Anti universal background check Oklahoma Senator sounding stupid


PDA






wild cat mccane
April 20, 2013, 06:55 PM
This is embarrassing.

I am a gun owner and I support universal checks. It costs $7. Using dumb arguments like this boggles the mind in their logic.

Worth listening to. If you don't catch it, it's circular logic.

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/18/177825289/coburn-proposal-would-make-buyer-prove-ability-to-buy-guns

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti universal background check Oklahoma Senator sounding stupid" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Solo
April 20, 2013, 06:59 PM
What specific parts of it did you disagree with?

mr.scott
April 20, 2013, 07:05 PM
Well op, you seem to be in the minority because most of us don't want the government being involved in private transactions.

Tcruse
April 20, 2013, 07:58 PM
The idea of a UBC certainly sounds good until you look at the implementation. If the Feds would put up a free web site where you could enter the information and get an immediate return, I think most would use it on a voluntary basis as long as the Feds where prohibited in keeping records over 24 hours. Paying a fee for an FFL to handle the transaction has the problem of the cost, the FFL is a competitor for the seller, and includes travel to the FFL.
Also, UBC is a back door to allow the Feds to limit gun ownership that could be abused real easy. If you political views are not in line with the AG, will you pass? Also, there needs to be a "due process" to get your name on the list, "due process" way to get your name removed, and probably expiration of names after say 5 years. I would never be in favor of a single DR being able to get a person added to the prohibited list with out a court hearing.
If the government wants to cut down on gun violence, enforce the current laws, provide low cost public shooting ranges (and ammo), safety/tactical classes, and CCW across all states.

Vector
April 20, 2013, 08:06 PM
I am a gun owner and I support universal checks. It costs $7. Using dumb arguments like this boggles the mind in their logic.



I am a gun owner and oppose "universal checks".

While the current system is not perfect, it is not a defacto gun registration scheme. Anything offered up and run by the federal government can & likely will be used one day as a means of gun confiscation. That is exactly how it has happened in other countries.
I'll sum it up as follows;

background check = registration
registration = identification
identification = confiscation

BTW - Lest you think it cannot or will not happen in America, it goes on in CA as we speak. Now one might argue that the guns the authorities are confiscating are ones people are no longer allowed to possess. Needless to say I hope you can at least see where that is a slippery slope argument that could lead to greater loss of our 2A rights.

`

Dean Weingarten
April 20, 2013, 08:06 PM
Hard to determine what his proposal was, with the interviewer interrupting him. It is clear that the interviewer knew, did not like it, and wanted to discredit Coburn.

Coburn's idea for Universal Background Checks was the only one that made any sense, if you were going to have them.

I know that because I read his proposal here on THR. I do not think any of the listeners to National Propaganda Radio got a clear picture of what he proposed.

Texan Scott
April 20, 2013, 08:57 PM
Feel free to insist on being submitted (yourself) for government approval of anything you please. I refuse. I no longer care what anyone thinks about the impact on crime. If that sounds socially irresponsible, it's because I refuse to be held responsible for the rest of society. The rest of society can do anything they like, as long as my and my loved ones' lives, liberty, or property remain uninvolved.

Why am I only concerned about me and mine? Because I'm the only one I can count on to be concerned about me and mine... and that's as it should be. I should not expect others to do for me what I will not; no one else should try to do "for" me what I don't want done for me.

So... go background check yourself, I'm done being reasonable.

Thermactor
April 20, 2013, 09:04 PM
wild cat mccane, you are in the minority here. please feel free to live in a state more aligned with your views. I heard that New York is a great place where like-minded folks share your opinions.

TCB in TN
April 20, 2013, 09:16 PM
This is embarrassing.

I am a gun owner and I support universal checks. It costs $7. Using dumb arguments like this boggles the mind in their logic.

Worth listening to. If you don't catch it, it's circular logic.

I am a gun owner and I oppose UBCs period. Lets be honest, while every one agrees that other rights can be infringed upon, most of the arguments put forward for those infringements are not applicable to what we are talking about today. Yes you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, or slander someone but those infringements involve the "yeller" infringing upon someone elses rights. UBCs are like you having to have a background check to speak, because you might yell fire in a theater. UBCs are unacceptable. Period.

gc70
April 20, 2013, 09:17 PM
For those who have not yet had a chance to read about it, following are links to Coburn's amendment and related documents:

Amendment Text (http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=ec4679e8-8e06-4bc8-bbc5-ea18337f9151)

Section by Section Breakdown (http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8982ef40-1ccf-4325-ad25-b5a0182a7c37)

Talking Points (http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=e9f37e42-c1fd-435e-8104-88308b154e7a)

There is also a current thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=713722) on the topic.

