning firearms....well then I wonder how they can be trusted in society at all and what they are doing out on the streets.

Yes, some people will get hurt doing it that way but nobody ever said freedom was safe and we sure won't waste all this time/money/effort trying to operate a department of "pre-crime".

bushmaster1313
January 17, 2013, 09:30 PM
I am going to ask a serious question.......Why do you support Universal NICS checks?

Serious answer. If we assume the correctness of laws that prohibit psychotics and violent felons from having guns, a universal NICS check is the proper, and I believe Constitutional, way to promote the goal of such laws.

Serious comment: The check has to be quick, cheap, no hassle, and the data cannot be used for wrong purposes. But in the same way that we say that the gun rights of law abiding citizens should not be denied because of what criminals might do if we have guns, we should not argue against background checks because of what might be done with the data.

Another serious comment: If someone believes that nobody should be prohibited from having a gun no matter how many violent felonies they have committed, you would be right to resist universal background checks.

The following was a fair and well reasoned post, except that we can't pump our own gas to protect the jobs of the gas station attendants.

bushmaster1313

You are in NJ so I'm going to cut you a little slack and I'm being serious, not snide, when I say this. You, in NJ, have no idea just how badly NJ is a "nanny state", how much it regulates and controls and coddles and swaddles it's "citizens".

They don't trust you to pump your own gasoline for crying out loud.

Anyone brought up in that environment is going to recoil in terror at the notion that everyone should have an UN-infringed right to buy firearms....and then we'll deal with those who demonstrate their incompetence AFTER they've done something wrong.

Yes, some people will get hurt doing it that way but nobody ever said freedom was safe and we sure won't waste all this time/money/effort trying to operate a department of "pre-crime".

browneu
January 17, 2013, 09:32 PM
Here we go again.

No its a terrible idea. How does this prevent straw purchases? How does this prevent someone stealing my guns?

Did I say no? No.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

bowserb
January 17, 2013, 09:33 PM
I kind of agree with bushy13. I don't do many sales, but if I do I like the idea of a paper trail that proves I no longer own that gun--a third party trail. When I sold my G19, I wanted to use an ffl, but the ffl didn't want to do it. I have a bill of sale with Dr license, signature and address, but there is no third party as a witness.


Please excuse typos. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

tyeo098
January 17, 2013, 09:39 PM
This will not affect the crack dealer who slaps down drug money for a full auto AK.
It will only burden the law-abiding.

Criminals, by nature, will break this law.

Want to be paranoid that you're not selling to a criminal? Co-sign your gun.
All else fails... Both the Tech and AZ shooters PASSED their background checks. Newtown shooter stole his.

bushmaster1313
January 17, 2013, 09:41 PM
How does this prevent straw purchases?

It lets the police conduct sting operations more easily.

How does this prevent someone stealing my guns?

Makes it harder to sell a stolen gun.

tyeo098
January 17, 2013, 09:44 PM
It lets the police conduct sting operations more easily.

But it does not prevent straw purchases


Makes it harder to sell a stolen gun.
Not if I simply say "want to buy a gun?" and exchange cash for gun. You seriously think criminals who steal a gun are going to follow the law and go to an FFL to have it transferred?

M-Cameron
January 17, 2013, 09:45 PM
Serious answer. If we assume the correctness of laws that prohibit psychotics and violent felons from having guns, a universal NICS check is the proper, and I believe Constitutional, way to promote the goal of such laws.

Serious comment: The check has to be quick, cheap, no hassle, and the data cannot be used for wrong purposes. But in the same way that we say that the gun rights of lw abiding citizens should not be denied because of what criminals might do if we have guns, we should not argue against background checks because of what might be done with the data.

Another serious comment: If someone believes that nobody should be prohibited from having a gun no matter how many violent felonies they have committed, you would be right to resist universal background checks.

I am going to say right now, i dont believe people convicted of VIOLENT Felonies or people with mental illness who exhibit signs of self harm or harm towards others should be allowed to own firearms.

that being said, people with felonies are already legally barred from owning guns....and selling a gun to someone you believe to be barred is already a crime....but yet they are still getting guns.

as we all know, criminals do not obey the law.....what makes you think they are going to all of a sudden start getting background checks now?

a criminal isnt going to pay 'legal' market prices for a gun......they are going to buy a stolen gun for MUCH cheaper.

hell, i am a law abiding citizen who runs pretty much on the straight and narrow......and i have absolutely no doubt that i could have an 'illegal' gun in my hands with a couple phone calls.....if i can get one that easily....just imagine how easily someone who runs in illicit circles can get one.

the fact is, in order for this to have ANY effect...you would need to register 100% of guns. and as we all know, registration leads to confiscation.

now i do agree, NICS should be made available for public use(whether it be run through the local PD or other means).....but it in no sense should be made mandatory, all that will do would make it more of a hassle for legal gun owners to do business.

ZeSpectre
January 17, 2013, 09:50 PM
I also have one more thought on this. Anyone who believes that universal background checks can't easily become de facto registration (regardless of straight-faced reassurances to the contrary from our "officials") needs to watch New York VERY CAREFULLY and when confiscation starts you may want to ask yourself how they got all the names/addresses.

I've been getting a number of emails from friends/family back in NY who kept saying I was "silly" or "paranoid" and now I'm getting a LOT of "Jaysis you were RIGHT! Whatinthehell do I do NOW?!?".

bushmaster1313
January 17, 2013, 09:53 PM
Not if I simply say "want to buy a gun?" and exchange cash for gun. You seriously think criminals who steal a gun are going to follow the law and go to an FFL to have it transferred?

By making it harder to sell a stolen gun it creates an economic disincentive to steal guns. Will not prevent all thefts, but it will help to soften the market.

tyeo098
January 17, 2013, 09:54 PM
By making it harder to sell a stolen gun it creates an economic disincentive to steal guns. Will not prevent all thefts, but it will help to soften the market.
It doesnt make it harder to sell a gun for people who are going to break the law and sell it anyways!
In fact it gives it a bigger incentive! Untraceable to the buyer!

M-Cameron
January 17, 2013, 09:55 PM
By making it harder to sell a stolen gun it creates an economic disincentive to steal guns. Will not prevent all thefts, but it will help to soften the market.

you are telling me someone who breaks into houses and steals (among other things) guns, doesnt know other criminals who would also like to buy a gun?

meanmrmustard
January 17, 2013, 09:58 PM
It lets the police conduct sting operations more easily.



Makes it harder to sell a stolen gun.
Neither of your points effectively illustrate how a universal BC will ultimately deter violence perpetrated with a firearm. Catching a straw purchase in the act is a crapshoot: Narc officers aren't catching all deals, and the streets are flooded with drugs. People who cannot own a gun, but want a gun will still get a gun if wanted badly enough. A background check of the magnitude and depth which has been proposed is an obstacle, not a cure to criminal action.

Stolen guns will flood the market heavier than ever. If guns are made harder to buy legally, or checks are more stringent, wouldn't I, as a criminal, be more apt to purchase a stolen arm rather than trounce into Cabelas with a fistful of cash even though I'm a felon (being hypothetical here) and know I'm going to fail? All criminals are evil, not all are stupid.

bushmaster1313
January 17, 2013, 10:01 PM
Think of it from an economic perspective.
The thief wants to be able to sell the stolen gun.
The bigger the market the more incentive to steal

Under the current system, a thief can make a face to face sale to an honest person because there is no background check.

With universal background checks, honest people will not be able to make face to face purchases from thieves and the thieves will have a smaller market.

Smaller market = less incentive to supply it = less incentive to steal.

racenutz
January 17, 2013, 10:02 PM
I'm not against this near as much as I am against any bans. That said I don't for one second believe that 40% of transfers are done without a background check. 100% of all new gun sales and any used sales done through a dealer already have to have a background check done. Outside of that if it's a legal transfer then the federal government shouldn't have jurisdiction as it's intrastate commerce.

DanTheFarmer
January 17, 2013, 10:03 PM
I generally agree with Bushmaster1313.

One of the NRA's constant refrains is that the best idea to prevent gun crime is to not focus on the gun but on the criminal. They constantly recite the need to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. That seems pretty logical to me.

Well, this seems to be one step. It is not a perfect step and not a 100% effective step, but it is a step that seems to further the stated goal of keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

I will read the posts of my fellow High-Roaders because they often make points that make me consider things in a new light. Perhaps they can point out how the practical details of any such system would make it ineffective, cumbersome, unconstitutional, etc..

I understand (but don't necessarily agree with) the "don't give an inch because they'll take a mile" argument.

As far as restricting the ability sell private property: Have you considered prescription drugs? I had some legally prescribed Vicadin after a muscle pull. I couldn't sell the leftover to anyone I wished after my shoulder healed.

Good Luck to all.

Dan

meanmrmustard
January 17, 2013, 10:03 PM
Think of it from an economic perspective.
The thief wants to be able to sell the stolen gun.
The bigger the market the more incentive to steal

Under the current system, a thief can make a face to face sale to an honest person because there is no background check.

With universal background checks, honest people will not be able to make face to face purchases from thieves and the thieves will have a smaller market.

Smaller market = less incentive to supply it = less incentive to steal.
Only if a criminal has one day decided to obey the law.

Ridiculous laws = higher gun prices and stimulated market = incentive to steal and sell arms illegally.

HorseSoldier
January 17, 2013, 10:06 PM
You are Toast on this Forum!!! Many have come before you and got lambasted! ha ha ha Get on your flame proof underwear!

Way to take the high road on your 18th post here on THR. :rolleyes:

M-Cameron
January 17, 2013, 10:06 PM
Think of it from an economic perspective.
The thief wants to be able to sell the stolen gun.
The bigger the market the more incentive to steal

Under the current system, a thief can make a face to face sale to an honest person because there is no background check.

With universal background checks, honest people will not be able to make face to face purchases from thieves and the thieves will have a smaller market.

Smaller market = less incentive to supply it = less incentive to steal.

you are also assuming the criminals sole intention was to break in solely for the guns....

typically a home invasion is for money, TVs, computers, phones, Personal info......guns just sweeten the deal......if you are already in the house stealing stuff, theres no reason not to steal the guns also.


a stolen car is pretty hard to sell legitimately.....yet cars get stolen all the time......why wont the same apply to guns?

mljdeckard
January 17, 2013, 10:06 PM
(Skipping past the responses.)

I would live with the process and the fee, if I believed that the check stopped at the check. Meaning, I would want to see black and white law that says that information provided may be used to verify the identity of the buyer, and retained buy the dealer ONLY, to prove he made the check and cover his own butt. It may not be used for gun traces and would be inadmissible in court. If they are serious about checking the background of buyers, then it should be used ONLY for that purpose, nothing else.

For the record, I don't think this will ever happen, and therefore I won't support any new laws.

bushmaster1313
January 17, 2013, 10:07 PM
Ridiculous laws = higher gun prices and stimulated market = incentive to steal and sell arms illegally.

Correct, that is the flip side.

FMF Doc
January 17, 2013, 10:08 PM
I work in a gun shop. I hate having to call them in. It ties up the phone, takes WAY TOO LONG (INSTANT MY A$$) and you get delays on good honest people ALL THE TIME. I love when people come in with a concealed carry permit, because then I don't have to do the check. As long as a permit, purchase or carry, from any state, exempts you from the NICS checks, I could deal with "mandatory back ground checks." We have gun shows here in NC, and everyone that shows up either gets called in, or, the smart ones, have their permits and don't need to be called in. Keep that, and I could get behind it.

hovercat
January 17, 2013, 10:08 PM
The country was outraged at the newspaper that printed the list of handgun owners.
Why would we want the gov to have such a list.
Before the arguement of fighting crime, I have some proposals that would be more effective.
Eliminate the option of trial by jury. Too many folks are getting off on an emotional plea.
Forget the rules of evidence. Too many criminals are getting off on a technicality.
The need to get a warrant is slowing down law enforcement. Let's get rid of that.
That whole self incrimination thing is soooo outdated.

All the above can be put in place of 'firearms' and you can say that they will reduce crime. In fact, more effectively than background checks. Most would say that it is crazy talk, we cannot give up our rights, better that a child molester go free than have his rights violated. Somehow, many have a disconnect when it comes to gun rights.

mgmorden
January 17, 2013, 10:09 PM
By making it harder to sell a stolen gun it creates an economic disincentive to steal guns. Will not prevent all thefts, but it will help to soften the market.

Wait, wait - are you seriously thinking that someone who just broke into a home or car and stole a firearm is then going to throw up their hands in frustration because the law says that they can't sell it without a background check? Stolen guns are already trafficked through shady backwards channels to other criminals anyways. That's why most thieves have a fence.

The whole idea is useless bureaucracy, not to mention the havoc it plays with transferring guns between family members. Can't you just imagine - someone's father dies as instead of just the will they also have to cart a dozen or two guns down to a gun dealership to have them transferred.

Twmaster
January 17, 2013, 10:15 PM
Please tell me where in the Constitution it says background checks are legal?

Further, I don't see anything in the 2A that says anything about who can and cannot have a gun.

Criminals will continue to be armed. It's what criminals do. Crazies will find weapons. Whether a handgun long gun or baseball bat...

