Background checks? Yes; Registration? No.


PDA






revolversrbetter
February 8, 2013, 12:11 PM
Watch Larry King interview Mark David Chapman about the night he shot John Lennon.

I don't understand why we would not want people like this having to go through a background check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaUe5rCO6xU

If you enjoyed reading about "Background checks? Yes; Registration? No." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
akv3g4n
February 8, 2013, 12:33 PM
The issue is that without registration, universal background checks are unenforceable. If you don't know who owns what firearms, how can you determine if an illegal transfer took place.

I think everyone would agree that we would love to keep guns out of the hands of people like him. The issue lies in finding a realistic way to do it.

firesky101
February 8, 2013, 12:53 PM
was he even a prohibited person? This man attempted suicide at one point, sure looks like another failure of our mental health in this country.

Solo
February 8, 2013, 12:56 PM
I think everyone would agree that we would love to keep guns out of the hands of people like him. The issue lies in finding a realistic way to do it.
I'd suggest better mental health care, but from what I have read on this forum:
1) It allows doctors to declare people mentally ill for having guns
2) Medication causes shooting sprees
3) It is socialism.

:rolleyes:

NHCraigT
February 8, 2013, 01:07 PM
The problem with UNIVERSAL Background checks is that IT can be used to create a NATIONAL database of gun owners.

It can be a backdoor method of tracking who is buying what, and creates a "record" and "file" of gun owners =

= Alternative method to registration.

texasgun
February 8, 2013, 01:25 PM
I do not get the beef with background checks here. Whenever I buy a gun at a dealer - there is a background check but NO registration. yes... the yellow forms are being kept on file for a few years but they are not being handed to the Feds and the Feds are not allowed to create their gun owner database.

So why not just check the buyer at a dealer before transferring a gun?
Like... ok person X is eligible to buy the gun, you can proceed. With a robust NCIS system this shouldn't take more than a few minutes.

Yes ... it would be hard to show if you didn't do the background check without registration... but who cares.... they can set up a few sting operations to catch people who still sell "no questions" asked and that would serve as a deterrent.

a dad giving a gun to his son or me selling a gun to my cousin is one thing.... a "private seller" at a gun show selling 20 x ARs to whoever walks in and hands him cash is not exactly a private party sale and a bit scary.
a felon fresh out of jail can either buy a stolen gun on the black market or go the easy route and get a gun from a private party seller at a gun show or from the classifieds list.... do we really need to make it THAT easy for them?

Vern Humphrey
February 8, 2013, 01:30 PM
Background checks? Yes; Registration? No.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Watch Larry King interview Mark David Chapman about the night he shot John Lennon.

I don't understand why we would not want people like this having to go through a background check.
Could it be that we don't know who the "people like this" are and would not be caugyht by the background check?

Once the Brady Law passed, ATF was trumpeting the number of people "caught" in back ground checks -- until people noted that less than one percent of those "dangerous" people were ever charged. When challenged to explain why, ATF cited the case of a Black man who had been caught with a deck of cards with pictures of naked white women and sentenced to prison. When he tried to buy a shotgun, he was denied.

So we have Federal law that reinforces state Jim Crow laws.

Sam1911
February 8, 2013, 01:48 PM
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people, who have undergone background checks, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yup, turns out it IS in there after all! ;)

JayBird
February 8, 2013, 02:01 PM
Just look to California if you think 'mandatory background checks for all' are a good thing.

They have people getting letters from the STATE reminding them that they know they just bought a gun, and what the laws are.

They can't even sell a 50 year old single shot shotgun between friends.

You want to give your grandson a gun? Better run a background check.

It's ludacrous and does not solve any of the problems we face. It only places an undue burden on law abiding citizens AND leads to registration.

Skribs
February 8, 2013, 02:05 PM
Holy schneikies Sam, where did you find that?

My position on background checks is thus: we trust these supposedly dangerous people around children and the elderly. We let them date and marry submissive women who would rather use a frying pan to beat the cops who show up to protect her than let them haul her abuser off to jail. We let them buy motor vehicles, power tools, kitchen knives, and sports equipment without background checks. Yet we want to stop them from buying a gun, because then they can do no harm? No! If you think they are too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to have free reign in our society. If we improve our prison systems, we can do away with background checks completely.

I'm all for a voluntary background check system for those that want to cover themselves before a private sale, but a mandatory system can only lead to trouble as far as I'm concerned.

Sam1911
February 8, 2013, 02:10 PM
You have to read REALLY deeply between the lines. It's in there...just keep squinting at the 2nd Amendment long enough and it seems you can read into it anything you want. :rolleyes:

bainter1212
February 8, 2013, 02:11 PM
California also keeps a "list" of gun owners. They keep records of DROS transactions, so that they can check the recently adjudicated felons and mentally ill against this list. This is backdoor registration if I ever saw it. This is why universal background checks will lead to registration and confiscation. You can't just give that shotgun to your son, it has to go through an FFL. Now it's on record, and whenever the state sees fit to confiscate, they know where it is and who has it. This is the issue.

Cosmoline
February 8, 2013, 02:12 PM
I don't view NICS as a Second Amendment issue, though the potential for background checks turning into registration certainly would be. I wouldn't object to UBC with exceptions PROVIDED it was done as part of a revamp of the current federal system, to focus federal laws on purchase screening and voluntary licensing rather than on what's in our gun closets. The BATFE would have to go away for good, and be replaced with a new licensing agency with a pro-gun mandate. Penalties for screwups would need to be lessened and the criminal laws used to target actual criminals rather than people who misunderstood how to measure a barrel. So having an shotgun below OAL would be akin to not having your car registered. It's only if you're using it to rob stores that they kick it to a felony. There are a lot of other changes that could be made if we took this opportunity to do it. But it's dangerous to go down that road. And politically it looks like the antis are running out of steam again.

savanahsdad
February 8, 2013, 02:26 PM
Holy schneikies Sam, where did you find that?

My position on background checks is thus: we trust these supposedly dangerous people around children and the elderly. We let them date and marry submissive women who would rather use a frying pan to beat the cops who show up to protect her than let them haul her abuser off to jail. We let them buy motor vehicles, power tools, kitchen knives, and sports equipment without background checks. Yet we want to stop them from buying a gun, because then they can do no harm? No! If you think they are too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to have free reign in our society. If we improve our prison systems, we can do away with background checks completely.

I'm all for a voluntary background check system for those that want to cover themselves before a private sale, but a mandatory system can only lead to trouble as far as I'm concerned.
^^^^^^^ that ^^^^^^^

Skribs: get out of my head, I know there is lots of room in there , but wow , you got that just about word for word ,

Skribs
February 8, 2013, 02:48 PM
Bainter, I will say UBC "can" lead to registration and confiscation, not necessarily "will". However, the fact that it can is bad enough that it shouldn't happen.

Cosmoline, the Second Amendment is supposedly a pro-gun mandate. I don't see a new agency coming out as "pro-gun" as being a benefit.

I do not see it as a decent option to be required to go through an intermediate party in order to sell or gift my best friend, whom I've known my whole life. Family is usually excluded, but friends are not. That is why I would be okay with a voluntary system. If I so desired, I could sell my friend a gun with no check, but sell to some random stranger on craigs list after calling the number. On the other hand, if I didn't want to deal with that, I could just sell it to the random stranger. The point is the decision is mine whether or not to go through the process.

mljdeckard
February 8, 2013, 02:57 PM
No, it absolutely will.