Nikdfish
April 20, 2013, 09:18 PM
Loaning a firearm to a friend/relative for an hour/afternoon/weekend should not involve getting big brother's permission or having to pay for the "privilege" of doing so with my own property...

My state's current statutes against providing a firearm to a known disqualified person are sufficient.

Nick

Sambo82
April 20, 2013, 09:39 PM
From the interview; "The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill; they claimed that it would create some sort of Big Brother registry even though the bill did the opposite."

Under the failed bill, wouldn't every new check now include the Serial # and firearm make/model? I've heard that but can't confirm it. If that is the case then the bill, contrary to what anyone says, was a defacto registry. What other purpose could collecting the firearm's information serve?

And to say that it's conspiracy territory (as the author suggests) to claim that registry = an eventual ban, isn't that what happened in the UK and Australia, and even here with the machine gun registry and the Hughes Amendment?

But hey, let's not hear that "slippery slope" conspiracy talk.

Tomcat47
April 20, 2013, 09:42 PM
Wild Cat ....

Feel free to insist on being submitted (yourself) for government approval of anything you please. I refuse. I no longer care what anyone thinks about the impact on crime. If that sounds socially irresponsible, it's because I refuse to be held responsible for the rest of society. The rest of society can do anything they like, as long as my and my loved ones' lives, liberty, or property remain uninvolved.

Exactly Texican Scott!

I can at the very least see that you make arguments regarding background checks.... but this is the successful lure that they convince you to trust them. History WILL repeat itself on this issue. There is to much at stake and the writing is on the wall as to their true intentions.

Wild Cat ... This was posted yesterday by mac66 and maybe you missed it:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=8882446#post8882446

And Cat I do understand where you are coming from, we all want the country safer from things that will/would harm our friends or family. However this smoke and mirrors has nothing to do with our protection...It is like the so called "Gun Show loophole", at first I thought well it makes sense to do something about that.... but, when I thought about it, it makes no sense at all! The Gunshow environment is probably near 99.9% on the up and up with law abiding citizens legally buying & trading firearms, with proper nics being applied to ffl dealers and the few individual trades that occur are still between legal firearms owners.

Criminals steal most of there guns and perpetrate crimes with them, they have no regard for us or the law.Which brings us to the real issue in this country which is violence.. which they refuse to discuss or even attempt to address in a sensible manner, yet their objective is punishing innocent law abiding citizens and creating laws and rules for them to abide by.

History shows time and time again this approach is a 100% failure!

They are in the Forrest, but they see no trees! or they see them, they just don't care about the trees.... build the fire anyway! :uhoh:

Shadow 7D
April 20, 2013, 09:57 PM
UBC = NO private transactions....
PLEASE wildcat, let me know what the going rate of transfers are, cheapest I've got is $10, and that is ONLY because when I use him, I'm usually getting a number of lots in etc. and yeah, I get a 'volume' discount, other FLL 1's around here charge from $20 (LOW) to $80 or 10% of purchase....

SO PLEASE tell me how it only costs $7
Now, consider a Rural or Bush Alaskan resident.... they are felons? if they trade, give etc. a gun in a rural village?
there are problems...

SharpsDressedMan
April 20, 2013, 10:28 PM
When has the government run ANYTHING efficiently? Fair and equal taxation? EPA? Equal enforcement under the law? Spending (choose any department)? They misuse their authority and can easily abuse the individual by placing a financial hardship on him should he ever have to fight a misdirected arrest or indictment. Even if they have no plans at ALL at this time to confiscate, the anti's would push them to a registry, etc, and keep pushing until it DOES happen. This is what I see: More government has given us more laws and regulation. That sounds good at first, but now we are the most regulated society in the world. We were THE leading nation for prosperity, but overregulation of industry has burdened industry to either go out of business, raise prices to accommodate higher costs to COMPLY with regulation (EPA, commerce laws, etc), and this raised prices beyond the international market and caused inflation. Our money has, as a result become worth less and less. The government has good intentions, but the result has been overregulation that causes the average worker to either do without or work more to make up for less buying power, and now each of us has an average of a $70K piece of the national debt hanging over us. Are we really free? Are we really better off than the average Joe in Germany , or China? What if we have a national economic collapse. Will we be prosperous then? Back to the point, allowing the federal government to increase the level of regulation far above our international market competitors has cost us too dearly to compete. They don't know when to stop or redefine regulation. The same will happen with new gun laws usurping the power of the people, in the most direct form, by disarming the citizenry inadvertently by way of well intentioned, but worthless regulation. Have you ever seen the government return freedoms BACK to the people without an arduous and costly fight? Once: with the repeal of prohibition. It would be harder in this day and age, or in any future that I can envision, to restore the 2nd Amendment, should they somehow override it with registry and confiscation.