Bush, you sir are misguided.

coolluke01
January 17, 2013, 10:16 PM
Right now the government is not able to keep searchable records on gun transfers. Each transfer is written on a form and then a picture is taken and stored on microfilm. The original document is destroyed. In order to find out who owns guns they would have to search microfilm and find the S# of the gun they are looking for. Then they would have to contact the gun manufacture and find out which dealer they sold it to. Then they would have to see if the dealer has a name of the person who they sold this particular gun to.
I asked my LGS about this. They said that paper work has a tendency to get lost easily ;-)

Universal background checks will not likely hurt any of us. Guns would cost $25 more... But I don't have a problem with the idea of background checks. We will have to give a little bit, this is not a bad area to toss them a bone. As long as this will not lead to national gun registration. Those executive orders about information sharing and gathering does worry me some.

Bang!
January 17, 2013, 10:17 PM
Utopia doesn't exist. Criminals don't obey laws. Yes, that's criminal. Criminals will not obey new laws. Surprise! Restrict the law abiding citizens to death, but the criminal element will still have their firearms. Oh, and those criminals in NY will put more than 7 rounds in their 'high capacity' mags. Again, Surprise!

Steel Horse Rider
January 17, 2013, 10:18 PM
Not only am I against any more government intrusion into my life I am also against police "sting" operations. There are plenty of real criminals on the street without trying to set up someone who is merely ignorant of the law. The local law enforcement agencies use a minor who appears to be about 25 to "sting" bar tenders, waitresses, and liquor store employees all the time around here which results in a heavy finacial cost to those who are stung. Meanwhile, liquor store owners, bartenders, and waitstaff confiscate phony drivers licenses from minors trying to pass themselves off as older but the law enforcement agencies won't do a damn thing to them for actually breaking several laws. This is a screwed up country........

meanmrmustard
January 17, 2013, 10:28 PM
We will have to give a little bit, this is not a bad area to toss them a bone. No, we don't, and yes it is. How would you like to have to start assessing and giving inventory of everything you own, without any ideas as to the items' relevance, to the Federal government? Remember doctor/patient privilege? Remember the other nine amendments in the BOR that are to protect you from tyranny?

Cave on an issue that you don't find that important, and you'll see how quickly denying self incrimination, free speech, and maybe jury trial disappear. Are those important to you guys? I'd hope your privacy is too.

jim243
January 17, 2013, 10:28 PM
This type of thinking did not help the German people back in 1934 but lead to the death of millions that thought they would be safer.

Do not fool yourself into thinking it would be for your benefit. Washington, Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and the rest knew what they were doing when they helped write the consitution, let us not trampple their work into the ground under the guise of public safety, for no one will be safe if any of this goes through. How do you plain to protect your family and liberty?, with your IPhone????

Jim

tyeo098
January 17, 2013, 10:30 PM
1000 Papercuts.

IdahoSkies
January 17, 2013, 10:31 PM
I have thought long and hard about this question and depending on how it was set up, I would also be in favor of a "universal NICS" check. So long as the law currently identifies a list of prohibited individuals I like the idea of everyone being able to determine if the sale they are about to enter into is with a prohibited individual.

I am not for requiring every purchase to go through an FFL. I am not in favor of the check as being linked to any particular firearm. I envision a "credit check" like system where one can check on whether an individual is a prohibited person. Heck I would like to be able to "check my status" sometimes to make sure that there is nothing hinky going on. A fee should not be associated with it, and it should not be tied to an actual firearm. That is definatly different from the way current FFL style NICS checks are done, (correct me if I am wrong, I'm not a GSO).

That said, it protects me. If a firearm that was in my possession for some reason ever is used in a crime and it gets back to me, I have something to rely on that I did my due diligence. I have not sold very many of my firearms, but I want the option to.

bushmaster1313
January 17, 2013, 10:33 PM
Please tell me where in the Constitution it says background checks are legal?

Further, I don't see anything in the 2A that says anything about who can and cannot have a gun.

Criminals will continue to be armed. It's what criminals do. Crazies will find weapons. Whether a handgun long gun or baseball bat...

Bush, you sir are misguided.

You, sir, are very polite.

But we have gotten far from my original point.

If certain people should not have guns it makes sense to have background checks.
If there should be no limit on who can have a gun there should be no background checks.
I think it makes sense to keep guns out of the hands of the insane and those convicted of violent felonies.

k_dawg
January 17, 2013, 10:34 PM
Even if you think it is 'good', why would you just concede it?

Demand that NICS approval is the legal maximum requirement to own any firearm in any State/County/City/District.

Make it also the maximum requirement for any FOID, including a maximum total fee/tax/cost/surcharge of $10.

coolluke01
January 17, 2013, 10:35 PM
This type of thinking did not help the German people back in 1934 but lead to the death of millions that thought they would be safer.
This is a stupid comparison and has nothing to do with background checks.

No, we don't, and yes it is. How would you like to have to start assessing and giving inventory of everything you own, without any ideas as to the items' relevance, to the Federal government? Remember doctor/patient privilege?
What? who said anything about taking inventory and doctor patient privileges? You guys need to get your heads screwed on right.

If we propose the legislation then we can control the extent and reach. If you are continually afraid they will take a mile if you give an inch you will never win. They want security, give them some security and reassurance that gun owners don't want guns is the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

Airbrush Artist
January 17, 2013, 10:37 PM
WRONG..in My Opinion Every thing He said Violates the Constitution..

Mobuck
January 17, 2013, 10:38 PM
Every time a firearm goes through a dealer's book, is one more opportunity for ATF to track it. It's something that's just a little closer to registration.
If I want to sell a firearm to an individual who I know or firmly believe is legally entitled to own that firearm, I should not have to involve a dealer or submit to a potential registration scheme.
Surely , it's not so hard to understand that these people are trying EVERY POSSIBLE way to get access to private gun sales information.

Bobson
January 17, 2013, 10:38 PM
What exactly are universal NICS checks? Background checks... doesn't that already happen for everyone who tries to buy a gun? What am I missing here?

tyeo098
January 17, 2013, 10:38 PM
NICS should be available to mere mortals like us.

However it should not be required.

35Rem
January 17, 2013, 10:43 PM
MORE laws don't stop crime. Period.

ENFORCE the laws we have (there are too many, though). Maybe even increase the penalties.

Punishment is supposed to be a deterrent. What do you do with your kids when "a stern talking to" doesn't cut it?

coolluke01
January 17, 2013, 10:43 PM
In MN we have permits to purchase. Anyone I know requires buyers to have a permit before they will sell a gun to them. This is a better way then requiring background checks, but won't help the libs sleep any better at night.

M-Cameron
January 17, 2013, 10:44 PM
What exactly are universal NICS checks? Background checks... doesn't that already happen for everyone who tries to buy a gun? What am I missing here?
hes talking about making NICS checks required for Face-to-Face sales.

Bobson
January 17, 2013, 10:47 PM
Thank you, Cameron. Now that I understand why everyone is angry about this...

Loud noises!

meanmrmustard
January 17, 2013, 10:47 PM
This is a stupid comparison and has nothing to do with background checks.


What? who said anything about taking inventory and doctor patient privileges? You guys need to get your heads screwed on right.

If we propose the legislation then we can control the extent and reach. If you are continually afraid they will take a mile if you give an inch you will never win. They want security, give them some security and reassurance that gun owners don't want guns is the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
I said it, in question. What is difficult about reading? Also, you haven't answered any of them. You say that we have to give a lil to get a lil: How can you know that you will not be further infringed? You can't.

When did my rights become a game to be "won"? I shouldn't HAVE to feel afraid of my government, that's our point you fail to see.

A government body that can trace my stuff, query my doctor about my gun ownership, start picking and choosing what parts of the Bill of Rights it's going to uphold...scares the crap out of me.

Does it not you?

BK
January 17, 2013, 10:52 PM
Think of it from an economic perspective.
The drug dealer wants to be able to sell drugs.
The bigger the market the more incentive to sell drugs.

Under the current system, a drug dealer can't make a face to face sale to an honest person because drug laws stop the honest person.

With the War on Drugs, honest people will not be able to make face to face purchases from drug dealer and the dealers will have a smaller market.

Smaller market = less incentive to supply it = less incentive to sell drugs.
Doesn't makes sense either way it's worded. Prohibiting the sale of illicit drugs did not make the market any smaller. I don't believe it
would for firearms either.

BP44
January 17, 2013, 10:54 PM
I don't have anything nice to say, so I won't say anything:banghead:


your children will concede more, and your childrens children until we have no "gun" rights. Please stop supporting foolish ideas that solve nothing

we are not amused
January 17, 2013, 10:54 PM
By making it harder to sell a stolen gun it creates an economic disincentive to steal guns. Will not prevent all thefts, but it will help to soften the market.

What planet do you live on?!

When you create a black market, you increase criminal conduct! You increase the demand for illegal weapons, and you increase weapon theft, and illegal trafficking. Since when do criminals obey the law? All experience and history is against you, but you insist upon failed gun control measures despite proof it doesn't work.

Since when has a gun control law stopped a mass murderer? After all, mass murder is already against the law. How come the States and Cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest gun crime rates

I am really shocked and saddened by the anti-gun people who are on this site, pretending to believe in the Right To Keep and Bear Arms, but then insist upon restricting the gun rights of everyone.

Look, I realize you are from an extremely restrictive anti-gun Nanny State, one that is second only to New York in it's Fascist government philosophy, but just get out and visit the rest of the Nation. Get to know people from the South, Mid-west, the Plains States and the West. There is a lot more to this Nation than your own little fascist utopia.

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 10:55 PM
You're trying to bring reason in here - don't bother. You'll get an allergic response.

M-Cameron
January 17, 2013, 10:56 PM
You're trying to bring reason in here - don't bother. You'll get an allergic response.
???......who is that directed to?

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 10:59 PM
???......who is that directed to?
OP.

M-Cameron
January 17, 2013, 11:01 PM
would you, in your opinion, care to tell us how OPs suggestion is reasonable?

gym
January 17, 2013, 11:06 PM
It need not be resonable, he has the right to have it "an opinion" though. Why he felt compelled to post it is a better question, but I defend his right to express his opinion. That's the First amendment.

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 11:06 PM
would you, in your opinion, care to tell us how OPs suggestion is reasonable?

Some people aught not to have access to guns. These people are mentally disturbed, or have a criminal history.

Background checks are in place (though often fail) to exclude these people. Personal sales of identical weapons are not required to go through background checks.

To make guns less accessible to people who aught not to have access to them, background checks should be required for all transfers.

gego
January 17, 2013, 11:09 PM
Saw a MSM segment talking about where criminals get their guns. They reported a survey of people in jail for crimes involving guns that asked how they acquired the gun they used in their crimes (can't remember the state). 40% got their guns on the street, 40% from friends and families, 4% in pawn shops, 1% at gun shows or flea markets.

Expanding NICS checks to include private transfers wouldn't do diddly squat to effect gun crime. Even a nut case can pass a NICS check, and if he fails can find street corner sales just like criminals do.

Drug sales are completely outlawed, and that trade is rampant. Your suggestion is as absurd as suggesting a background check for buying illegal drugs.

In reality, the NICS check required for FFL transfers just creates the illusion of safety for people who need something to reinforce their fear driven delusion that guns are the cause of crime. I suppose you endorse punishing your own child if your neighbor's child misuses his toys.

I just don't understand your thinking.

browneu
January 17, 2013, 11:11 PM
So you think it will limit a criminal's ability to sell the gun to someone?

Answer this, will your universal background check apply to gifts? Will I have to use this check to give a firearm to a family member?



Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

meanmrmustard
January 17, 2013, 11:16 PM
Some people aught not to have access to guns. These people are mentally disturbed, or have a criminal history.

Background checks are in place (though often fail) to exclude these people. Personal sales of identical weapons are not required to go through background checks.

To make guns less accessible to people who aught not to have access to them, background checks should be required for all transfers.
Question 11f: Have you ever been adjudicated as mentally defective?

The crazy psych killer checks "No".

He has no prior red flags. Buys gun, kills children...or he fails check, buys gun on the street illegally. But, still kills children.

Your theory fails.

Lets not blame the medical field, misdiagnoses of mental affliction, or even the defective him/herself for not taking their medication. Lets not try to help these types of people.

We'll just make background checks all-encompassing. Derp dee derp.

Steel Horse Rider
January 17, 2013, 11:17 PM
Any of you supporters of across the board background checks care to give an example of what shooter this would have stopped? Laws that are impotent only bring down the effectiveness of laws that are effective.

As far as medical records, the President has proposed eliminating the protections from the HIPA act to accessing YOUR health records in order to make it easier for the government to "properly" evaluate your status. What could go wrong????

gamestalker
January 17, 2013, 11:17 PM
It would do absolutely nothing to change the way almost all criminals aquire firearms, they steal them, or, buy them off the street from someone who did steal it.
And why should the Feds need to know about every gun I purchase or sell, it's simply none of their business, in that, I'm a law abiding citizen and shouldn't be made to commit to a form of being registering as a gun owner, or the gun. No way, this man is going way over the line, this is my / your United States Of America, the land of the free, and a Constitution that guarantee's it!! Any degree of acceptance is simply handing over our freedom as we once knew it to be. A country unlike any other on this planet, a country that was founded on total and absolute freedom by the implementation of a Constitution.

I'm actually in shock and at a loss for words, when I hear some Americans who are not conecting the dots, and unable to see the obvious fact that we are quickly losing our democracy, and at an alarming rate, it just takes the wind out of me Sir. I don't know how old you are, so it may be that you are of the younger generation and may have been influenced some how to accept the liberal views, as in accepting that, what freedom they give you, as being all the freedom you need, I don't know? I do know that this is not what the Constitution promised me and every other American, it's a straight up contradiction of what we have always had, and as promised under the directives of the document.