Even if it is not the intent right now, (and I'm not at all convinced it isn't,) sooner or later, it will be realized that:

A: It does nothing to help solve crime. When criminals know that purchased guns can be tracked back to them, they use someone else's. It's that simple. NY and Canada are scrapping their systems because they are ineffective.

B: If it doesn't solve or prevent crime.....why else should the information be collected in the first place? Of COURSE they WANT a big list. Don't be naive.

wtr100
February 8, 2013, 03:02 PM
background check = registration - to think otherwise is retarded, sorry it just is

Voyager
February 8, 2013, 03:08 PM
The issue is that without registration, universal background checks are unenforceable. If you don't know who owns what firearms, how can you determine if an illegal transfer took place.

I think everyone would agree that we would love to keep guns out of the hands of people like him. The issue lies in finding a realistic way to do it.
There is NO realistic way, history has demonstrated conclusively that if a determined individiual is focused upon a violent act, he will accomplish that violent act.

Freedom is dangerous, but not as dangerous as marxist/leninism. In the last century, marxists tallied over 140 million murders, how many did Mark David Chapman rack up?

Cosmoline
February 8, 2013, 03:10 PM
Cosmoline, the Second Amendment is supposedly a pro-gun mandate. I don't see a new agency coming out as "pro-gun" as being a benefit.

Ideally, the federal government should be doing things to HELP us be better shots. Training programs, range construction and a friendlier licensing system for those wanting to go that route.

Bainter, I will say UBC "can" lead to registration and confiscation, not necessarily "will". However, the fact that it can is bad enough that it shouldn't happen.

I can pretty much guarantee that a UBC passed by a Dem-controlled government in two or four years will be backdoor registration. That's a given. The point of acting now would be to do an end-run around that and create a system with safeguards to prevent that from happening. It's not ideal by any means, but there are real dangers in waiting and hoping the Dems don't keep getting stronger. Demographic shifts and the fumbling of the GOP have all worked to their advantage over the long term.

wacki
February 8, 2013, 03:15 PM
Could it be that we don't know who the "people like this" are and would not be caugyht by the background check?

Once the Brady Law passed, ATF was trumpeting the number of people "caught" in back ground checks -- until people noted that less than one percent of those "dangerous" people were ever charged. When challenged to explain why, ATF cited the case of a Black man who had been caught with a deck of cards with pictures of naked white women and sentenced to prison. When he tried to buy a shotgun, he was denied.

So we have Federal law that reinforces state Jim Crow laws.

wow. got more info on this? links?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

wacki
February 8, 2013, 03:21 PM
Holy schneikies Sam, where did you find that?

My position on background checks is thus: we trust these supposedly dangerous people around children and the elderly. We let them date and marry submissive women who would rather use a frying pan to beat the cops who show up to protect her than let them haul her abuser off to jail. We let them buy motor vehicles, power tools, kitchen knives, and sports equipment without background checks. Yet we want to stop them from buying a gun, because then they can do no harm? No! If you think they are too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to have free reign in our society. If we improve our prison systems, we can do away with background checks completely.

I'm all for a voluntary background check system for those that want to cover themselves before a private sale, but a mandatory system can only lead to trouble as far as I'm concerned.

great post

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

ErikO
February 8, 2013, 03:24 PM
I'd be relatively OK with the 23 states NOT sharing mental health data with NICS to do so as long as the FBI steps up the amount of actual enforcement they do on 4473 lies and straw purchase attempts.

We do not need new laws, we need enforcement of the ones we have.

ErikO
February 8, 2013, 03:25 PM
Holy schneikies Sam, where did you find that?

My position on background checks is thus: we trust these supposedly dangerous people around children and the elderly. We let them date and marry submissive women who would rather use a frying pan to beat the cops who show up to protect her than let them haul her abuser off to jail. We let them buy motor vehicles, power tools, kitchen knives, and sports equipment without background checks. Yet we want to stop them from buying a gun, because then they can do no harm? No! If you think they are too dangerous to have a gun, they are too dangerous to have free reign in our society. If we improve our prison systems, we can do away with background checks completely.

I'm all for a voluntary background check system for those that want to cover themselves before a private sale, but a mandatory system can only lead to trouble as far as I'm concerned.

^ this!

gripper
February 8, 2013, 04:36 PM
Universal background checks = No More Private Sales...and THAT'S unacceptable to me...as it should be to all of you.

hillbilly
February 8, 2013, 04:44 PM
For those of y'all in favor of "Universal background checks." Haven't you heard Obama's call for a "database" connected to the "universal background checks?"

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/01/07/obama-plans-national-gun-database

What, exactly do you think a "national database" is, if not a registration list.

Here's a link about Democrat plans to use their statewide registration list in California.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_22544460/californias-state-senate-democrats-roll-out-big-gun

Cali Democrats are planning confiscations....that's c-o-n-f-i-s-c-a-t-i-o-n enabled by a registration.

Sistema1927
February 8, 2013, 05:20 PM
Background checks ARE infringement, and are worse than useless. Don't buy into feel good measures. We have real problems, but access to firearms isn't one of them.

Vern Humphrey
February 8, 2013, 06:26 PM
Here's the latest information on prosecution for firearms transfer offenses:
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/exec.htm

Note this heading:
ATF Field Offices Receive Too Many Standard Denial Cases That Are Unlikely to Be Prosecuted

phil dirt
February 8, 2013, 06:34 PM
Why is it so hard for some people to understand that Obama's data base means registration lists.

HighExpert
February 8, 2013, 06:39 PM
The ONLY reason for UBC and the registration aspects is a list of what to pick up and where. These same people who are pushing this law have made statements that you should not have a gun at all. Do you really think they are going to write a perfectly simple law that just stops criminals and nuts from buying guns? Oh, thats right we already have such a law....Form 4473. You mean to tell me that it is not working? No UBC. No AWB. and No Ammunition background check.

P5 Guy
February 8, 2013, 08:57 PM
I do not get the beef with background checks here. Whenever I buy a gun at a dealer - there is a background check but NO registration. yes... the yellow forms are being kept on file for a few years but they are not being handed to the Feds and the Feds are not allowed to create their gun owner database.

And isn't there a big argument going on about if the Government has the right to kill Americans with drones. I'm not trusting them on gun owner databases either.

:mad::cuss::banghead:

Nico Testosteros
February 8, 2013, 09:34 PM
If you have to show an ID to vote, then you should have to present one to own a firearm.

Sam1911
February 8, 2013, 09:43 PM
If you have to show an ID to vote, then you should have to present one to own a firearm.SHOULD have to? What kind of crap is that? There is no law that says you have to present ID to buy a firearm (except in interstate commerce and/or from an FFL dealer, at least in "free" states) and that's JUST like it should be.