wild cat mccane
April 20, 2013, 10:34 PM
Some of you need to read more and assume less. Registry for example.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/obama-says-bipartisan-background-check-plan-outlaw/

There is no "black market" for guns in America. How can there be if legal transactions don't require checks. That makes the "legal" market fraught with illegal transactions.

Also, the majority (if not all) claims are false by the gun lobby. Check it out.
http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=guns

buckhorn_cortez
April 20, 2013, 10:34 PM
Criminals won't comply with a UBC to obtain a firearm. So any idea that in some way a UBC would affect the crime rate is totally false. You do realize that in 2011 more than 40,000 firearms transactions were denied based upon the BATFE 4473 - the Justice Department prosecuted about 60 of the cases. The reason given - "We don't have the personnel available to pursue that many cases."

So - they already have a system that is working, yet the government has chosen to purposely NOT pursue people who are attempting to purchase firearms and failing the NICS check with outstanding warrants etc.

What is it exactly that you think a UBC would do? Stop criminals from obtaining firearms? No - it won't. Stop mentally deranged people from getting firearms? No - it won't. Place a further burden on law abiding citizens for no reason? Bingo...

It's a political attempt to look good and make a certain group of people feel good because "they're doing something." Whether it works is completely unimportant when what you're after is simply feeling good about yourself.

The UBC is security theater and nothing more.

beatledog7
April 20, 2013, 10:37 PM
No conspiracy theories here, and no tin-foil hats, just a healthy dose of mistrust of government intervention that's based on a lot of study and observation. It is already too big and too powerful. The more room we give it to grow, the bigger government will become, and with its increasing size will come a greater appetite for our freedom.

UBC represents government growth. It is in conflict with the enumerated powers of the federal government and, therefore, a bad idea regardless of what it seeks to do.

Arkansas Paul
April 20, 2013, 10:50 PM
I am a gun owner and I support universal checks.

Hey! Are you that bearded guy in that Bloomberg commercial?

beatledog7
April 20, 2013, 10:56 PM
wild cat mccane, why do you believe what you read on that site?

UBC would be patently unenforceable w/o registration. Others have explained why. Despite the wording of the proposal, we would inevitable be told that it must be changed in order to enforce what the people so desperately want.

There is a black market for guns just as there is for every other regulated thing from cable TV to booze. Regulation of trade is the cause of black markets. Some regulation may be warranted, but there is no denying that every piece of regulation is the genesis of a new way of getting around it.

mg.mikael
April 20, 2013, 10:59 PM
Quote:
I am a gun owner and I support universal checks.

Hey! Are you that bearded guy in that Bloomberg commercial?

HA!.....gave me a good laugh. ;)

CSG
April 20, 2013, 11:14 PM
As a former LEO, I oppose checks, period! What I do support is prosecuting people who use guns in the commission of a crime.

The issue of mental stability is an interesting problem and a very slippery slope. Who pronounces one fit or unfit to own a firearm?

The second amendment is much clearer to me than some in this country.

r1derbike
April 20, 2013, 11:18 PM
Some of you need to read more and assume less. Registry for example.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/obama-says-bipartisan-background-check-plan-outlaw/

There is no "black market" for guns in America. How can there be if legal transactions don't require checks. That makes the "legal" market fraught with illegal transactions.

Also, the majority (if not all) claims are false by the gun lobby. Check it out.
http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=guns
If it's in politifact, it must be true!

I believe nothing I read, and only half of what I say.

I'm for reducing mass murder, no matter the instrument used.

All the proposed gun control facades this administration pushed, addressed NONE of the issues that directly control violent crime with guns. Our own justice department pointed this out in their white papers; they would have no significant impact on violent crime.