GS
"When Seconds Count, The Police are Only Minutes Away"

rbernie
January 17, 2013, 11:19 PM
Last I checked DoJ statistics, almost half of Federal felons convicted of gun-related crimes obtained their gun legally. In other words, they passed (or would have passed) a NICS check without issue, and yet they would go on to be Convicted Bad People.

Background checks make the presumption that past performance is an indicator of future returns - a presumption that even my 401(k) won't provide.

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 11:19 PM
Saw a MSM segment talking about where criminals get their guns. They reported a survey of people in jail for crimes involving guns that asked how they acquired the gun they used in their crimes (can't remember the state). 40% got their guns on the street, 40% from friends and families, 4% in pawn shops, 1% at gun shows or flea markets.

Expanding NICS checks to include private transfers wouldn't do diddly squat to effect gun crime. Even a nut case can pass a NICS check, and if he fails can find street corner sales just like criminals do.

Drug sales are completely outlawed, and that trade is rampant. Your suggestion is as absurd as suggesting a background check for buying illegal drugs.

In reality, the NICS check required for FFL transfers just creates the illusion of safety for people who need something to reinforce their fear driven delusion that guns are the cause of crime. I suppose you endorse punishing your own child if your neighbor's child misuses his toys.

I just don't understand your thinking.
You're committing the bifurcation fallacy - no one initiative can stop all gun violence. Gun violence will stop when all violence stops, which will never happen.

Criminals get their firearms from a variety of sources, and personal transfers are one of the sources. There's a reason why NFA firearms are very rarely used for crimes, and the difficulty in manufacture of NFA firearms is not a major reason.

Drug sales are completely outlawed (though not in my state), but gun sales are not. I bought all of my guns legally. If I were to sell to a private individual, and I had to go through a transfer fee, then I would.

Criminals aren't manufacturing their own guns. If you make it harder for them to acquire weapons from people who legally purchased them through FFLs, then fewer criminals will be able to afford illegal guns.

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 11:20 PM
Last I checked DoJ statistics, almost half of Federal felons convicted of gun-related crimes obtained their gun legally. In other words, they passed (or would have passed) a NICS check without issue, and yet they would go on to be Convicted Bad People.

Background checks make the presumption that past performance is an indicator of future returns - a presumption that even my 401(k) won't provide.
They passed it once.

bayesian
January 17, 2013, 11:21 PM
Ok, folks, flame on. I agree and have no problem with universal NICS checks.

OMG, plus I wouldn't be opposed to seeing more states contribute relevant information to NICS.

Who shall I present my membership card to?

Seriously folks, get some perspective.

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 11:21 PM
So you think it will limit a criminal's ability to sell the gun to someone?

Answer this, will your universal background check apply to gifts? Will I have to use this check to give a firearm to a family member?



Yes. Does your family member have to register a car once you give it to them?

meanmrmustard
January 17, 2013, 11:22 PM
They passed it once.
Wasn't that enough?

splattergun
January 17, 2013, 11:23 PM
Just more ineffective gun laws to punish the millions of responsible, law abiding gun owners for the reprehensible actions fo the criminally insane few.

jungle
January 17, 2013, 11:24 PM
Bushmaster, can you tell us the difference between the data base of the NICS system and the instant check system?

I think you have fallen for the hysteria, many Federal and State data bases share as do many Federal organizations. They also share with Canada and and many other countries.

In effect, you are already getting a NICS check anytime you buy a gun from a dealer.

Getting everyone to play is going to apply only to the law abiding.

meanmrmustard
January 17, 2013, 11:25 PM
Yes. Does your family member have to register a car once you give it to them?
No, they don't. If they want to drive it the road, its inescapable. If they're going to sell it, or use it on a farm...no, they don't. They have a choice in the matter.

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 11:31 PM
No, they don't. If they want to drive it the road, its inescapable. If they're going to sell it, or use it on a farm...no, they don't. They have a choice in the matter.
It's a distinction without a difference. Societal structures are in place. Some of them are inane, and some are reasonable.

Licencing and regulating automobiles and the operators of them is reasonable, so is regulating firearms. We disagree about this, but that's fine.

DHJenkins
January 17, 2013, 11:32 PM
This isn't exacly a brain-teaser. You can't enforce mandatory background checks on private sales of unregistered firearms because you can't prove who the current owner is, so you can't prove a crime has been committed.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is forgetting the 300 million + firearms in private (and sometimes unscrupulous) hands.

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 11:32 PM
Just more ineffective gun laws to punish the millions of responsible, law abiding gun owners for the reprehensible actions fo the criminally insane few.
I don't see how a background check is punishment. I would make the bar for owning firearms much higher than they are now; a background check seems like a sane basic step.

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 11:34 PM
This isn't exacly a brain-teaser. You can't enforce mandatory background checks on private sales of unregistered firearms because you can't prove who the current owner is, so you can't prove a crime has been committed.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is forgetting the 300 million + firearms in private (and sometimes unscrupulous) hands.
Right, that's why automatic weapons are used so thoroughly in crimes, because the NFA was completely ineffective.

Trent
January 17, 2013, 11:39 PM
No, I don't agree with universal background checks.

It is *my* discretion who I will sell to. It is *their* responsibility to not buy a firearm if they are a prohibited person.

I should have to run a background check on my wife or 15 year old son to gift them a handgun or rifle?


I should have to run a background check on a friend who I've known for 20 years and go shooting with every weekend who owns two dozen firearms already?

I should have to run a background check on a person who shows me an IL FOID card who already has had a background check to get one? (Substitute for CCW in another state)

I should have to run a background check on my neighbor who owns firearms and I go shooting with?

I should have to run a background check on the State Trooper that's over at my house buying an AR15 from my private collection as an individual?

And on.. and on.

"Oh excuse me, {insert name}, I know I've known you for 20 years and we just got back from the shooting range, but I have to do a background check on you before I hand you this firearm."

What's next? Do a background check on everyone I teach to shoot?

That'll turn off a lot of new shooters. I can just see it now - "Sure Ms. Doe, I can take your boy out and teach him to shoot, but first I'll need to do a background check on you, and him."

Sigh.

meanmrmustard
January 17, 2013, 11:40 PM
It's a distinction without a difference.

Licencing and regulating automobiles and the operators of them is reasonable, so is regulating firearms. You're about half right.
Cars don't start themselves, drive to a school, and plow into a bus on their own...no more so than a rifle walks itself into a school and slays children. People are the catalyst.

Now, take that scenario and add a person.

"Well, how could we know he'd drive into that bus? He passed the vision test!"

As for licensing (proper spelling), all I can say is this; Department of Revenue. :banghead:

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 11:43 PM
You're about half right.
Cars don't start themselves, drive to a school, and plow into a bus on their own...no more so than a rifle walks itself into a school and slays children. People are the catalyst.

Now, take that scenario and add a person.

"Well, how could we know he'd drive into that bus? He passed the vision test!"

As for licensing (proper spelling), all I can say is this; Department of Revenue. :banghead:
You're making a false equivocation - vision tests and background tests are different things.

But since you're talking about cars, I'm open to restricting the operator license of anyone who has threatened another person with a vehicle, or used it recklessly. That's more in line with the matter at hand.

bushmaster1313
January 17, 2013, 11:48 PM
Check out item 9 on the New Jersey Certificate of Eligibility:

http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/sp-634.pdf

9. Are you presently, or have you ever been a member of any organization which advocates or approves the commission of acts of violence, either to overthrow the government of the United States or of this State, or to deny others of their rights under the Constitution of either the United States or the State of New Jersey?

Answering yes to this question means you will not be approved.

Many have wondered if this means that Democrats who answer truthfully are not allowed to buy guns in New Jersey

jim243
January 17, 2013, 11:49 PM
This is a stupid comparison and has nothing to do with background checks.

Actually it does, that is how it started in Germany and then they started shipping people off to reloacation camps. Our generals in Washington, D.C. are sitting with plans in their desks right now to ship us off to re-education camps here in the US. The army has already run exercises in US towns to see how it would work.

All POTUS has to do is declare marshal law and you are on your way to a rail car.

Jim

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 11:50 PM
It certainly bars republicans:

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=S06779&term=2011&Summary=Y&Text=Y

meanmrmustard
January 17, 2013, 11:51 PM
You're making a false equivocation - vision tests and background tests are different things.

But since you're talking about cars, I'm open to restricting the operator license of anyone who has threatened another person with a vehicle, or used it recklessly. That's more in line with the matter at hand.
But the end result is the same. People die.

When I got my license renewed a few months ago and got new truck plates, I was never asked if I'd ever threatened someone with my truck.

If I were going to, or had before, wouldn't I just lie? Like someone trying to get a gun for criminal action would?

You say restrictions for drivers who've done bad things with cars. That's punishment, after the deeds been done, not a method of stopping the deed from ever happening...just not happening again.

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 11:51 PM
Actually it does, that is how it started in Germany and then they started shipping people off to reloacation camps. Our generals in Washington, D.C. are sitting with plans in their desks right now to ship us off to re-education camps here is the US. The army has already run exercises in US towns to see how it would work.

All POTUS has to do is declare marshal law and you are on your way to a rail car.

Jim
Obvious troll is obvious.

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 11:52 PM
But the end result is the same. People die.

When I got my license renewed a few months ago and got new truck plates, I was never asked if I'd ever threatened someone with my truck.

If I were going to, or had before, wouldn't I just lie? Like someone trying to get a gun for criminal action would?

You say restrictions for drivers who've done bad things with cars. That's punishment, after the deeds been done, not a method of stopping the deed from ever happening...just not happening again.
__________________

So you're arguing that it should be allowed to happen again?

I keep seeing the bifurcation fallacy here - either something is 100% effective, or it's useless.

ShaiVong
January 17, 2013, 11:54 PM
I'm off to play some Planetside 2, where I get rocket launchers without even a background check.

mavracer
January 17, 2013, 11:57 PM
I actually wouldn't mind it if I could call NICS and get a check run on somebody I don't know, IMHO it would be a responsible thing to do. I of course realize this would have a extremely low chance of stopping any illegal gun sales.

meanmrmustard
January 17, 2013, 11:59 PM
So you're arguing that it should be allowed to happen again?

I keep seeing the bifurcation fallacy here - either something is 100% effective, or it's useless.
Where on Earth did you learn reading comprehension?

I'm saying your restrictions AFTER a threat or deed has been committed is punishment, NOT A MEANS OF STOPPING A CRIME. Which, unless I'm a fool, is the point of the background check; to stop a criminal from buying a gun, essentially stopping a possible future gun related crime.

If it isn't effective at all (as in, criminals are still getting guns), how is that bifurcation? I'd call it useless, yes. I adhere to my state laws, not everyone does. Guns are still going to be straw bought, stolen, and/or sold illegally. Your check is an obstacle easily cleared by folks that've been doing it already for years.

bayesian
January 18, 2013, 12:11 AM
Boy, I'm hesitant to weigh in on an argument that clearly is not going to be won on merits. Seriously, I mean that there's a reason that some discussions are not allowed at the dinner table, because the beliefs that are held are not those that are accessible to reasonable back and forth argument about data.

But, ok, I'll give things a shot: the notion of universal NICS checks is to create friction in the process of procuring firearms in a way where the burden will fall most heavily on those individuals that are intent on procuring firearms for illicit purposes. We can, and should distinguish between mechanisms that specifically address one or a small number of incidents (e..g., Newtown) from those that are meant to address a more general problem. The notion of universal NICS is more the latter than the former.

Granted, if you are a citizen with a spotless record, then some burden will fall on you with a system of universal checks. But, far more than you, the burden of checks will reduce (note, I said reduce, not eliminate) straw purchases, and other means for diverting firearms into the illicit market. If your standard for supporting a particular action, is it is a 100% solution, then I'd be interested in hearing about what birth control methods you use...

meanmrmustard
January 18, 2013, 12:14 AM
Still curious on how straw buying will be even remotely reduced, guns won't get stolen, or how bad guys aren't going to get weapons.

Abstinence is 100%

bayesian
January 18, 2013, 12:16 AM
Abstinence is 100%

Ok, I've got nothing on this then...

meanmrmustard
January 18, 2013, 12:17 AM
Ok, I've got nothing on this then...
Hey, you asked!

bayesian
January 18, 2013, 12:18 AM
Actually, my terminology is bad here, sorry. I don't mean straw purchases, but rather purchases by on the private market by individuals that would be unable to purchase.

My bad, I know the difference. It's a bit past my bedtime...

meanmrmustard
January 18, 2013, 12:20 AM
Actually, my terminology is bad here, sorry. I don't mean straw purchases, but rather purchases by on the private market by individuals that would be unable to purchase.

My bad, I know the difference. It's a bit past my bedtime...
Assuming they're a law abiding criminal (oxymoron), they'd fail.

Leanwolf
January 18, 2013, 12:20 AM
BUSHMASTER - "By making it harder to sell a stolen gun it creates an economic disincentive to steal guns. Will not prevent all thefts, but it will help to soften the market."

Bushmaster, you (and several others here) are living in a dream world. It is quite obvious that you know absolutely nothing about real criminals. You're just projecting your own "values" on to vicious, law breaking thugs.