Why oh why would we willing pile MORE manure on our own heads? :fire: We've got a long enough road to tavel before we get back to what is RIGHT (repeal of GCA'68 and NFA'34), and you want to take just one more step in the wrong direction?

medalguy
February 8, 2013, 10:32 PM
revolversrbetter, let me ask you this: What if I were the person who got to decide whether YOU were allowed to purchase a weapon. Would that make you feel any better? When you say you favor background checks, who is going to be the guy who says yes or no to the purchase? As long as I get to make that decision, I'm in favor of it. When someone else gets to decide whether I can exercise MY clear Constitutional right, I get a little less willing to go along with that. :scrutiny:

barnbwt
February 8, 2013, 11:57 PM
And isn't there a big argument going on about if the Government has the right to kill Americans with drones. I'm not trusting them on gun owner databases either.

Yeah, it's not like they were wiretapping the entire internet, or anything! :D Our country was built around -not the ideals of freedom- but that government will sieze any opportunity to accumulate authority.

This whole background check thing ultimately comes back to "we don't know who the criminals are until they commit their crimes" :banghead: I have no idea why the concept of crime preceding guilt is so complicated for people. Minority Report was a dystopia, not a utopia, remember? (not that utopia can exist, anyhow ;)).

Crazies aren't crazies until they go crazy, so this whole database thing in the name of safety is basically not happening. So what's the point? To spend money? To feel better? To better enforce already un-enforced law? To gain valuable info on the "resources" of the populace? None of these things serve the stated goal of the legislation, so any logical-minded person should accept that UBC's aren't a solution, and will look elsewhere.

TCB

yokel
February 9, 2013, 01:03 PM
The ONLY reason for UBC and the registration aspects is a list of what to pick up and where. These same people who are pushing this law have made statements that you should not have a gun at all. Do you really think they are going to write a perfectly simple law that just stops criminals and nuts from buying guns? Oh, thats right we already have such a law....Form 4473. You mean to tell me that it is not working? No UBC. No AWB. and No Ammunition background check.

Indeed, the ultimate goal is to whittle down private gun ownership and destroy the right to keep and bear arms gradually as if by cutting off bits with a knife.

"Public safety" and "crime prevention" is a mere pretext.

The unfortunate reality of the matter is that our intransigent adversaries regard the Second Amendment with extreme repugnance and dislike strongly anyone who seeks to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.

xfyrfiter
February 9, 2013, 01:15 PM
If you have to show an ID to vote, then you should have to present one to own a firearm.
IDK about Texas. but here in NM, we don't have to show id to vote, and I thought it was against fed law to ask.

22-rimfire
February 9, 2013, 01:25 PM
Present an ID to "own a firearm" or buy a firearm?

I already present an ID to a FFL dealer when I purchase a firearm and in some cases such as Walmart, I may present an ID to purchase ammunition. The ID may not be technically required, but many dealers will not sell you a firearm without an ID.

Vern Humphrey
February 9, 2013, 01:37 PM
IDK about Texas. but here in NM, we don't have to show id to vote, and I thought it was against fed law to ask.
It is not against Federal law to ask.

But the Democrats hold that requiring ID will deprive illegal aliens of their right to vote.

joeschmoe
February 9, 2013, 02:03 PM
When did we give Congress the power to regulate private sales? Where can I find that in the Constitution. I see where it says the power to tax, make war, call out the Militia, etc.

I can't find the part where it says Congress can regulate individual citizens.

I don't think Congress has that power.

Vern Humphrey
February 9, 2013, 02:07 PM
They don't have that power -- which exposes the great flaw in the Constitution. There is no penalty for violating the Constitution.

joeschmoe
February 9, 2013, 02:13 PM
They don't have that power -- which exposes the great flaw in the Constitution. There is no penalty for violating the Constitution.
You mean other than having such a law thrown out by the courts.

velojym
February 9, 2013, 02:17 PM
So long as the bureaucrats and politicians can dictate what constitutes a disqualifying condition, I can't support any government run background check scheme. There are plenty of people who are either non-violent "criminals" who harmed no one, or otherwise honest folks who may have made a mistake at some point in their lives. In neither case would I heavy-handedly come down and and proclaim that their lives aren't worth defending.
On the other hand, if a voluntary association of gun shop owners kept a list of *violent* offenders... public information right off the blotter page... and refused to sell to them, I'd be ok with that.
Even a universal background check scheme like the one that we have now, which ONLY disqualified people convicted of actual violent crime, it'd sure beat what we have now.

As for perceived mental condition... I've known plenty of people otherwise thought of as crazy, just because they didn't follow the herd. Where's the line? I suppose if someone acts oddly *and* threatens violence, I'd pull the rug out.

There would also have to be a mechanism to hold someone accountable, in case an individual is unduly oppressed, and suffers loss as a result. The accountable person would be the one who stamped "No" on the 4473 request. Good luck finding someone who'd want that job.

Vern Humphrey
February 9, 2013, 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Humphrey
They don't have that power -- which exposes the great flaw in the Constitution. There is no penalty for violating the Constitution.

You mean other than having such a law thrown out by the courts.
Having the law thrown out is not a penalty. Sending those who voted for it to prison would be a penalty.

basicblur
February 9, 2013, 02:30 PM
BIDS vs. NICS (http://www.gunlaws.com/BIDS%20v.%20NICS.htm)
As I've heard it discussed, the BIDS system would work (Blind Information Database System), and at much lower cost than NICS.

The problem is the BIDS database is blind, and those in power just can't stand that.
They've got to have names attached to the guns, for whatever the future holds.

BTW - since I'm:
1. An old (probably angry, if you listen to the media) white male.
2. Wear a cheap Casio watch (the choice of terrorists).
3. Am an NRA member (a lifer, no less)!
4. Have a beard.
I'm probably on somebody's Terrorist Watch List X number of times over.

Gotta run...I think I hear a drone over the house...! :what:

joeschmoe
February 9, 2013, 02:39 PM
Having the law thrown out is not a penalty. Sending those who voted for it to prison would be a penalty.
No. Then no one would ever run for office, except criminals who are willing to risk jail.
The "penalty" is to vote them out of office and replace them with people who will uphold the Constitution. It's silly to keep voting for the same people then expecting there is some other method of disciplining them.

Stop electing them.

If Congress passes such a law, it is the job of courts to throw out the law, and our job to throw out the politicians. The system works fine.

Vern Humphrey
February 9, 2013, 03:12 PM
No. Then no one would ever run for office, except criminals who are willing to risk jail.
In other words, no different from the present system.;)
The "penalty" is to vote them out of office and replace them with people who will uphold the Constitution. It's silly to keep voting for the same people then expecting there is some other method of disciplining them.
Except that the career politicians have a lock -- it's almost impossible to vote them out, given all the advantages they have voted for themselves.
If Congress passes such a law, it is the job of courts to throw out the law, and our job to throw out the politicians. The system works fine.
So explain how we're running trillion dollar deficits, how the Congressman who was supposed to be overseeing Fannie Mae was sleeping with the vice-president of Fannie Mae (and never even got called on it) and how the President unconstitutionally stiffed General Motor's secured creditors (calling them "speculators") and never got a day in jail?

22-rimfire
February 9, 2013, 03:15 PM
Term limits! If there is no approved budget, the government shuts down until a budget is approved. The only thing that continues to be funded are the debt interest, the military and social security and medicare. No more automatic increases in spending for inflation. If the politicans can not find a way to agree on budget cuts... cut everything 10% and go from there. Next year, cut it again by 10%. Eventually the American people will see what's going on and rationale thought and actions will prevail.

Vern Humphrey
February 9, 2013, 03:22 PM
I agree with term limits.

As for balancing the budget, how about this?
The Balanced Budget Amendment

1. If the Federal debt is higher at the end of the calendar year than it was at the beginning of the calendar year, or the United States shall default on its obligations, the budget is not balanced.

2. If the budget is not balanced, Congress shall take a temporary twenty percent pay cut for five years. This money, and all other public money due to members of Congress, plus twenty percent of all other income, from any source, public or private, shall be placed in an interest-bearing account. If the budget is balanced at the end of the fifth year, the money with interest shall be returned to the members of Congress. If the budget is not balanced, the money shall be forfeited to the Treasury, and the cut shall be permanent. For the next five years there shall be a further twenty percent cut under the same rules. This process shall continue until the budget is balanced.

3. The power to tax is exclusively reserved to the people, and no tax or other revenue-enhancing measure shall be created, and no existing tax or other revenue-enhancing measure shall be increased except by a vote of the majority of the people at a regularly scheduled Federal election. The people have the right to place tax and revenue measures on the ballot by presenting a petition bearing the valid signatures of registered voters amounting to one percent of those voting in the previous Federal election.

4. In time of war or grave emergency, the people may suspend the requirement for a balanced budget by majority vote in a Federal election, but no such suspension shall be in effect for more than two years.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 9, 2013, 03:32 PM
How many mass shootings has NICS stopped recently? Cho at VATech purchased through NICS. Loughner (Giffords) purchased through NICS. The Aurora guy bought through NICS. The only person who didn't use NICS was Lanza, who murdered his own mother and took her guns.

So, what do you guys think is going to happen WHEN there is another shooting? What are "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!" going to do with that list of who owns what? Registration is also important to advance incremental gun control because once you know who owns what, you can target the politically weakest groups first.

Queen_of_Thunder
February 9, 2013, 04:28 PM
If you have to show an ID to vote, then you should have to present one to own a firearm.
Bull Hockey

BBQJOE
February 9, 2013, 04:38 PM
When I purchase a firearm I show ID. I also show my CCW, which also leads to my fingerprints, and other pertinent info.
They have my DOB, plus birth state, and a whole boatload of other info. including my address.

They have the serial number and make of the firearm. They have answers to questions, any of which challenged could result in the loss of firearm ownership.

I would have to be an absolute idiot to believe this information is not shared and permanently retained by the government.

Anyone who honestly thinks that this info is destroyed in 24-72 hours, needs to have their firearms removed due to possible insanity.

joeschmoe
February 9, 2013, 04:42 PM
In other words, no different from the present system.;)

Except that the career politicians have a lock -- it's almost impossible to vote them out, given all the advantages they have voted for themselves.

So explain how we're running trillion dollar deficits, how the Congressman who was supposed to be overseeing Fannie Mae was sleeping with the vice-president of Fannie Mae (and never even got called on it) and how the President unconstitutionally stiffed General Motor's secured creditors (calling them "speculators") and never got a day in jail?

Then stop voting for them. If you keep voting for them then you deserve them.

wild cat mccane
February 9, 2013, 04:50 PM
"Background checks will lead to registry."

2 logical flaws: Necessary but not sufficient and slippery slope.

Both are logical FLAWS.

Cdigman
February 9, 2013, 05:14 PM
CNN did a ride-along with California LEOS, whose only job was to go seize guns. When someone in California gets convicted of a felony, are judged mentally incompetent, or get charged with domestic violence, they basically send you a notice to turn in your guns. Then, if it doesn't happen, they raid your house. Anderson Cooper was talking about what a great idea this was, and was incredulous that California is the only state that did this. That reason being that California has full registration. What would be scary is considering that someone can accuse you of being crazy, an alcoholic, a drug addict, or for a significant other to claim abuse, and they roll out the SWAT team to come get your firearms.

Cdigman
February 9, 2013, 05:30 PM
See for yourself:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/06/inside-look-at-l-a-illegal-gun-raid/?iref=allsearch

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2013/02/07/ac-harris-barton-ca-gun-program.cnn

And don't they have seatbelt laws in California? =)

Vern Humphrey
February 9, 2013, 05:35 PM
Then stop voting for them. If you keep voting for them then you deserve them.
You really don't understand how our system works, do you?

wild cat mccane
February 9, 2013, 05:42 PM
I fail to see that as a problem.

You openly admitted they were legally deemed not to possess a firearm due to LEGAL grounds.

I work in the court system. Courts can't and don't just make laws up.

joeschmoe
February 9, 2013, 05:52 PM
You really don't understand how our system works, do you?
I don't understand why people keep voting for the same politicians but expecting different results. Or now hoping to send them to prison for reasons that should have kept them from re-election.
We get the government we deserve. The system works fine. It's the people who vote for them that are to blame.

Bartholomew Roberts
February 9, 2013, 06:10 PM
"Background checks will lead to registry."

2 logical flaws: Necessary but not sufficient and slippery slope.

Both are logical FLAWS.

Was your post meant to be relevant or did you just want to dazzle us with your knowledge of traditional arguments and logic?

First off, we are discussing background checks as currently conducted by the NICS system. The NICS system and 4473 is a non-centralized registry. If you force all sales to go through FFLs, you have forced all sales into a registry. So your first point is wrong unless you just wanted to share with us the logical truism that not every conceivable background check leads to a registry - which while a true statement, is not necessarily a useful one towards better understanding the current threats to RKBA.

Your second statement of logic neglects to account for probability. In this case, we must make an educated guess about the intentions of our opponents - which fortunately they have clearly stated many times. In addition to Diane "Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in", the state legislatures of New York and Hawaii have proposed using registration to confiscate and California already has used registration to confiscate*

If your goal was to point out a slippery slope argument was being used, you might as well point out I am typing in English as well. It is every bit as helpful to an adult conversation and an analysis of the probability of that slippery slope argument in fact happening.

*California declared the SKS an assault weapon and extended the period for gun owners to register. California was sued by Violence Policy Center who opposed the extension. California then confiscated every SKS registered during the extension.

Vern Humphrey
February 9, 2013, 06:22 PM
I don't understand why people keep voting for the same politicians but expecting different results. Or now hoping to send them to prison for reasons that should have kept them from re-election.
It's simple -- politicians use your money to bribe people to vote for them.

You may recall there was a video floating around before the election of a lady saying, "I'm going to vote for Obama because he gave me a cell phone."

chipcom
February 9, 2013, 08:35 PM
Watch Larry King interview Mark David Chapman about the night he shot John Lennon.

I don't understand why we would not want people like this having to go through a background check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaUe5rCO6xU
This is exactly why universal background checks are the main goal and why that goal will be attained - they seem reasonable and even gun owners are divided on the issue.

chipcom
February 9, 2013, 08:39 PM
I don't view NICS as a Second Amendment issue, though the potential for background checks turning into registration certainly would be. I wouldn't object to UBC with exceptions PROVIDED it was done as part of a revamp of the current federal system, to focus federal laws on purchase screening and voluntary licensing rather than on what's in our gun closets. The BATFE would have to go away for good, and be replaced with a new licensing agency with a pro-gun mandate. Penalties for screwups would need to be lessened and the criminal laws used to target actual criminals rather than people who misunderstood how to measure a barrel. So having an shotgun below OAL would be akin to not having your car registered. It's only if you're using it to rob stores that they kick it to a felony. There are a lot of other changes that could be made if we took this opportunity to do it. But it's dangerous to go down that road. And politically it looks like the antis are running out of steam again.
Would you consider requiring a background check before being allowed to speak or write in public to not be a 1st Amendment issue as well?