Years ago when I was going through the Academy of one of the largest LEO agencies in the United States, during a class break, an instructor (Sgt., cadre) came outside to talk to several of us. He was a tough, no-nonsense, very streetwise cop.

He said, "Let me tell you people something, and you'd better not ever forget it. Criminals are exactly like you and me ... except for one thing. They don't think the way you think."

Sounds kinda glib? Huh uh. He was 100% correct. Let me give you an example. (And there are millions of them nationwide.)

Several years later I was talking with a dude who was out on parole from San Quentin. He'd gone to prison for Assault, With Great Bodily Injury. Spent 6 years in the slam. He'd been a minor drug dealer. Said he always carried a gun. Another drug dealer burned him on a dope deal.

I asked him, "Where'd you get the gun?"

He said, "Off the street. No problem, a few bucks laid in the right place and I could get whatever I wanted. Still can... if I wanted. I had a .32 and a .357."

He said he'd found the drug dealer one night, pulled out his .32 and forced him into his car. He made the drug dealer drive. They went up into the high desert. He walked the drug dealer out into the desert and shot him four or five times with his .32. Then he walked back to his car and drove home.

He told me he thought he'd killed that #^%@*#@, but instead, the wounded drug dealer managed to crawl out of the desert to the highway where a passing car stopped, got him in the car and raced to a hospital in the next town. He lived, fingered who shot him, and the guy with whom I was talking ended up in Quentin.

I asked him, "Well, did you learn anything from all that?"

He did not say, "Yeah man, I learned to get a job and go straight."

He did not say, "Yeah, I learned how I should obey the law and not treat my fellow man in such a despicable manner."

No, he said without so much as an instant's hesitation, "Damn right! I learned that next time I'll take my three fifty seven!" And he meant every word of it.

Couple of months later he was arrested for dealing dope again plus being a felon in possession of firearms and went back to prison, Folsom, this time. Three stolen guns, so I heard from one of the cops who arrested him.

You see, Bushmaster, and several others here, he did not think the way you think. You're all making a big mistake to believe criminals are smart and logical. Very, very, very, very, very few are.

He, and all his criminal ilk, don't think the way you think. Nor do they worry about economic incentives, profit and loss statements, double entry accounting, nor what the Dow Jones closed at today. Laws are meaningless to them including "Background Checks."

If you believe so, you are profoundly naive and ignorant of criminals.

Doubt that this'll change the minds of those who believe that more and more and more compromises and restrictions on honest citizens will ever satisfy the gun grabbers, 'cause they won't. Nor will more laws and restrictions have any effect on criminals, but there it is.

L.W.

Ohio Gun Guy
January 18, 2013, 12:22 AM
The flaw of well intentioned Laws are..........



wait for it............



CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW.


Construct what ever scheme you want, and picture in your head, Thug 1 selling thug 2 a gun out of the trunk of his car. ALL of those laws, plans, well intentioned as they MIGHT be, are useless... and worse, they apply to us and only to us.

Leanwolf +1....written while I was posting!

bayesian
January 18, 2013, 12:24 AM
The flaw of well intentioned Laws are..........



wait for it............



CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY THE LAW.

Right, so lets repeal all of the laws and go home.

Problem solved.

Killian
January 18, 2013, 12:25 AM
Bushmaster1313: I think it makes sense to keep guns out of the hands of the insane

Alright. Let's hear your working definition of "insane". Would it include one example of temporary insanity, such as behavior brought on by biochemical imbalances--for example behaviors that have been associated with long term lack of light such as is seen in Northern climates during the winter? Would it involve long term low-grade insanities such as clinical depression or bipolar disorder? If someone is "insane" but the condition is treatable with medication, should the person have their rights surrendered forever if the medication is temporarily ineffective, or they miss a dose because they are stuck in traffic, or from some other cause are unable to get to it? Would victims of childhood abuse be automatically categorized as insane if they displayed socially malformed behaviors in school such as being confrontational, or developmentally delayed?

Is the receipt of a "crazy check" enough reason to bar someone from owning a handgun? An entire class of African Americans would fall into this category. Schizophrenia is 70% more likely to be diagnosed among blacks than whites. Are we prepared for them to become the next "Jews of Europe" and be disarmed more extensively?

Suppose future changes to diagnoses in the mental health field are created which recognize fascination or desire to own weaponry as an adherent mental condition. "Obsessional Force Disorder", let's call it, wherein the mere desire to own weaponry, photographs of weaponry, engage in conversations about weaponry or watching "excessive" amounts of gratuitous violence in TV, films and video games is determined to be a mental disorder. Thus making everyone who has ever posted on this board now clinically recognized as insane and ineligible to possess guns, ever.

Do we really want to trust a group of psychiatrists whose treatment for behavioral issues has been the issuance of more and stronger mind altering drugs into our society--6 year old kids who fidget need Ritalin? Really?--with the ability to classify, by the mechanism of their profession, who should or should not be allowed to own a gun?

My opinion as I've already expressed before is that felons or the mental ill--once they have completely their incarceration or treatment--should have all rights restored. Long term loss of rights would seem to me to be a violation of the Eighth Amendment Once the "debt to society" has been paid..restore the rights. Loss of rights FOREVER seems to me to be inherently what is addressed by this amendment.

bayesian
January 18, 2013, 12:25 AM
Listen to yourselves folks: Murderers are going to murder anyway, so, any laws against murder are pointless...

(yeah, i know i'm being wildly unfair, but so are some of you...)

hovercat
January 18, 2013, 12:26 AM
How do you prevent folks from abusing the system? Me checking a guy who wants to date my daughter? The local newspaper checking citizens at random, looking for the chance of a juicy story? Check on the neighbors?
This involves personal and medical privacy. If the Whig party candidate for mayor does not pass a check, that was not authorized by him, then you know he is either a felon (public record) or has mental health problems.

jim243
January 18, 2013, 12:31 AM
create friction in the process of procuring firearms in a way where the burden will fall most heavily on those individuals that are intent on procuring firearms for illicit purposes

I am at a loss on how it will make it more difficult for criminals? Most do not follow legal means now. How hard is it to get fake IDs? Or illegal firearms now, not sure any new law will even slow them down. (just raise the price they will have to pay).

Jim

hogshead
January 18, 2013, 12:33 AM
Bushmaster maybe you should join the Brady Campaign.

meanmrmustard
January 18, 2013, 12:34 AM
Listen to yourselves folks: Murderers are going to murder anyway, so, any laws against murder are pointless...

(yeah, i know i'm being wildly unfair, but so are some of you...)
Sadly, you're right.

Citizens who obey a law do so out of respect, fear, ethics, or all three.

Those that don't usually lack the aforementioned three.

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 12:34 AM
going by most responses on here about how background checks aren't 100% effective therefore should be abandoned, I guess we should get rid of speed limits, laws against rape and murder. Clearly since people violate those laws, they are ineffective.
While we are going with completely fallacious and logically flawed ideas, let's get rid of laws protecting free speech and religious freedom. After all, censorship happens in spite of these laws.

Do you guys see how ridiculous your argument are?

Hunter125
January 18, 2013, 12:35 AM
and the data cannot be used for wrong purposes
You are putting an awful lot of trust in people you don't know, especially when some of the highest LE officials in the nation were caught up in something so convoluted and corrupt as F&F. You truly think that info will never be used inappropriately?

Fred_G
January 18, 2013, 12:35 AM
I am for FFL transfers whenever the reporters agree to be gagged until asked to speak, and only speak the truth under penalty of law.

bayesian
January 18, 2013, 12:36 AM
I am at a loss on how it will make it more difficult for criminals? Most do not follow leagal means now. How hard is it to get fake IDs? Or illegal firearms now, not sure any new law will even slow them down. (just raise the price they will have to pay).


At a loss? Really? Most criminals aren't Lex Luthor... They are knuckleheads that know other knuckleheads.

Ok, make them all get fake IDs. Were you ever a teenager? Did everyone have fake IDs? Or just some people? So, if alcohol sales didn't require any ID, would it have been easier to by beer? Look, requiring ID to buy alcohol doesn't keep alcohol from teenagers, but from the way some of you talk, because some teenagers get beer, we should get rid of the requirement to show ID before buying the beer.

That is beyond stupid.

bayesian
January 18, 2013, 12:38 AM
Sadly, you're right.

Citizens who obey a law do so out of respect, fear, ethics, or all three.

Those that don't usually lack the aforementioned three.


uhm... Ok... You're point is?

horsemen61
January 18, 2013, 12:39 AM
I am not in favor of the idea of universal nics checks.

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 12:45 AM
I have come to the conclusion that the people who propose such a thing (mandatory universal background checks) are for the most part well meaning. They are simply very misinformed and idealistic about how the criminal element operates. Bacgground checks will do nothing to deter someone intent on illegally obtaining a firearm. Just like today, the criminal element will continue to steal from both non-criminals and each other, then sell the goods (guns, drugs, electronics, whatever) to each other and those who are willing to take the rik of buying stolen property to save a few bucks. Sometimes a lot of bucks. The average "fenced" item gets the seller aproximately 1/10th of the retail value. Hence the attraction to buy stolen items. In short, requiring background checks will not eliminate either the source of black market guns (theft) nor the market for them. All it would do is place another restriction and financial burden, however large or small, on those who comply.

2ifbyC
January 18, 2013, 12:45 AM
I keep seeing the bifurcation fallacy here - either something is 100% effective, or it's useless.

Looking at the inverse, if something is not 100% ineffective, then it's worth doing.

The issues that Trent and others brought up about the cost, minimal value, hassle, time, unreliability, etc. ,we should accept, for what reason? To make people feel safe? To possibly save one life? To give the antis a bone in hopes that they will quiet down and go away?

I would never support this on a national level. At best, I would accept the state's right to set it's own rules. Since I live in AZ, I'm not too worried about that prospect happening.:uhoh:

meanmrmustard
January 18, 2013, 12:48 AM
uhm... Ok... You're point is? Urg.:banghead:

That most naturally "good" people already possess a sense of right and wrong, and don't aspire to murder, rape or steal.

"Bad" people lack those things, and will break whatever laws they want.

My point? Good folks don't need laws to be good. Bad folks don't give two steamy deuces about your laws.

vongh
January 18, 2013, 12:48 AM
Bushmaster, WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU MAN???

bayesian
January 18, 2013, 12:49 AM
Darn you people are thick.

In short, requiring background checks will not eliminate either the source of black market guns (theft) nor the market for them.

Who the frak is claiming that it will "eliminate" the source? See my above analogy with showing an ID for buying beer. Just because requiring an ID does not eliminate the ability of teenagers to get beer does not mean that requiring an ID makes it harder for an under age teenager to get beer.

This is not freaking rocket science. Nothing is 100%, but some steps, even if not meeting your admirable standards of 100% solutions, still have an effect.

bayesian
January 18, 2013, 12:50 AM
Urg.

That most naturally "good" people already possess a sense of right and wrong, and don't aspire to murder, rape or steal.

"Bad" people lack those things, and will break whatever laws they want.

My point? Good folks don't need laws to be good. Bad folks don't give two steamy deuces about your laws.

Wow, so the laws are pointless? Urg all you want, I feel the same way.

meanmrmustard
January 18, 2013, 12:52 AM
going by most responses on here about how background checks aren't 100% effective therefore should be abandoned, I guess we should get rid of speed limits, laws against rape and murder. Clearly since people violate those laws, they are ineffective.
While we are going with completely fallacious and logically flawed ideas, let's get rid of laws protecting free speech and religious freedom. After all, censorship happens in spite of these laws.

Do you guys see how ridiculous your argument are?
About as ridiculous as handing them your free speech and religious freedom. That'll be next after you've rolled over and decided to give in a little to make the Libs happy. That's pure lunacy.

People speed, rape, and kill. We have laws against that. They don't work.

Carl N. Brown
January 18, 2013, 12:53 AM
Universal NICS checks will have little effect on armed felons. It really will affect firearms acquistion by people who obey the law, but.....

James D. Wright and Peter Rossi, "Armed and Considered Dangerous", (Aldine 1986, 2nd ed 2008, ISBN-13: 978-0202362427), US NIJ Felon Survey of 1,874 felons in 18 prisons in 10 different states convicted of armed crimes. Felons "obtain guns in hard-to-regulate ways from hard-to-regulate sources". A link to the author's summation: http://www.rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html

Handgun-using felons expected to be able to get handguns from "unregulated channels" within a week of release from prison*: friends (mostly fellow criminals), from "the street" (used guns from strangers), from fences or the blackmarket or drug dealers (who often run guns along with drugs).

Of gun using felons,
50% expected to unlawfully purchase a gun through "unregulated channels";
25% expected to be able to borrow a gun from a fellow criminal,
12% expected to steal a gun.
7% cited licensed gun dealers and 6% cited pawnshops (usually through a surrogate buyer: friend, relative or lover with a clean record).

40% of the felons surveyed reported stealing firearms. Sources stolen from included:
37% from stores,
15% from police,
16% from truck shipments,
8% from manufacturers,
21% from individuals.

40% reported stealing guns, 12% reported stealing for their own use, implying armed felons more often steal guns for resale or trade than for personal use.

bayesian
January 18, 2013, 12:54 AM
People speed, rape, and kill. We have laws against that. They don't work.

So let's repeal those laws...