Vern Humphrey
February 9, 2013, 09:24 PM
Would you consider requiring a background check before being allowed to speak or write in public to not be a 1st Amendment issue as well?
A good many members of Congress would fail such a background check.;)

hueytaxi
February 9, 2013, 10:16 PM
Do you want to run a background check on your 10 y/o before you can teach him or her to shoot.

joeschmoe
February 9, 2013, 10:23 PM
It's simple -- politicians use your money to bribe people to vote for them.

You may recall there was a video floating around before the election of a lady saying, "I'm going to vote for Obama because he gave me a cell phone."
Like I said, we get the government we deserve. Also known as "Bread and Circus".

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

Cdigman
February 9, 2013, 11:52 PM
That's what I want from our government right now..a little more BREAD, and a little less CIRCUS... :)

michaelbsc
February 10, 2013, 12:02 AM
That's what I want from our government right now..a little more BREAD, and a little less CIRCUS... :)

Actually in the original context of the Roman slur you really don't want any bread or circuses from them. But good luck with that.

easyg
February 10, 2013, 01:11 PM
Watch Larry King interview Mark David Chapman about the night he shot John Lennon.

I don't understand why we would not want people like this having to go through a background check.
Since you don't understand, let me clarify it for you....

Yes, perhaps a universal background check system might have prevented Chapman from legally obtaining a firearm.

But such background checks absolutely infringe upon the Right of the people to keep and bear arms, which violates the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

If you must ask permission from a federal agency to obtain a firearm, then you no longer have a Constitutional Right....it becomes a government granted privilege instead of a God given Right.

And I would rather suffer a thousand Chapmans than give up my Constitutional Rights.

A free society is not necessarily a safe society.

A caged bird is safe.



Now you have to ask yourself....do you want to be safe, in a cage, or free in a sometimes dangerous world?




If you chose the cage of safety, then perhaps the United States isn't for you.

joeschmoe
February 10, 2013, 02:15 PM
The lack of a legal method for obtaining firearms has not slowed down the 100,000 murders per year in Mexico.
Anti's attack legal gun owners while ignoring those who use guns to commit crimes. In the same cities with high murder rates they have revolving doors on criminals who use guns to commit crimes.

cfullgraf
February 10, 2013, 04:02 PM
It's simple -- politicians use your money to bribe people to vote for them.

You may recall there was a video floating around before the election of a lady saying, "I'm going to vote for Obama because he gave me a cell phone."

There are too many politicians that have been in office too long that I feel there are too many irregularities in the voting procedure.

Chicago does not have a stellar record when it comes to voting fraud. You can probably say similar things about the other big cities in the US, they have been smart enough to not get cut.

There is a program on the History channel these days about the captains of industry that built this country, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan et al. They essentially rigged the 1898 presidential election to get the candidate that would be most favorable to their ideals. Do not think it canon continue to happen.

Term limits would eliminate much of the improprieties as politicians could not advance many of their own agendas as they would not be in office long enough.

If guns are banned, we will just create another branch of mob or drug cartel. They will have another revenue stream to exploit. Prohibition and the War on Drugs have worked so well.

Vern Humphrey
February 10, 2013, 04:22 PM
There are too many politicians that have been in office too long that I feel there are too many irregularities in the voting procedure.

Chicago does not have a stellar record when it comes to voting fraud. You can probably say similar things about the other big cities in the US, they have been smart enough to not get cut.

There is a program on the History channel these days about the captains of industry that built this country, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan et al. They essentially rigged the 1898 presidential election to get the candidate that would be most favorable to their ideals. Do not think it canon continue to happen.

Term limits would eliminate much of the improprieties as politicians could not advance many of their own agendas as they would not be in office long enough.

If guns are banned, we will just create another branch of mob or drug cartel. They will have another revenue stream to exploit. Prohibition and the War on Drugs have worked so well.
Arkansas has term limits -- and it works great.

Our original term limits law applied to our Congressmen and Senators as well as to state legislators. That was striken down by the Supreme Court, which said a state cannot put any obstacle to getting on the Federal Ballot that is not in the Constitution.

Funny thing -- it's quite common for state legislatures to "district a Congressman out" -- putting two serving Congressmen in the same district, so they can't both run.

And guess what? The Constitution never mentions Congressional Districts as an obstacle to getting on the ballot.

Article I, Section 1.

Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Do you see anything about a Congressman having to live in the district he represents?

Vector
February 10, 2013, 05:23 PM
I fail to see that as a problem.

You openly admitted they were legally deemed not to possess a firearm due to LEGAL grounds.

I work in the court system. Courts can't and don't just make laws up.

:rolleyes:

So if a city or state decides that spitting on the sidewalk means someone is legally deemed to not be able to possess a firearm, it is ok in your book?

Also, if you feel that way, are US citizens 1st Amendment rights subject to suppression for the same reasons? And if not, why?

You may want to read this thread before commenting;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=702303

`

michaelbsc
February 10, 2013, 06:24 PM
CNN did a ride-along with California LEOS, whose only job was to go seize guns. When someone in California gets convicted of a felony, are judged mentally incompetent, or get charged with domestic violence, they basically send you a notice to turn in your guns. Then, if it doesn't happen, they raid your house. Anderson Cooper was talking about what a great idea this was, and was incredulous that California is the only state that did this. That reason being that California has full registration. What would be scary is considering that someone can accuse you of being crazy, an alcoholic, a drug addict, or for a significant other to claim abuse, and they roll out the SWAT team to come get your firearms.
Can these guns not be sequestered with another family member? An untainted brother? Cousin? Unrelated Friend?

Or the state just steals them?

michaelbsc
February 10, 2013, 06:30 PM
Chicago does not have a stellar record when it comes to voting fraud.

Yes. I figured that was applicable nationwide now. Since dad died last spring I tried to get him and absentee ballot for this past fall, but they told me "dead" wasn't going the be accepted as a valid reason why he couldn't make it to the polls on election day.

Guess it isn't nationwide yet.

P5 Guy
February 10, 2013, 07:25 PM
A background check to buy a Bible, Torah, Qur'an seems logical seeing as the terror that these teachings have caused?

I know I'm stretching the point but...

velojym
February 10, 2013, 07:28 PM
"We" get the government "We" deserve? Bull.
"We" get saddled with the government the idiot majority is told to vote for. The rest of us are left in the cold, no matter how much feeling and logic we put into our own votes.

Cosmoline
February 11, 2013, 09:13 PM
Would you consider requiring a background check before being allowed to speak or write in public to not be a 1st Amendment issue as well?