Some of you are deep into some scary sh**

simonjester
January 18, 2013, 12:55 AM
Laws do not prevent crime, they define it....

meanmrmustard
January 18, 2013, 12:55 AM
Wow, so the laws are pointless? Urg all you want, I feel the same way.
You do realize kids pay adults to buy liquor for them right? No fake ID required.

meanmrmustard
January 18, 2013, 12:56 AM
So let's repeal those laws...

Some of you are deep into some scary sh**
All they do is outline what we aren't supposed to do, not stop it from happening. When you realize this, maybe you'll understand a bit more what the other camp is getting at.

jungle
January 18, 2013, 12:59 AM
Bayesian, calling the people here thick isn't going to win your argument or make friends.

You said: Why not repeal all gun laws?

There is a very good argument for doing just that, after all we have many laws against murder and assault and they would do just fine for prosecuting any gun offense.

There are something like 25,000 gun laws on the books, and they have not been effective. Just one more law is going to solve the problem?

I would guess you are too young to remember the situation prior to 1968, where anyone could order a gun through the mail and have it delivered by the post office.

The problem you are having is that you are working under the illusion that gunlaws equate to safety, and they clearly do not. Just as drug laws have not stopped the drug trade.

Swift and certain prosecution helps, but we already have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

sonick808
January 18, 2013, 12:59 AM
No way. we have to remember, people that sell a gun when someone says they're prohibited is not a legal sale gone bad, that's a CRIMINAL sale from the beginning. Ponder that for a moment. That sale didn't start with one good guy and one bag guy, it started with two bad guys. Can't get on board with this one, the ROI too low, the risk too high if you follow all it's conclusions.

mljdeckard
January 18, 2013, 01:00 AM
I wonder what the record is for rapid posting over a controversial topic?

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 01:01 AM
Yes, as a matter of fact, a law such as you propose would be useless. In spite of several (many) people giving both logical arguments and FBI stats, you refuse to give up on your reaction of "but we've got to do something...". The people who would comply with said law are law abiding. Self explanatory. Those who would break the law have motivation to do so and background checks would have no effect on either the motivation or availability of black market guns. Period. There's no way to argue the point, you just keep going back to square one and reitterating the same argument expecting a different answer.

hogshead
January 18, 2013, 01:02 AM
Bayesian I'm gonna type real slow . Most of us who are against ubc feel that it wont help stop gun violence but it will lead to registration which will lead to confiscation. Talk about being thick. The left will not be satisfied until they have all the guns. Everyone.... every single one. All of them single shots shotguns and probably pellet guns that over so many fps. This is the truth accept it. Then think about what you are saying. Until then it is pointless to argue about this.

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 01:05 AM
Agreed. But to get to the point of realizing that, hogshead, a few others around here may have to take a night class in critical thinking. Or maybe just a crash course in common sense. They stop thinking when they arrive at a desired conclusion, rather than thinking through the logical progression of what they are proposing. The kind of people whose last owrds are often "Hey, dude, watch this...".

sonick808
January 18, 2013, 01:08 AM
5-10 years from now, our kids will be oh-so-thankful to us for allowing Journal News or some other "progressive' activist rag to list 70+% of gun owners in the US. maybe 80% ? who knows. I'm sure the makeup of the SCOTUS in 10 years will be VERY respectful of the rights of all the people in the central database.

I understand the utopian application of private sales via NICS, but it will just lead to central monitoring, exploitation and confiscation.

Please reconsider support of a central NICS check, if you do support such a thing. Most don't I'm sure.

hogshead
January 18, 2013, 01:10 AM
I wonder how many voted for the current joke in chief. Beleiving him when he said he would try to take our guns. He hasnt even started his second term and is already after them hard. These stargazers who support ubc are far worse than the ones who dont know anything about the gun control debate. At least the ignorant wont go round spouting nonsense about giving up rights.I bet most of them dont remember the 94 awb.

velojym
January 18, 2013, 01:11 AM
It's also putting your ability to own property (further) in the hands of a bunch of dim-witted bureaucrats, who know or care little or nothing about what they're regulating in the first place.
Not only does it not reduce crime... I'd say it's likely playing at least a small part in increasing crime. Every regulation, tax, or other barrier always drives a market into the hands of evildoers, no matter what's on the table.

Alaska444
January 18, 2013, 01:12 AM
Boy, I'm hesitant to weigh in on an argument that clearly is not going to be won on merits. Seriously, I mean that there's a reason that some discussions are not allowed at the dinner table, because the beliefs that are held are not those that are accessible to reasonable back and forth argument about data.

But, ok, I'll give things a shot: the notion of universal NICS checks is to create friction in the process of procuring firearms in a way where the burden will fall most heavily on those individuals that are intent on procuring firearms for illicit purposes. We can, and should distinguish between mechanisms that specifically address one or a small number of incidents (e..g., Newtown) from those that are meant to address a more general problem. The notion of universal NICS is more the latter than the former.

Granted, if you are a citizen with a spotless record, then some burden will fall on you with a system of universal checks. But, far more than you, the burden of checks will reduce (note, I said reduce, not eliminate) straw purchases, and other means for diverting firearms into the illicit market. If your standard for supporting a particular action, is it is a 100% solution, then I'd be interested in hearing about what birth control methods you use...
With the imperial presidency in full stride with four more years to go that we know of that is, granting any more control over a constitutional right and a natural right is foolishness for those that understand the history of tyranny.

On that basis alone, private sales should remain private. Since background checks have not reduced gun crimes, the argument for universal background checks falls apart. All we can expect is further infringement upon our 2A rights with no societal benefit.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 01:12 AM
Bayesian I'm gonna type real slow . Most of us who are against ubc feel that it wont help stop gun violence but it will lead to registration which will lead to confiscation. Talk about being thick. The left will not be satisfied until they have all the guns. Everyone.... every single one. All of them single shots shotguns and probably pellet guns that over so many fps. This is the truth accept it. Then think about what you are saying. Until then it is pointless to argue about this.
I'm going to type real slow - you're living in a world of fantasy.

That's fine, I like fantasy too, but I can tell the difference when I put the book down.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 01:15 AM
Laws do not prevent crime, they define it....
Incorrect - laws are the standards that when violated allow for society to impose personal sanctions.

Being put in jail for committing a crime prevents you from committing crimes that require you to not be in jail to commit.

sonick808
January 18, 2013, 01:15 AM
bayesian hasn't mentioned a single specific manufacturer, model, powder, bullet, rifle, accessory or ANYTHING that is tied to a gun hobbyist. 150 some posts of pure politics in overt or tacit support of gun control measures. Join date weeks after Sandy Hook. Draw your own conclusions

Dr_B
January 18, 2013, 01:15 AM
I'm shocked at the negative reactions to the OP. Disagree with him/her if you want, but what are there so many posts with a hostile tone? Isn't this THR?

Guess what... I agree with the OP. Background checks through the current system is probably the ONLY thing that makes any sense among all the new gun control efforts. It is the only thing that I see as having any chance of deterring a criminal or mentally ill individual from getting a gun.

Background checks are not a problem. What WOULD be a problem is the government requiring the seller to report that background check to the ATF, or the government lifting identity and firearm data from the background check.

InkEd
January 18, 2013, 01:16 AM
Anyone who believe that a Federal background check will not be used at some point for a nefarious purpose is absolute utter fool! The OP has been living in New Jersey for too long. He's getting a contact high of sheeple syndrome from all the liberals in his state and neighboring New York.

hogshead
January 18, 2013, 01:17 AM
Shai time will tell. Britain ,Austrailia , Canada, Calif ,Ny, Might wanta hold that book a little longer there pard.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 01:17 AM
About as ridiculous as handing them your free speech and religious freedom. That'll be next after you've rolled over and decided to give in a little to make the Libs happy. That's pure lunacy.

People speed, rape, and kill. We have laws against that. They don't work.
Are you SERIOUS?

Laws don't prevent crime (FALSE!), so laws are useless? What type of strange world do you live in where there is no incarceration for repeat offenders, and no dissuasion from the penalty of breaking a law?

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 01:19 AM
Agreed. But to get to the point of realizing that, hogshead, a few others around here may have to take a night class in critical thinking. Or maybe just a crash course in common sense. They stop thinking when they arrive at a desired conclusion, rather than thinking through the logical progression of what they are proposing. The kind of people whose last owrds are often "Hey, dude, watch this...".
Right, because every other western industrialized nation that has the barest gun control laws quickly slides into totalitarian hell.

Oh, hold on a second, that's entirely false. I guess some people around here simply extrapolate whatever imaginary scenario makes them the most excited and assume it's inevitable.

sonick808
January 18, 2013, 01:20 AM
Dr_B

I would agree with you.

IF

We could trust the government to behave with the data. Since they cannot be trusted to do so, I can no longer support the idea. If you can show me a reason to trust the central agencies in charge of this data, that they wouldn't throw in a single line of code, tail a single log file, hell, file a FOIA request, then i'll join in support.

Problem is, it will take over 100 years to absolve the bad behavior regarding data integrity, so I'll never support this in my lifetime.

Again, unless you can show me a reason to trust them ? And the future SCOTUS ?

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 01:20 AM
Anyone who believe that a Federal background check will not be used at some point for a nefarious purpose is absolute utter fool! The OP has been living in New Jersey for too long. He's getting a contact high of sheeple syndrome from all the liberals in his state and neighboring New York.
Right - because if we simply discarded the background check, no criminal would use freely available over the counter firearms for nefarious purposes, because of their internal sense of honor or something.

hogshead
January 18, 2013, 01:22 AM
Lets see. Because of the latest mass shooting we are gonna pass a law that would have had no effect on that shooting. He shot his Mom and stole her guns. The Aurora shooter passed the nics check and bought a gun. So lets just give the antis a freebie that is worthless. If we are that stupid we probably dont deserve guns.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 01:25 AM
Lets see. Because of the latest mass shooting we are gonna pass a law that would have had no effect on that shooting. He shot his Mom and stole her guns. The Aurora shooter passed the nics check and bought a gun. So lets just give the antis a freebie that is worthless. If we are that stupid we probably dont deserve guns.
I wouldn't link IQ to the possession of firearms, at least for your sake Hog.

And the background check applies to more than just semi-automatic center-fire rifles with detachable magazines.

hogshead
January 18, 2013, 01:32 AM
Right, because every other western industrialized nation that has the barest gun control laws quickly slides into totalitarian hell. Name one. I choose to ignore your comment about my iq because I refuse to get in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

hogshead
January 18, 2013, 01:33 AM
Just your run of the mill socialist, atheist, vegetarian gun lover.

Sorry didnt see your sig line. That bout says it all.

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 01:34 AM
Might want to get a grip on the subject being discussed, ShaiVong. The discussion here is about mandatory background checks required for all transfers, not just the current requirement when purchasing from a FFL.

As for incremental gun laws (and every other form of incremental infringement) resulting in totalitarianism, you're on the right track. Take a look at most of the western powers in europe and what they've become. Shadows of themselves and ever increasing burdens on their own citizens. Of course, as a self avowed communist, you'd see nothing wrong with that.

As far as Hogshead living in a fantasy world, you may want to rethink that. Check out for yourself how Britain began its confiscation of guns. First handguns, then repeating rifles and shotguns, then all rifles with the exception of .22, etc. Now they're down to single shot and double barrel shotguns. Aside from collectors who pay exhorbitant amounts of money for "permission" to maintain pieces of historical or some other significance, all else is verbotten.

Thinking Britain may be an anomaly, check out Australia, too. Actually, you may want to look at the entire subject. The results will contradict everything you claim to be true. But that may not matter, since you are approaching it from a view that accepts complete government control and that people have no inherent rights.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 01:35 AM
Right, because every other western industrialized nation that has the barest gun control laws quickly slides into totalitarian hell. Name one. I choose to ignore your comment about my iq because I refuse to get in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
UK, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Italy.

I don't see a hell there - in fact, I see countries that have higher standards of living.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 01:37 AM
Of course, as a self avowed communist, you'd see nothing wrong with that.

You might want to get a grip on the subject being discussed.

barnbwt
January 18, 2013, 01:37 AM
Some people aught not to have access to guns. These people are mentally disturbed, or have a criminal history.


If only they could be sent to a place where they could be removed from the general public. In a place where they would be locked up with dangerous villains like themselves for a predetermined period of time. Unfortunately, as far as I know, such a place does not exist, so we have no choice but to try to limit their access to means of violence in society.

TCB

Alaska444
January 18, 2013, 01:39 AM
I'm shocked at the negative reactions to the OP. Disagree with him/her if you want, but what are there so many posts with a hostile tone? Isn't this THR?

Guess what... I agree with the OP. Background checks through the current system is probably the ONLY thing that makes any sense among all the new gun control efforts. It is the only thing that I see as having any chance of deterring a criminal or mentally ill individual from getting a gun.

Background checks are not a problem. What WOULD be a problem is the government requiring the seller to report that background check to the ATF, or the government lifting identity and firearm data from the background check.
Private sales are the only thing that make a tyrannical government blink before attempting to take all of our freedoms. Being able to keep and bear arms is fundamental to freedom. No, keep it the way it is.

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 01:40 AM
And I see countries that are either completely socialist or on a steady march toward it. Incidentally, countries that had a once burgeoning freedom, albeit differing by national and historic standards than what we here in the states consider our favorite flavor of freedom.

I also see countries, with the exception of Switzerland and Germany, faltering under the weight of their own bloated regimes. Which equates by default to an unworkable and flawed model.

coolluke01
January 18, 2013, 01:43 AM
We all know that criminals don't follow laws. Quit preaching to the choir.