No, but what about exercising the right to VOTE? The risk of felons voting may justify screening prior to voting. And with firearms the risk of felons obtaining firearms may justify screening prior to buying one. If there are permissible restrictions on who can own firearms lawfully, then a screening mechanism to make sure they aren't able to buy them makes sense. There is a risk of registration but then again does the Second bar the federal government from knowing who owns what? Wouldn't the government need to know what we own in order to know the state of the nation's strength?

PRM
February 11, 2013, 09:26 PM
Nope...its wrong and against the Constitution. And, that document is what makes us uniquely American.

Some things are none of the government's business. If I want to transfer my private property to a family member or swap that property with a friend, and they are not otherwise prohibited by law - then that's nothing the government should be involved in.

velojym
February 11, 2013, 09:33 PM
Screening and other regulations only drive people (most of whom were never violent in the first place) to the grey or black market. The more onerous those regulations, or even a downright ban, was demonstrated decades ago, and we all know how well Prohibition worked out.

gripper
February 11, 2013, 09:53 PM
When one has served their sentence, any and all civil rights- voting, RKBA; etc- should be reinstated. If one is deemed to have " lost them", or is " too dangerous " why release them ever?
Again, this constant expansion of terms " felon" and " prohibited person " is deliberate and has NOTHING to do with public safety.

Deaf Smith
February 11, 2013, 10:04 PM
Watch Larry King interview Mark David Chapman about the night he shot John Lennon.

I don't understand why we would not want people like this having to go through a background check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaUe5rCO6xU


revolversrbetter, your clearance as been rejected to by a gun. You have no recourse to protest and get a fast hearing to find out why you have been rejected.

So what do you do? Your rights have been denied by a faceless bureaucrat and you can't even argue with them.

And tell me, what if the NICS system gets 'delayed' for 'technical' reasons. What are you going to do? You can't buy the gun until you are cleared.

See there are problems with this 'instant' background check in that they can just shut down the system or slap your name on the 'no buy' list and then what?

Deaf

HorseSoldier
February 11, 2013, 10:06 PM
When one has served their sentence, any and all civil rights- voting, RKBA; etc- should be reinstated. If one is deemed to have " lost them", or is " too dangerous " why release them ever?


I can see some logic to that. Or at least that the felon in possession idea should recognize that not all felonies are created equal.

Again, this constant expansion of terms " felon" and " prohibited person " is deliberate and has NOTHING to do with public safety.

Since there is good documentation that there are ethnic trends in what charges people are tried for and convicted for, I wonder if both the rescinding of the right to vote and RKBA could be challenged as a infringement of civil rights for minorities?

Voyager
February 11, 2013, 10:12 PM
When one has served their sentence, any and all civil rights- voting, RKBA; etc- should be reinstated. If one is deemed to have " lost them", or is " too dangerous " why release them ever?
Again, this constant expansion of terms " felon" and " prohibited person " is deliberate and has NOTHING to do with public safety.
Precisely! We are dealing with unscrupulus, highly devious, master manipulators. Whats worse, the opposition is painfully inept, you cannot compromise with wolves as they prepare you for their dinner, even if its only one limb at a time.

Cdigman
February 11, 2013, 10:16 PM
<<<Can these guns not be sequestered with another family member? An untainted brother? Cousin? Unrelated Friend?>>>

Since Cali has registration, they KNOW if you've transferred them to someone else, which you'd have to do, to get them legally out of your name.

silicosys4
February 11, 2013, 10:24 PM
saying someone is a "felon" and denying them their rights to keep and bear arms for life is a dangerous thing. It has become fairly easy these days to become a "felon". Who has the power to decide what constitutes a felony? Not me.

Poking your brother in the chest with a fingertip during an argument can lose your firearm rights for life if he decides to call the police and report a "domestic assault". Automatic loss of firearm rights for life in my state to have that on your record.

Cosmoline
February 11, 2013, 10:46 PM
When one has served their sentence, any and all civil rights- voting, RKBA; etc- should be reinstated. If one is deemed to have " lost them", or is " too dangerous " why release them ever?

If we're going to do things properly then every felon must be executed or banished from the country on pain of death. The country has chosen to stop doing this, and as a result we have a lot more felony crimes and a lot more felons still among the living. And they have lost many basic freedoms. Including the right to vote and to keep and bear arms. I very much doubt even one in a hundred voters wants to see such rights restored automatically. You'd find more support for going back to the original intent and killing them all.

So what do you do? Your rights have been denied by a faceless bureaucrat and you can't even argue with them.

You appeal the denial. Make no mistake, I would absolutely rather not have background checks. But I do not see a legitimate argument against them on Second Amendment grounds. So to my mind, they represent a point of argument we could yield IF we can get something meaningful in return. Like terminating the BATFE with extreme prejudice and replacing it with a licensing agency that does no enforcement at all. Given the extremely poor performance of BATFE in the past years this is far from impossible. A good argument can be made that a user-funded licensing agency would better serve the gun owners and the FBI would be better in charge of any enforcement. The agency was Nixon's baby, so how can the liberals argue against killing it? Also it would save $$$ and that's music to DC's ears right now.

Poking your brother in the chest with a fingertip during an argument can lose your firearm rights for life if he decides to call the police and report a "domestic assault". Automatic loss of firearm rights for life in my state to have that on your record.

There are too many federal and state criminal laws that sweep too broadly. But that's a separate question from whether we should have UBC's. For example if a man murdered his wife, do you want him to be able to buy firearms when he's out? I do not. I'd prefer it if he'd been hung 20 years earlier. But we're stuck with him now, and I don't want him armed. The law says he shouldn't be armed. How do we best keep him from being armed? One place to start is to make sure he doesn't get to buy one face to face from someone. As a policy I can see problems with it, but is it an infringement of the RKBA?

Some things are none of the government's business.

That sounds more like a Right to Privacy issue. Not something the Second deals with at least directly. But if we're going to view the Second as some form of privacy right, then the further you go into the public sphere the less of a privacy right you have. Advertising a sale and completing it would not be as private as giving a gift to your son. So the law might have an exception for intra-family transfers as it does now for straw purchases.

hogshead
February 11, 2013, 11:16 PM
cosmo maybe you should join the Brady campaign.

Cosmoline
February 12, 2013, 02:31 AM
I follow the logic. It sure as heck ain't with the Brady Bunch. But simply declaring that every regulation is unconstitutional or will lead to JBT's kicking in the doors won't cut the mustard. Look at the polls. We're winning or breaking even on most issues, EXCEPT this one. And that needs attention. Either the arguments need tightening, or we should consider using this as a playing piece.

In any case I don't see much moving at the federal level right now. Make no mistake if Obama had been on the ball he could have had UBC's enacted by now. Thankfully he's dithering and I suspect he's hoping nothing passes so he can use NRA intransigence as an argument in the midterms.

Deanimator
February 12, 2013, 05:34 AM
I don't understand why we would not want people like this having to go through a background check.
The "universal background check" con is just a stalking horse for REGISTRATION.

REGISTRATION has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future BANS and CONFISCATION.

Tell the class how the Chicago handgun ban was implemented.

NO, I REFUSE.

Deanimator
February 12, 2013, 05:38 AM
Yes ... it would be hard to show if you didn't do the background check without registration...
Which is why they won't pass it WITHOUT registration.

This is a stalking horse for REGISTRATION, and after that, there's no end in sight.

Obama's from Chicago, and that's how Chicago enforced their handgun ban. Don't try to snow me. I lived there.

NO, I REFUSE.

Deanimator
February 12, 2013, 05:42 AM
So to my mind, they represent a point of argument we could yield IF we can get something meaningful in return. Like terminating the BATFE with extreme prejudice and replacing it with a licensing agency that does no enforcement at all.
In what "Fringe" type alternate universe do you think THAT'S going to happen?

This is NOTHING but an attempt to start REGISTRATION.

REGISTRATION is the path to BANS and CONFISCATION.

Some of us have been there and can't be hoodwinked.

NO, I REFUSE.

Mp7
February 12, 2013, 06:00 AM
How everything that does not comply with a pro RKBA stance is socialism or dictatorship .. is lost on me.

That's like calling everything non-jew antisemitic.



I find it embarassing.

Roadking Rider
February 12, 2013, 09:27 AM
Every time I buy a gun in Pa. the state is called to see if I have a criminal background of any type. Same thing as when I applied for a CC permit/Carry license in Pa. They do not have a record of the gun I purchased only the GS and myself has that to protect there butts from illegal gun sales and straw purchases. The state is not concerned about the gun only that I'm cleared to have a gun. The whole process takes about 20 minutes and I'm out the door with a new gun. I do not have a problem with this. If it helps keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill,straw purchases, and BG's. Gun registration I do have a problem with,because you know reguardless of what the Gov't says that information will be shared with people who have no business knowing your business. Love my country but,I trust these politicans about as far as I can pee.:mad:

VegasAR15
February 12, 2013, 09:54 AM
There are many reasons why I oppose universal background checks. I believe it is an infringement on the second amendment, I do not believe the government needs to be involved when I sell a gun to my brother, I believe that it is another step in the road towards universal registration, I don't believe background checks really work and it is a major and costly inconvenience.

In the county I live in a gun that is sold to a gun store must be held for thirty days. In the state I live in you must pay $25 for every background check. Here is how a private party background check would go down in my county as explained to me by a local gun store owner. The gun is brought into the store, the buyer and seller are present. The seller must know that the buyer can legally purchase the firearm so a background check is run, $25. The gun has legally crossed the counter in the gun store so it must be logged into their books. It now must be held for thirty days. In thirty days you go back to get the gun, because it has been entered into the books of the gun store, sales tax must now be charged. The first background check is now one month old so another one must be run, $25. I assume most gun stores will also be charging a transfer fee for performing this service, in my area $20-25. So you have a month wait and assuming the seller was selling the gun for $400 I am now paying $511 out the door to comply with universal background checks.

Meanwhile, down the street a crack head has just sold a stolen gun to a gang member.

Old Fuff
February 12, 2013, 12:08 PM
The problem with all of these alternative proposals is that while they are well intended the legislators in Washington are paying absolutely no attention, and couldn't care less about what you might think is acceptable and what is not.

The bills entered in both the Senate and House on Universal Background Checks offer one way, and one way only.

PRIVATE SALES MUST BE CONDUCTED THROUGH AN FFL! Period. :banghead:

That means the buyer must fill out a 4473 form, and one or both of the parties must pay the dealer a fee it whatever amount he demands. :eek:

Some folks need to wake up and smell the coffee, and understand that it's better to be careful what you wish for - because you might get it.

Background checks have never been proven to be a serious deterrent to determined criminals or insane madmen, and when 4473 forms are involved they provide a basis for future registration.

Vern Humphrey
February 12, 2013, 12:44 PM
"We" get the government "We" deserve? Bull.
"We" get saddled with the government the idiot majority is told to vote for. The rest of us are left in the cold, no matter how much feeling and logic we put into our own votes.
If "we" would get off out butts and work for better government, "we'd" have better government. Too many of "us" are couch potato citizens -- "we" lie on the couch, drink beer and eat chips and cheer for the team or candidate of our choice, but do nothing "ourselves" to move the ball down the field.

Cosmoline
February 12, 2013, 12:50 PM
It now must be held for thirty days.

Why?

VegasAR15
February 12, 2013, 03:58 PM
Quote:
It now must be held for thirty days.

Cosmoline: Why?

That is the law in Clark County where I live. It probably isn't the rule everywhere, but it is the crap I will have to go through to buy private party should a universal background check become law.

wild cat mccane
February 12, 2013, 05:00 PM
Might want to Google the NRA supporting universal background checks not but a few years ago...

Their argument for switching positions is about as silly as some of the arguments in here.

Deanimator
February 12, 2013, 05:27 PM
Might want to Google the NRA supporting universal background checks not but a few years ago...
Some people wise up.

Some dumb down.

The NRA wised up.

Those pushing the sham "universal background check" are betting that everybody else is dumber than a bag of hammers.

You lose.

NO, I REFUSE.

Blakenzy
February 12, 2013, 06:59 PM
Granting the government even MORE control over your property and your activities is a losing proposition. No matter how noble the stated cause for enacting yet another restriction may be, its net effect is to continually diminish and burden firearm ownership by citizens to the brink of prohibition.

Why would anyone want to add one more punishable offense to gun ownership? The path we walk down as gun owners is becoming narrower, and narrower, surrounded by thousands of laws that make us instant felons with any slip, intentional or not. I don't want any more.

It's not gun control, it's gun restriction. :fire:

nazshooter
February 12, 2013, 08:00 PM
Might want to Google the NRA supporting universal background checks not but a few years ago...

Their argument for switching positions is about as silly as some of the arguments in here.

The only reason I've heard them give is that back then the existing background check system was relatively new and there was some hope that it would do some good however now that we've had it for many years and it's been shown to be a failure it should not be expanded.

What exactly is "silly" about that?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

MistWolf
February 13, 2013, 02:08 AM
Chris Dorner went through a background check to become a cop. We see how well that worked

Deanimator
February 13, 2013, 02:15 AM
Chris Dorner went through a background check to become a cop. We see how well that worked
Lon Horiuchi went through MULTIPLE background checks to become an Army officer and FBI agent. We see how well THAT worked...

HorseSoldier
February 13, 2013, 02:34 AM
With particular psychological screening and investigation to serve as a sniper, if I'm not mistaken.

MistWolf
February 13, 2013, 11:44 AM
It's a mistake to debate background checks being strictly a 2nd Amendment issue. It is not. It affects all of our rights, whether they are enumerated in the Bill of Rights or not. If the .gov can demand a background check before allowing us to exercise one right, they can justify the same for the rest.

A post I made on another site-



If there is one thing I cannot tolerate, it's a child molester. How do I know that you are not exercising your 1st Amendment right with your computer and access to the internet to stalk and victimize a child? I think you should submit to a background check to make sure that's not in your history. How do I know that you do not believe that adults should be allowed to have sex with children? How do I know that you do not believe children should not be treated as possessions? To prevent you from using your beliefs as grounds to bring harm to children, we should bring the government in to investigate you and set guidelines as to what beliefs you are allowed. It should be required that you sign documents promising you will not hold to any beliefs that are harmful or frightening to others before we issue you a card before allowing possession of equipment pertaining to the exercise of your 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech & religion; in violation of your 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search & seizure, your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination and double jeopardy, 6th Amendment rights of a trial by jury and speedy trial when there is a delay of approval and 9th Amendment rights when you are told your right to speak on a certain topic or to hold to a certain belief is not specifically protected by the Bill of Rights.