This idea that next stop is the gas chamber is foolishness. I understand that Hitler said a few things that sound like what is said today, but the intent is different. I'm not saying the anti gunners have all our best interest in mind, but they don't want to eradicate all gun owners and force them and their families into camps.

Background checks when done properly can be a good thing. When done wrong they could lead to further regulation and confiscating of guns. All laws are like this. When written properly so as to not infringe on the BOR they are not a problem, but if they have the possibility of right infringement built in then we will have trouble.

I don't think their guns laws are sensible or logical, but the one thing that they get close to right is something we can give them. If done properly. They won't right the bill the way we would, but if we don't write the bill they will.

Background checks are not inherently evil just as guns are not. When used the right way they can be of some help. Even if the help is to make others feel that we are on their side in the effort to limit the number of guns in the wrong peoples hands.

Also, remember that a deterrent is just that a deterrent, not an impassible wall. Laws are only able to limit actions. Mandatory background checks would make a person go out of their way to make a purchase they otherwise would have been able to make easily. Is the number of murders that would be prevented by this reasonable? I doubt it. But it shows good faith and really doesn't hurt us, if done properly.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 01:47 AM
And I see countries that are either completely socialist or on a steady march toward it. Incidentally, countries that had a once burgeoning freedom, albeit differing by national and historic standards than what we here in the states consider our favorite flavor of freedom.

I also see countries, with the exception of Switzerland and Germany, faltering under the weight of their own bloated regimes. Which equates by default to an unworkable and flawed model.
I guess you're probably used to being wrong, so this will come as no surprise.

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_hap_net-lifestyle-happiness-net

hogshead
January 18, 2013, 01:47 AM
This post should be made a sticky and reviewed in 4 years. Let the fox guard the hen house comes to mind.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 01:50 AM
This post should be made a sticky and reviewed in 4 years. Let the fox guard the hen house comes to mind.

Do you care to say anything specific? Or do you want to speak in only scary vagaries?

In 4 years, if things go well, you'll have to show that you're not a felon or have a history of domestic violence in order to get a firearm. If things go really bad, you won't.

coolluke01
January 18, 2013, 01:51 AM
The fox is guarding the hen house. That's the problem with Democracy. The hens should have guns though, so they have a chance to chase off the fox if he looks to do them harm.

Banning AR15 and AK47's is unconstitutional, giving us a system to make sure we are selling guns to the type of person we want to is not. Look at this as a tool for us to check out who people really are before we sell to them.

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 01:51 AM
I thought the penalties for murder and theft were a deterrent, too. But apparently not enough of one to prevent a nutjob from killing almost thrity people, one of them his own mother. So yeah, we need yet another deterrent.

Listen, if I thought there really was a workable way to keep bad people from getting guns or any other sort of weapon to harm others, without infringing on the rights of the other 99.999% of people, I'd be all for it. But the fact remains that anything you try, including current gun laws, do nothing to prevent people from doing stupid and illegal things. So in the process of trying to untie the Gordian Knot, you've done nothing more than place a burden on the law abiding and opened the door for misuse, be it intentional, by oversight, or just plain misunderstanding of the intention of the proposed law.

And yes, the first paragraph was sarcasm.

hogshead
January 18, 2013, 01:55 AM
Cool read the rest of the post and you will see my thoughts on this. Good night God Bless all of you ,yes even you Shai.

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 01:56 AM
Quote:
Look at this as a tool for us to check out who people really are before we sell to them

It already is available to you. Simply do the transfer through a FFL. No more legislation required.

Alaska444
January 18, 2013, 01:56 AM
I wouldn't link IQ to the possession of firearms, at least for your sake Hog.

And the background check applies to more than just semi-automatic center-fire rifles with detachable magazines.
Shaivong,

I know a lot of very intelligently stupid people with massive IQ's. Delusions of big government utopia solutions is perhaps the stupidest idea I have ever encountered.

I never found out what my IQ is, they didn't tell us those things in that day for some reason but my principal told me it was "way up there." So go ahead and lump all those that support gun rights in support of FREEDOM as Neanderthals if you wish, but you just don't get it do you?

Perhaps you should go read some of the documents of our founding fathers and gain an understanding of the RKBA is fundamental to a free society.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 01:56 AM
Cool read the rest of the post and you will see my thoughts on this. Good night God Bless all of you ,yes even you Shai.
And Zeus bless you, hogs.

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 01:57 AM
Quote:
In 4 years, if things go well, you'll have to show that you're not a felon or have a history of domestic violence in order to get a firearm

That is already the case. It's called a Form 4473 and a phone call to the FBI. And if selling to someone else gets you all hot and bothered, see my previous post.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 01:58 AM
I thought the penalties for murder and theft were a deterrent, too. But apparently not enough of one to prevent a nutjob from killing almost thrity people, one of them his own mother. So yeah, we need yet another deterrent.

Listen, if I thought there really was a workable way to keep bad people from getting guns or any other sort of weapon to harm others, without infringing on the rights of the other 99.999% of people, I'd be all for it. But the fact remains that anything you try, including current gun laws, do nothing to prevent people from doing stupid and illegal things. So in the process of trying to untie the Gordian Knot, you've done nothing more than place a burden on the law abiding and opened the door for misuse, be it intentional, by oversight, or just plain misunderstanding of the intention of the proposed law.

And yes, the first paragraph was sarcasm.
The bifurcation fallacy again as well - just because something cannot prevent all crime, does not mean it can't prevent some crime.

I've purchased all of my guns through an FFL, and did a background check. I don't consider that a burden.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 02:00 AM
Shaivong,

I know a lot of very intelligently stupid people with massive IQ's. Delusions of big government utopia solutions is perhaps the stupidest idea I have ever encountered.

I never found out what my IQ is, they didn't tell us those things in that day for some reason but my principal told me it was "way up there." So go ahead and lump all those that support gun rights in support of FREEDOM as Neanderthals if you wish, but you just don't get it do you?

Perhaps you should go read some of the documents of our founding fathers and gain an understanding of the RKBA is fundamental to a free society.
I don't know why you would think I care what your 'principals' opinion is on anything. Should I ask your model girlfriend in Canada?

Also, neanderthals had larger brains than homo sapiens. Just sayin.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 02:01 AM
Quote:
In 4 years, if things go well, you'll have to show that you're not a felon or have a history of domestic violence in order to get a firearm

That is already the case. It's called a Form 4473 and a phone call to the FBI. And if selling to someone else gets you all hot and bothered, see my previous post.
Totally - because all private sales are going to go through FFLs because they can go through FFLs.

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 02:03 AM
I also have purchased several from a FFL. Like you, the few dollars more for the background check is just the cost of doing business. We agree on that. What is being discussed is the regulation and mandatory background check of private sales. Personally, I do feel a reponsibility to ensure that one of my previously owned guns doesn't go directly to a drive by in the hood. So the guns i have sold are either to people I know or I've done the transaction through a FFL. The issue here is making it mandatory for private sales. My personal choice has nothing to do with attempting to regulate the behavior of others.

I think the issue here is you are operating under the assumption that those who would be prevented from owning or posessing a firearm would go to a FFL and be denied because the proposed law would state all transfers must go through a FFL. We go back again to the simple fact that those who would be prohibited will simply continue to do as they are doing now.

Solo
January 18, 2013, 02:08 AM
Size isn't everything.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 02:12 AM
I also have purchased several from a FFL. Like you, the few dollars more for the background check is just the cost of doing business. We agree on that. What is being discussed is the regulation and mandatory background check of private sales. Personally, I do feel a reponsibility to ensure that one of my previously owned guns doesn't go directly to a drive by in the hood. So the guns i have sold are either to people I know or I've done the transaction through a FFL. The issue here is making it mandatory for private sales. My personal choice has nothing to do with attempting to regulate the behavior of others.

I think the issue here is you are operating under the assumption that those who would be prevented from owning or posessing a firearm would go to a FFL and be denied because the proposed law would state all transfers must go through a FFL. We go back again to the simple fact that those who would be prohibited will simply continue to do as they are doing now.
Since criminals have to steal guns from non-criminals, or they have to buy them through personal sales (safest transaction), narrowing the pipeline from legal to illegal guns is desirable.

People don't get into crime because they're flush with cash and they don't know what to do with their excess.

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 02:17 AM
Quote:
Since criminals have to steal guns from non-criminals, or they have to buy them through personal sales (safest transaction), narrowing the pipeline from legal to illegal guns is desirable.

Here lies the crux of the matter. Please define the way in which a legal gun becomes an illegal gun.

gearhead
January 18, 2013, 02:18 AM
The whole slippery slope is based on the anti-gunners using the law-abiding nature of the legal gun owner against us. Prior to 1968 there were no prohibited people or FFLs and y'know, it really wasn't a problem. Then we had some evil people perpetrate some high-profile crimes. From memory I don't think any of them had prior felonies but that didn't matter because we "had to do something" and the law-abiding gun owner thinks, "Well of course I want to prevent criminals from simply walking into a hardware store and walking out with a gun!"

But of course that wasn't foolproof enough for the anti-gun lobby. "The dealer has no good way of knowing if someone is a felon! We need to have a central government clearinghouse where we can determine if a person is prohibited!" The law-abiding gun owners agreed, because after all no one wants criminals to have access to guns. But that wasn't enough either so for years the anti-gun lobby has been screaming about the so-called "gun show loophole". With 45 years of conditioning it seems to make perfect sense to many law-abiding gun owners. After all, it HAS to help... Right?

What's next, when criminals still get their hands on guns illegally? Because after all, the anti-gun groups are never satisfied with the status quo. We all agree that this won't prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns so will the next "common sense" regulation be registration? Fingerprinting all gun owners? What would prevent a government from making anyone who is listed as a "subversive" from being added to the government's prohibited list? ShaiVong, if J. Edgar Hoover had that much power in the 1950s you would have eventually made the FBI's list of prohibited people simply because of your political beliefs. They're already talking about merging the "No Fly List" and the database of prohibited persons, have any of you ever had to prove to TSA that you weren't the person with a similar name who is on DHS's list of Bad Guys? It's almost a given that the rule allowing a transfer to proceed if a NICS delay isn't resolved within three days. Our government doesn't seem to see the problem with making an innocent person prove his or her innocence.

Bottom line is that while the intentions are good the outcome doesn't justify the loss of liberty associated with it.

Alaska444
January 18, 2013, 02:19 AM
Right, because crypto-fascists are all for free speech, unless they disagree with it.
Shai,

I could care less about your views, your insults will be what makes your rampage on THR a short course.

If you had any understanding of what it means to love freedom, you wouldn't mistake people like me who do have a love of true freedom and where it is derived. In any case, keep it up, you are going, going, soon to be gone.

Mojo-jo-jo
January 18, 2013, 02:20 AM
There is no way to make this even somewhat enforceable without gun registration. Even then, criminals would not comply. Registration is a non-starter for me, as well as most law-abiding gun owners.

Do you really think that criminals will get background checks for "black market" sales of stolen and otherwise illicit guns? The only group that would have to jump through these hoops is law-abiding gun owners making legal transfers. Criminals would just ignore this law, as they do every other.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 02:22 AM
Quote:
Since criminals have to steal guns from non-criminals, or they have to buy them through personal sales (safest transaction), narrowing the pipeline from legal to illegal guns is desirable.

Here lies the crux of the matter. Please define the way in which a legal gun becomes an illegal gun.
When it comes into the possession of somebody who is legally barred for possessing it.

ShaiVong
January 18, 2013, 02:24 AM
There is no way to make this even somewhat enforceable without gun registration. Even then, criminals would not comply. Registration is a non-starter for me, as well as most law-abiding gun owners.

Do you really think that criminals will get background checks for "black market" sales of stolen and otherwise illicit guns? The only group that would have to jump through these hoops is law-abiding gun owners making legal transfers. Criminals would just ignore this law, as they do every other.

Criminals deal with the laws, just the same as anyone else. Right now they don't have to - because they can effortlessly bypass it.

You're assuming guns will always be available (and affordable) outside the law. This does not have to be the case.

I've made the argument before in this thread in regards to NFA firearms. They're had to get, and they're seldom used in crimes. I'd like to do everything I can to make guns hard to get for felons. If the best argument you can muster is 'I have to jump through hoops', then I'm unimpressed.

tarosean
January 18, 2013, 02:27 AM
welll I would rather give on that then the AR or Mag cap. I dont like it, but realistically I think they will give the dems something.

Alaska444
January 18, 2013, 02:29 AM
Criminals deal with the laws, just the same as anyone else. Right now they don't have to - because they can effortlessly bypass it.
.
Are you for real? Criminals could care less how many gun laws this socialist government wishes to impose, they act outside of the law already. The more gun control, the safer their "job" is as a criminal. Not sure why you can't put together the data on gun bans in D.C., Chicago etc and increased risk of violent crime.

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 02:37 AM
When someone who is inelligible for posession takes posession, a crime has been committed, regardless of any further requirements. So what is the point of making another law that will be broken in the process of breaking current law?

While i can agree that making guns hard for felons to get would be great, the reality is that the only way to do that would require the complete abolishment of guns from our society. Guns enter the black market primarily through theft. Adding another law that will be broken in addition to the ones already being broken accomplishes nothing of substance. It serves only to give ground to the extremists on the other side.

As I've said before, if there were a workable solution, I'd be all ears. But it remains that due to the nature of illicit trade in any item, restriction serves no purpose. As a crude example, drugs are illegal, yet they are bought and sold daily in every city and most small towns in our country. The fact that there are laws against it serve no purpose but to establish penalties for lawbreakers. Those penalties already exist for felons posessing guns, so there is no need for further legislation.

Alaska444
January 18, 2013, 02:41 AM
When someone who is inelligible for posession takes posession, a crime has been committed, regardless of any further requirements. So what is the point of making another law that will be broken in the process of breaking current law?

While i can agree that making guns hard for felons to get would be great, the reality is that the only way to do that would require the complete abolishment of guns from our society. Guns enter the black market primarily through theft. Adding another law that will be broken in addition to the ones already being broken accomplishes nothing of substance. It serves only to give ground to the extremists on the other side.

As I've said before, if there were a workable solution, I'd be all ears. But it remains that due to the nature of illicit trade in any item, restriction serves no purpose. As a crude example, drugs are illegal, yet they are bought and sold daily in every city and most small towns in our country. The fact that there are laws against it serve no purpose but to establish penalties for lawbreakers. Those penalties already exist for felons posessing guns, so there is no need for further legislation.
+1, there is not only no need, they already violate the law when not eligible for possession, but the risk of transforming the NICS system into a default registration system is desirable to those that are pushing for confiscation.

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 02:52 AM
Bayesian, calling the people here thick isn't going to win your argument or make friends.

You said: Why not repeal all gun laws?

There is a very good argument for doing just that, after all we have many laws against murder and assault and they would do just fine for prosecuting any gun offense.

There are something like 25,000 gun laws on the books, and they have not been effective. Just one more law is going to solve the problem?

I would guess you are too young to remember the situation prior to 1968, where anyone could order a gun through the mail and have it delivered by the post office.

The problem you are having is that you are working under the illusion that gunlaws equate to safety, and they clearly do not. Just as drug laws have not stopped the drug trade.

Swift and certain prosecution helps, but we already have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

This post illustrates the frustration people feel when dealing with the gun lobby. This is precisely the reason we ended up with an assault weapons ban 20 years ago. An absolute refusal to compromise on a number of issues led to an unfriendly legislature ramming what it wanted down the throats of half the country. We had a similar situation during the brief democrat super majority just a few years ago. The situation of gun owners in this nation is precarious and this constant repeat of the same logically flawed argument is going to spell the death of firearms ownership as we know it in this country.

To point the finger at gun laws and say "well they don't help so repeal them" is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Everybody knows that more gun laws aren't really the problem. The Sandy Hook shooter wasn't going to be stopped by the gun laws or the laws against theft or murder as he had no issue killing his own mother and stealing her guns.

This is the type of result you get when you combine the paranoia so readily bred by nutjobs like Adam Lanza's mother.
Of course gun laws do not help when you allow lunatics like Adam Lanza and his mom to collect guns. This is the type of person that doesn't need yet another gun, they need counseling.

but of course, paying for someone elses medical needs is the evil socialism.
This is where hard line gun owning conservatives will lose it for the rest of us. The absolute refusal to compromise means that you separate yourselves from the majority of gun owners in this country who don't care about an extra background check here or there. The conservative refusal to even consider improvements in social services or the relaxation of drug laws and introduction of taxpayer funded treatment means there will be no improvement until the politicians simply figure out a way to maneuver around conservative obstructionism. When that happens, the politicians will know they can do whatever they want because the radical right will have painted itself into a corner and hurled their only bargaining chips in a fit of righteous rage at those who originally wished to compromise.

Cliffs: Stop being pig headed dumbasses before you mess it up for all of us.

Evergreen
January 18, 2013, 02:56 AM
I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but this same guy on another thread also seem to support banning online ammo sales because it would help felons from getting ammo. I think I know where this guy is going with these issues.

Alaska444
January 18, 2013, 03:00 AM
This post illustrates the frustration people feel when dealing with the gun lobby. This is precisely the reason we ended up with an assault weapons ban 20 years ago. An absolute refusal to compromise on a number of issues led to an unfriendly legislature ramming what it wanted down the throats of half the country. We had a similar situation during the brief democrat super majority just a few years ago. The situation of gun owners in this nation is precarious and this constant repeat of the same logically flawed argument is going to spell the death of firearms ownership as we know it in this country.

To point the finger at gun laws and say "well they don't help so repeal them" is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. Everybody knows that more gun laws aren't really the problem. The Sandy Hook shooter wasn't going to be stopped by the gun laws or the laws against theft or murder as he had no issue killing his own mother and stealing her guns.

This is the type of result you get when you combine the paranoia so readily bred by nutjobs like Adam Lanza's mother.
Of course gun laws do not help when you allow lunatics like Adam Lanza and his mom to collect guns. This is the type of person that doesn't need yet another gun, they need counseling.

but of course, paying for someone elses medical needs is the evil socialism.
This is where hard line gun owning conservatives will lose it for the rest of us. The absolute refusal to compromise means that you separate yourselves from the majority of gun owners in this country who don't care about an extra background check here or there. The conservative refusal to even consider improvements in social services or the relaxation of drug laws and introduction of taxpayer funded treatment means there will be no improvement until the politicians simply figure out a way to maneuver around conservative obstructionism. When that happens, the politicians will know they can do whatever they want because the radical right will have painted itself into a corner and hurled their only bargaining chips in a fit of righteous rage at those who originally wished to compromise.

Cliffs: Stop being pig headed dumbasses before you mess it up for all of us.
Sorry, but this pig headed dumb ass as you wish to call me understands more than the art of your so called compromise leads down an eventual path of complete confiscation. What is there to compromise about?

Do background checks objectively prevent firearm violence?

Would a universal background check offer the anti's an opportunity to set up registration?

Will universal background checks prevent another Columbine or Sandy Hook?

Since when do the "majority of gun owners" want universal background checks? Source please?

In any case, the march to universal socialism is in high gear. Personally, I would rather go down fighting against this than to accept a slow grind to the death of this nation. There is a reason why they had to wait until almost all of the WWII vets died or are growing infirm, they never would have tolerated these unconstitutional power grabs.

Should they take our guns, so be it, but I will not hand it over to them with my tail tucked between my legs.

DammitBoy
January 18, 2013, 03:02 AM
Criminals deal with the laws, just the same as anyone else. Right now they don't have to - because they can effortlessly bypass it.

You're assuming guns will always be available (and affordable) outside the law.

You mean like how pot is illegal but I can walk out onto the street in any city in the U.S. and buy pot in about a half hour?

The way that prohibition works? Or the way the prohibition on alcohol worked so well, that kinda "outside the law"?

wacki
January 18, 2013, 03:04 AM
You and the Brady Campaign makes three.

Cute...

Alaska444
January 18, 2013, 03:10 AM
You mean like how pot is illegal but I can walk out onto the street in any city in the U.S. and buy pot in about a half hour?

The way that prohibition works? Or the way the prohibition on alcohol worked so well, that kinda "outside the law"?
Shai's ivory tower of improbable events is destined to collapse upon it's own weight but it cannot be propped up by his utopian philosophies.

He speaks between the lines that he is in support of confiscation speaking of the day when there are no weapons available for criminals to steal or buy on the black market. I guess he hasn't heard of the robust illegal gun market here in the US, especially in cities like LA with stringent gun laws.

Funny, ALL firearm sales in CA MUST go through an FFL already with 100% NICS requirement. Looks like that is keeping the criminals from possessing any firearms isn't it.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR512.html

Evergreen
January 18, 2013, 03:16 AM
I saw poor villagers in Africa who had access to AK-47s and these people lived in mud huts without electricity. Are you telling me that criminals in this country, with all their technology, money and with the large amount of well organized criminal operations in this country that it will be hard for a person to obtain a gun?

Not likely! In India, as we speak, there is a large market for illegally made guns, many that are well-made replicas of existing types of semi auto pistols and rifles. Not to mention large amounts of smuggled weapons. Indian people have a lot less money than Americans and they say many Indian gun owners, own illegal guns, because of how hard it is to obtain a gun legally in the country.

I have an article about it which I will post here if I can find it again.

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 03:16 AM
Sorry, but this pig headed dumb ass as you wish to call me understands more than the art of your so called compromise leads down an eventual path of complete confiscation. What is there to compromise about?

Do background checks objectively prevent firearm violence?

Would a universal background check offer the anti's an opportunity to set up registration?

Will universal background checks prevent another Columbine or Sandy Hook?

Since when do the "majority of gun owners" want universal background checks? Source please?

In any case, the march to universal socialism is in high gear. Personally, I would rather go down fighting against this than to accept a slow grind to the death of this nation. There is a reason why they had to wait until almost all of the WWII vets died or are growing infirm, they never would have tolerated these unconstitutional power grabs.

Should they take our guns, so be it, but I will not hand it over to them with my tale tucked between my legs.

1. You assume that a background check leads to widespread confiscation. How did you come by this knowledge? Why have background checks in operation for more than 20 years not lead to confiscation? Explain your logic.

2. No, background checks do not objectively prevent gun violence. They do assist in the enforcement of constitutionally sound law. Specifically the laws that disqualify certain people from owning firearms. Simple math tells us that further scrutiny of these transactions will stop more disqualified people from buying guns. This reduces (not eliminates) the number of guns held by disqualified people.

3. Can't be answered with the present data set however, in the past ten years, NICS checks have resulted in 700k denials for firearm purchases. People who should not be able to purchase a gun from an FFL were prevented from doing so.

4. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/
This essentially says that 92% of Americans support background checks for firearm purchases. Given the number of gun owners and number of guns in our nations, it is a safe assumption that most gun owners favor the idea of background checks. Of course a perfect correlation is impossible but this type of polling is never perfect.

If WWII vets were so concerned with unconstitutional power grabs, why did they allow gun legislation in 1968 and again in 1986 and again in 1994. What about the PATRIOT ACT? What about segregation and opposition to civil rights legislation in the 1960s?

Again you assume the goal is to take your guns from you. You are writing a self fulfilling prophecy should you absolutely refuse to give a little. If an extra background check is so ineffective and does nothing, where does your concern come from? You already must submit to a background check when buying from an FFL. Can you even supply a legal justification for your position?

X-JaVeN-X
January 18, 2013, 03:18 AM
If the supply of guns starts to dry up because nics checks stifle the supply, then criminals will meet that demand by stealing more guns or by any other means they can manage. Where there is a demand, someone is going to meet it. Drugs are a great example of this...they can't be obtained legally, so a criminal meets the supply by other means breaking countless laws and committing countless crimes in the process. Trying to dry up the supply of guns to criminals is just going to create a greater demand and GIVE an incentive for more crime to meet that demand. The supply of illegal weapons will go up as the supply of legally obtained firearms goes down.

Alaska444
January 18, 2013, 03:27 AM
1. You assume that a background check leads to widespread confiscation. How did you come by this knowledge? Why have background checks in operation for more than 20 years not lead to confiscation? Explain your logic.

2. No, background checks do not objectively prevent gun violence. They do assist in the enforcement of constitutionally sound law. Specifically the laws that disqualify certain people from owning firearms. Simple math tells us that further scrutiny of these transactions will stop more disqualified people from buying guns. This reduces (not eliminates) the number of guns held by disqualified people.

3. Can't be answered with the present data set however, in the past ten years, NICS checks have resulted in 700k denials for firearm purchases. People who should not be able to purchase a gun from an FFL were prevented from doing so.

4. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/
This essentially says that 92% of Americans support background checks for firearm purchases. Given the number of gun owners and number of guns in our nations, it is a safe assumption that most gun owners favor the idea of background checks. Of course a perfect correlation is impossible but this type of polling is never perfect.

If WWII vets were so concerned with unconstitutional power grabs, why did they allow gun legislation in 1968 and again in 1986 and again in 1994. What about the PATRIOT ACT? What about segregation and opposition to civil rights legislation in the 1960s?

Again you assume the goal is to take your guns from you. You are writing a self fulfilling prophecy should you absolutely refuse to give a little. If an extra background check is so ineffective and does nothing, where does your concern come from? You already must submit to a background check when buying from an FFL. Can you even supply a legal justification for your position?
Let me see the universal background proposals in their legal language.

I won't wait for your apology for calling me a dumb ass.

Having 100% NICS as others have pointed out would require registration of all firearms, otherwise it is an unworkable system. Here is an excellent review looking at legal application of such a system.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/universal-background-checks-likely-unenforceable/

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 03:28 AM
Registration leads to confiscation. The question is merely how long it takes. Rather than grilling Alaska444 about it, go no further than THR to find the history of gun registration and confiscation that has occurred in Breat Britain, Australia, etc. Or go wider on the internet or local library and find that every two-bit regime that has a fear of being overthrown has required registration and then proceeded on to confiscation.

How exactly do background checks assist in enforecement of existing law? They merely add to existing law, not assist in its prosecution or enforcement.

Were the people denied on NICS checks prosecuted for attempting to illegally obtain a firearm? If not, who then is the law aimed at policing?

Citing 92% of the American people doesn't excite me. Most people assume the AWB was about machine guns. And we're going to let the most ignorant among us about a particular topic dictate policy on that topic? That's akin to letting me make decisions about NASA. I may have an opinion, but at least I recognize that my opinion is half-assed and will defer to others more educated in physics and astromony than I.