How is having to submit to a background check before exercising our rights when purchasing a firearm any different than submitting to the same when purchasing a computer, cell phone and internet access? How is submitting to a background check only a violation of thge 2nd Amendment? The answer to both is, it is not.

Do you wish to be subjected to a background check to salve the fears of others before being allowed to go about your business? Do you wish to have your good character scrutinized and possibly slandered by an uncaring faceless committee? Do you want to wait for permission to exercise the rights granted us by our creator because someone wants you to prove you intend no harm?

Not I. There are always those who will never be satisfied with your answers and will deny you your rights

Cosmoline
February 13, 2013, 01:21 PM
The problem is the foot is already half way in the door. Because the NRA and others let them set up the existing check for ffl sales, it's far harder to argue a parade of horribles.

I like the arguments about intra-family transfers. That has traction. But it's also very easy to draft an exception for.

barnbwt
February 13, 2013, 01:38 PM
Mistwolf,
It's already common to bar internet access to paroled/incarcerated criminals if it was involved in their crime (stalking, hacking, etc.). So yeah, felons have no 1st, 2nd, or 4th rights once they're released into the wild again (along with some other rights as well, I'm sure). Granted, it doesn't stop many from reoffending along those prohibited lines, but it's still common practice. Still begs the question "why are these guys released instead of locked up or executed (if locking them up is not feasible)?" Our country was founded on the notion of liberty being primary to living as a human being, and yet we force criminals to go on living as slaves for the remainder of their lives (or so long as the State sees fit to let them walk freely) for even minor offenses these days.

Perhaps if the physical consequences for felonies were proportionate to the philosophical ones (the loss of all rights) we wouldn't "feel" the need to brand so many common criminals. But the 8th amendment has been sadly misinterpretted, and now only serves to justify the enslavement of criminals as opposed to their due punishment.

Are our rights so worthless they can be lost over a large bag of weed? Our lives so valuable they cannot be taken by due process?

TCB

Deanimator
February 13, 2013, 11:09 PM
I like the arguments about intra-family transfers. That has traction. But it's also very easy to draft an exception for.
Totally irrelevant.

It's ALL unenforceable without REGISTRATION.

No ban or confiscation can be enforced without REGISTRATION.

Those of us from Chicago know better.

We can't be hoodwinked.

NO, I REFUSE.

MadMonkey
February 14, 2013, 02:00 AM
Mistwolf,
It's already common to bar internet access to paroled/incarcerated criminals if it was involved in their crime (stalking, hacking, etc.). So yeah, felons have no 1st, 2nd, or 4th rights once they're released into the wild again (along with some other rights as well, I'm sure). Granted, it doesn't stop many from reoffending along those prohibited lines, but it's still common practice. Still begs the question "why are these guys released instead of locked up or executed (if locking them up is not feasible)?" Our country was founded on the notion of liberty being primary to living as a human being, and yet we force criminals to go on living as slaves for the remainder of their lives (or so long as the State sees fit to let them walk freely) for even minor offenses these days.

While this is an interesting argument, I would like to point out that those restrictions of a person's rights come AFTER they have committed a crime. Most of the proposed legislation targets all gun-owners based on an assumption that access leads to action.

Do we restrict sales or access to quad-core computers because increased computing power leads to higher instances of internet crime, hacking, or identify theft? No - we prosecute those who have abused their freedom and protect those who respect it. At its core, the left's argument is that we (gun-owners) are all, now or at some point in the future,
going to commit a crime with a firearm.

Which side is playing on fear and emotion again?


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

VegasAR15
February 14, 2013, 09:23 AM
While this is an interesting argument, I would like to point out that those restrictions of a person's rights come AFTER they have committed a crime. Most of the proposed legislation targets all gun-owners based on an assumption that access leads to action.

Do we restrict sales or access to quad-core computers because increased computing power leads to higher instances of internet crime, hacking, or identify theft? No - we prosecute those who have abused their freedom and protect those who respect it. At its core, the left's argument is that we (gun-owners) are all, now or at some point in the future,
going to commit a crime with a firearm.

Which side is playing on fear and emotion again?


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android
Excellant points.

Vector
February 14, 2013, 10:47 AM
For those of y'all in favor of "Universal background checks." Haven't you heard Obama's call for a "database" connected to the "universal background checks?"

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/01/07/obama-plans-national-gun-database

What, exactly do you think a "national database" is, if not a registration list.

Here's a link about Democrat plans to use their statewide registration list in California.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_22544460/californias-state-senate-democrats-roll-out-big-gun

Cali Democrats are planning confiscations....that's c-o-n-f-i-s-c-a-t-i-o-n enabled by a registration.

The proof is already there in that they currently confiscate guns from people who "lost their right to bear arms" in CA's mind. I am not talking about violent felons and recidivist scum, but also those guilty of one misdemeanor charge, or even those just accused of certain things but not convicted. Heck if you even get a restraining order issued against you, they will come a knocking on your door. Read this thread if you have your doubts;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=702303



The math is simple;

background checks=registration
registration=identification
identification=confiscation

Lest anyone think I am a hardened zealot, I am late coming to this conclusion. I live in a very 2nd amendment friendly state, and base most of my perceptions on what we do here. Sure I know a few states are bastions of 60's hippie liberal wacko types that are in charge. But I did not put all the pieces of the puzzle together until recently. When a state or government starts restricting your Constitutional rights for life over minor infractions/crimes, what is to stop them from expanding the list to suit the thinking of their time. Remember we are fighting not only for our rights, but those of our future generations after we are long gone. So who is to say what the political winds of 70 years from now will be when most of us will be gone. The society might be so dumbed down from liberal Hollywood and the news media, they will have given their lives over to a tyrannical government. Yet if a core of people still have arms, their might be a chance to turn things around. However if we allow the seeds of confiscation to be planted today, future generations will have no firearms in the future.

Just as one example of which there are many, lets look at homosexuality in our society. If you were sounding the alarm 30 or even 20 years ago that liberal attitudes toward homosexuals would eventually lead to them being able to legally marry, adopt children, etc., most people would have laughed at you.
Most would say it will never happen, and you are just being paranoid. Since PC wasn't around back then, you probably would not have been called hateful or homophobic like today. Still you would have been dismissed, but look at what is happening today.
The point is that whether you are for or against what is happening today with homosexuals, it should be a wake up call for people to see how just a few decades can change the course of our country. If the same thing happens to our Constitutional rights, we could cease to be a Republic in a handful of generations.

`

MadMonkey
February 14, 2013, 10:59 AM
Quote:

Remember we are fighting not only for our rights, but those of our future generations after we are long gone. So who is to say what the political winds of 70 years from now will be when most of us will be gone.

`

This, this, a thousand times this!
I cannot begin to describe the attitude of my liberal opponents when I suggest that a minor "sacrifice" today can lead to ripples of consequence later. Dismissive at best, condescending at worst. They truly believe that there is no chance of tyranny here, ever. History would tell a different tale however, and if we want this republic to stand for another 200 years we had better protect every right we have.



Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

If you enjoyed reading about "Background checks? Yes; Registration? No." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!