I just happened to notice that two of the more outspoken in favor of further restriction identify themselves in signature lines as communist and socialist. Coincidence?

Finally, I will not presume to speak for the veterans of WWII.

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 03:29 AM
ah yes, lets look at Los Angeles and point to how gun laws don't work.

then lets look at Houston with its Texas gun laws and higher rates of rape, assault and murder.

source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011


can we please stop with the disingenuous arguments already?

Fanfare Ends
January 18, 2013, 03:41 AM
" except that we can't pump our own gas to protect the jobs of the gas station attendants."

Excuse me, the reason you can't pump your own gas in NJ is from the NEWARK RIOTS when people were making molotov cocktails.

I know, because a relative was in the NJ Guard and was being shot at and ducking the firebombs.

WADR, the rest of your proposal is also hogwash.

There is NOTHING in a universal nics check law that will stop ANY CRIMINAL OR PSYCHO.

And since you refuse to consider the nibble / boiling frogs effect of this incremental incursion on our Consstitutional Rights, we have to conclude you are either woefully ignorant of what "they" have planned, or you agree with them.

"Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." ACLU policy statement #47 (1986)

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." Senator Dianne Feinstein on CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

"The Brady Bill's only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, April 5, 1996

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 03:45 AM
Registration leads to confiscation. The question is merely how long it takes. Rather than grilling Alaska444 about it, go no further than THR to find the history of gun registration and confiscation that has occurred in Breat Britain, Australia, etc. Or go wider on the internet or local library and find that every two-bit regime that has a fear of being overthrown has required registration and then proceeded on to confiscation.

How exactly do background checks assist in enforecement of existing law? They merely add to existing law, not assist in its prosecution or enforcement.

Were the people denied on NICS checks prosecuted for attempting to illegally obtain a firearm? If not, who then is the law aimed at policing?

Citing 92% of the American people doesn't excite me. Most people assume the AWB was about machine guns. And we're going to let the most ignorant among us about a particular topic dictate policy on that topic? That's akin to letting me make decisions about NASA. I may have an opinion, but at least I recognize that my opinion is half-assed and will defer to others more educated in physics and astromony than I.

I just happened to notice that two of the more outspoken in favor of further restriction identify themselves in signature lines as communist and socialist. Coincidence?

Finally, I will not presume to speak for the veterans of WWII.


If registration leads to confiscation, why hasn't Clark County in Nevada begun going door to door looking for guns? Registration requirements here date back well before the last assault weapons ban?
What about other areas with registration requirements? Why haven't the trucks begun picking up the guns yet? Finland has registration requirements that would make most pro-gun types in the USA cringe. Why haven't they been scooped up yet?

background check turns up a DQing event in someone's past. The store refuses to sell the gun to this person. Crime of felony possession has been prevented. It isn't rocket science.
Why would you prosecute a disqualified person who didn't actually buy a gun?

Coincidence? I don't know who has advocated further restrictions. Kind of hard to comment. If you are referring to my signature line, I'd suggest reading the essays contained in Chomsky on Anarchism for a real primer on libertarianism. A quick perusal of torrent sites will turn up an electronic copy but of course you should pay for the actual paper or Kindle/Nook copy.
The knowledge of how the principles of classical liberalism have been perverted in the USA by the likes of the Tea Party and Libertarian Party will disgust you.
but that is another matter entirely. One of my pet peeves is being associated with the likes of the Libertarian party anytime I speak on the subject of libertarian socialism.

Alaska444
January 18, 2013, 03:46 AM
ah yes, lets look at Los Angeles and point to how gun laws don't work.

then lets look at Houston with its Texas gun laws and higher rates of rape, assault and murder.

source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011


can we please stop with the disingenuous arguments already?
Please do.

Fanfare Ends
January 18, 2013, 03:48 AM
"Last I checked DoJ statistics, almost half of Federal felons convicted of gun-related crimes obtained their gun legally. In other words, they passed (or would have passed) a NICS check without issue, and yet they would go on to be Convicted Bad People."

WADR, I find that very hard to believe without a source / link. The antis would be throwing that out EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY, and they aren't so I think you may have misread something.

tarosean
January 18, 2013, 03:51 AM
ah yes, lets look at Los Angeles and point to how gun laws don't work.

then lets look at Houston with its Texas gun laws and higher rates of rape, assault and murder.


What stats are you looking at Clean???
2011 from your link - FYI table 8
I took the stats from the top 5 largest cities in the US..

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 03:55 AM
Please do.

Go on and regale us with more tales of confiscations that never occur and bans that fail to materialize while being slapped in the face with statistics that would seem to counter your arguments.

You tell us registration leads to confiscation.
I point out from my own home that this isn't the case.


You tell me tight gun laws make things worse.
I use actual data to prove the opposite would appear to be true.


Or we can acknowledge that there is probably another set of causes that need to be addressed as a society. You will get a lot further by accepting something like universal background checks (which you consider ineffective and pointless) and in return you get to push for something much better like the reduction and removal of harmful drug laws and mandatory minimums that will actually benefit our nation.

or I can continue to destroy petty circular arguments.

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 03:55 AM
No, a crime has not proveably been prevented, but one has been committed. It is yet another felony for a prohibited person to attempt to take posession of a firearm. So the question remains, why is there no means of prosecution for prohibited peope breaking the law by attempting to take posession?

Pointing to cases that are exceptions (for now) to a well established rule does not make for a strong argument. Since the invention of gunpowder, gun control was a means to repress people. Before that it was restrictions of edged weapons.

I've said before and I'll say again: If there was a way to really make an impact on reducing crime against innocent people or even to make the firearm no longer the weapon of choice for these whack-jobs, I'd be more than willing to entertain the idea. But everything proposed so far ignores the reality that barring the complete and total removal of guns from America, there will be no way to do it. Just like making drugs illegal didn't work. All laws do is provide penalty for wrong doing. They prevent nothing. Those inclined to break the law will do so regardless of what law is made.

Clean97GTI
January 18, 2013, 03:56 AM
What stats are you looking at Clean???
2011 from your link - FYI table 8
I took the stats from the top 5 largest cities in the US..

You left out the populations of those cities. The rates of crime are higher in Houston. ;)

mljdeckard
January 18, 2013, 03:57 AM
Is this enough yet, for Browning's sake?

Fanfare Ends
January 18, 2013, 04:00 AM
"The bifurcation fallacy again as well - just because something cannot prevent all crime, does not mean it can't prevent some crime. "

Bifurcate this:

Just because an un-vetted, admitted admirer of marxism and islam puts forward an anti-constitutional "executive action" putatively designed to "stop some crime" does not mean it won't be really used to disarm God-Fearing, Law-Abiding, Meat-Eating, Commie & Jihadi-killing, Capitalism & Freedom-Loving Americans.

Especially since thats what "he" and his cohorts have been pushing FOR YEARS.

1911 guy
January 18, 2013, 04:02 AM
It is for me. I'm going to bed. I'll let the others conspire to piss away our gun rights one background check at a time amongst themselves.

If limiting access by felons were the goal and we could be assured of that, I'd be all in. But we know from their own mouths that the end goal is confiscation by way of registration. I see no reason to aid them in their crusade. And it's just plain unworkable. There's no reason to give an inch when you know ahead of time you'll get nothing in return.

Alaska444
January 18, 2013, 04:07 AM
Go on and regale us with more tales of confiscations that never occur and bans that fail to materialize while being slapped in the face with statistics that would seem to counter your arguments.

You tell us registration leads to confiscation.
I point out from my own home that this isn't the case.


You tell me tight gun laws make things worse.
I use actual data to prove the opposite would appear to be true.


Or we can acknowledge that there is probably another set of causes that need to be addressed as a society. You will get a lot further by accepting something like universal background checks (which you consider ineffective and pointless) and in return you get to push for something much better like the reduction and removal of harmful drug laws and mandatory minimums that will actually benefit our nation.

or I can continue to destroy petty circular arguments.
Let me see, socialists have insulted me, insulted my mother, called me a pig headed dumb ass, state I am filled with circular reasoning and YOU ask me to back up my comments with facts and evidence?

However, the facts are that the number of guns owned in a nation are not correlated to firearm crimes. Why not just ban all firearms to reduce suicide and homicide? Well, that does not correlate to violence in a given country, other factors prevail:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

How well did the gun bans in D.C. and Chicago work?

Requiring nearly 100% FFL for all gun sales/transfers in California has NOT accomplished any diminishing crime statistics within state boundaries. If you are looking at interventions, one accepted scientific method is before and after data. Comparing LA to Houston is simply apples and oranges since there are many confounding factors making the data not comparable directly. The data in LA is not good my friend. The intervention of background checks through an FFL for ALL gun purchases is ignored and bypassed by the criminals. CA is one of seven states that requires back ground checks for all private sales at gun shows. It is an all encompassing system. The only transfers that don't have to go through NICS are transfers as gifts between father, grandfather and son for instance. Only direct transfers between a direct intergenerational lineage in a family.

The entire premise of gun control fails because it is not access to firearms that determines crime rates in a given nation. You twist in the wind thinking it is the gun that is the problem when in fact it is not the root cause of the violence in our nation or any nation.

So who my friend has the circular and petty arguments?

Any compromise will only bring us one step closer to their stated goals of gun confiscation. Not understanding this simple fact in many ways is a result of the brainwashing of our public school kids in Marxism. My son went to UCLA for business school. I warned him at the start of his school year that UCLA was a Marxist institution. He rolled his eyes as if I was just an old fogey who didn't know anything.

At the end of his Freshman year, he asked me to review a term paper. In his very FIRST paragraph, he quoted Marx. I confronted him on this and he denied the leftist bias of his education.

Fanfare Ends
January 18, 2013, 04:08 AM
"Go on and regale us with more tales of confiscations that never occur"

Turkey and the Armenians.
Germany and the Jews (and the Christians, & gays, and the socialists and the retarded..).
Stalin and Russia, and 130 million more disarmed in Eastern Europe.
Mao and China.
Castro & Cuba.
Pol Pot and Cambodia.
Kim Jung Il & North Korea...
http://i.imgur.com/j332N.jpg

Bovice
January 18, 2013, 04:11 AM
I don't like giving in any more to gun laws. They're bad enough as they were. Now we have Biden talking about "you don't need a 12 round magazine to hunt a deer, if you do then you missed the deer 11 more times and shouldn't have a gun."

Maybe Joe was born with a natural shooting ability. I'm betting not. 12 rounds is a common sized pistol magazine capacity. What that has to do with deer, I have no idea.

It irritates me to no end that the typical media-fed liberal with an affinity for marijuana and off-color statements champion their first amendment right and fight for the right to toke up, and argue that we know nothing about it. Conversely, those little trolls don't know a thing about guns or the constitution for that matter.

Anybody hear about background checks in NY for ammo? I'm guessing the legislators up there don't know about reloading. Close the "loophole", open another that's more easily exploited. Genius.

dirtengineer
January 18, 2013, 05:21 AM
NICS should be available to mere mortals like us.

However it should not be required.
I agree with this.

M-Cameron
January 18, 2013, 06:33 AM
Laws don't prevent crime (FALSE!), so laws are useless? What type of strange world do you live in where there is no incarceration for repeat offenders, and no dissuasion from the penalty of breaking a law?

Laws do not PREVENT crime......if that were true, then why are our prisons so full?

i challenge you to name me one law that PREVENTS me from doing anything.

all the laws do is allow the prosecution AFTER the law has been broken.

now are laws useless?....it depends on what you are expecting, if you are thinking that if you pass enough laws people will stop breaking them, then yes, laws are useless in that regard......if you pass laws with the intent of being able to prosecute the offender, then no, the laws is acting exactly as it was designed.

Evergreen
January 18, 2013, 06:45 AM
I bet bringing back the firing squad and hard work labor camps/chain gangs to punish criminals might be a more effective crime reducer than Universal NICS checks. I know this may sound unethical to some, but I was just trying to proving a point about what could effectively reduce crime.

meanmrmustard
January 18, 2013, 07:31 AM
Are you SERIOUS?

Laws don't prevent crime (FALSE!), so laws are useless? What type of strange world do you live in where there is no incarceration for repeat offenders, and no dissuasion from the penalty of breaking a law?
You're talking about punishment again, not prevention.

meanmrmustard
January 18, 2013, 07:39 AM
The fox is guarding the hen house. That's the problem with Democracy. The hens should have guns though, so they have a chance to chase off the fox if he looks to do them harm.

Banning AR15 and AK47's is unconstitutional, giving us a system to make sure we are selling guns to the type of person we want to is not. Look at this as a tool for us to check out who people really are before we sell to them.
You can already do this by choosing to go to an FFL for transfer. What's better is that you CHOSE to do it that way, weren't told you have to by the FED.

meanmrmustard
January 18, 2013, 07:44 AM
Right, because crypto-fascists are all for free speech, unless they disagree with it.
Wow. We were having a heated, but adult discussion up until now.

Your 1st amendment rights are not protected on THR, and if you read clearly the rules and regs section, attacking the arguer is a no-no.

Consider yourself from hence ignored, sir, for being shameful and petty.

meanmrmustard
January 18, 2013, 07:55 AM
I agree with this.
Just as well, as this is how the system already is. Why change it?

Robert
January 18, 2013, 08:34 AM
I do not get paid enough to babysit, we are done here.

If you enjoyed reading about "I am going to say it - I like the idea of universal NICS checks" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!