In light of this, why would any sane firearm owner subject himself to more laws and inconvenience, and possibly felonious criminal charges? They wouldn't, and won't!

clutch
April 20, 2013, 11:26 PM
I think we should just repeal GCA68. That abomination should have taken a Constitutional amendment to be legal.

rdhood
April 20, 2013, 11:28 PM
It's a political attempt to look good and make a certain group of people feel good because "they're doing something." Whether it works is completely unimportant when what you're after is simply feeling good about yourself.

further, they are doing it at the expense of a minority of law abiding citizens, demonizing them as the lunatic fringe. It makes it all the more despicable.

Shadow 7D
April 20, 2013, 11:36 PM
So, you support a 'buyer card'

OK, and how would this be enforced???
Please tell me...

BTW, this would create a database that contained the name and address of every purchaser in the US...
Yeah a registry is illegal, well doesn't stop the ATF from 'digitalizing' their records into a 'searchable' from...

Kiln
April 20, 2013, 11:40 PM
Yo dawg, I stole this piece last night. I want $150 for it but we gotta go do a background check and make sure you're not prohibited. - said no criminal ever

tomrkba
April 20, 2013, 11:53 PM
I am a gun owner and I support universal checks.

Why?

What do they do to stop criminals? Any background check does nearly nothing with regard to crime (it only stops the lazy and stupid). Any enterprising criminal can either work a little bit and steal the gun or ask someone he or she knows will pass the check. A nutcase can do the same thing and we have documented instances of stolen guns used to commit murder. The Columbine murders used a patsy to buy the guns for them.

Those in government know background checks do nearly nothing to stop crime. It's a placebo to entice you into believing "government is doing something" while disguising the true purpose. The true purpose is to track which law abiding citizens have weapons. We know this because of how states such as California have behaved in the past and are currently behaving. This is not fantasy; we know what California did to gun owners who had previously legal SKS rifles.

The "universal background check" tracks the entire pool of known guns and their owners. It tracks all transfers between law abiding citizens and guns that exit the system due to theft or destruction. It is not possible to track transfers between criminals since those guns are either in the pool and labeled "lost or destroyed" or they were never in the system to begin with.

Furthermore, the US government does not control the border. They cannot stop the flow of narcotics and weapons. These weapons will never be tracked and will go directly to criminals. So, again, how does stop any of this? It does not and the politicians know it. Therefore, again, the purpose of universal background checks it to track citizens. Why do they need to know this information unless they intend to use it?

CSG
April 20, 2013, 11:56 PM
Is the OP even for real or just trolling on a Saturday night?

Thermactor
April 20, 2013, 11:58 PM
He hasn't come back to the thread since he poked the beehive. Maybe he's busy fiddling with his double-barreled wabbit hunting shotgun.

jerkface11
April 21, 2013, 12:01 AM
He usually just pops up to say the supreme court upheld the AWB in 1993 then refuses to give a source. Not hard to believe he supports "universal background checks" since he isn't on our side.

buckhorn_cortez
April 21, 2013, 12:04 AM
Of interest is the fact that the National Institute of Justice concluded that requiring background checks on otherwise private firearms transfers would be “ineffective” without requiring gun registration.

If you don't believe that UBC would be a prelude to gun registration, you're naive or kidding yourself. If a UBC was passed, just exactly how long do you think it would be before we started hearing that "In order for the UBC to be totally effective, we need gun registration"?

It's not out of character that Obama was "outraged" that gun control didn't pass. It's interesting that he's "outraged" about that and not Benghazi, the Muslim backed terrorist explosions at the Boston Marathon and a number things isn't it?

The reason he was outraged had nothing to do with crime, public safety or any other charade he's tried to pass off as concern about the American people.

What was really going on is that the Senate was supposed to have passed the UBC bill so that it could fail in the House. In that way, Obama could use it as a "wedge issue" in the 2014 elections to attempt to gain control of the House so that he could steamroll whatever legislation he wanted (e.g. - Obamacare) in 2015 and 2016.

ShelbyV8
April 21, 2013, 12:18 AM
If me and you decide to trade guns or I decide to sell you a gun there is no way to know unless the government knows what guns we already own and come out and check to see what we have today. As to mentally deranged people unless they are adjudicated by a judge there is no public record. Doctor patient privilege prevent access to patient records without a court order so how is that going to work. BS BS BS

Ignition Override
April 21, 2013, 01:13 AM
According to one report on a very popular news channel (which does Not film the US prison system as entertainment..;)), there are numerous states which have Not entered thousands of "mentally-adjudicated" people into the database accessed by the NICS. Or something to that effect.

Even if all such cases were entered, this is just a small part of the solution.

A personal transaction involving a guy selling me a rifle in a McDonald's parking lot is Not a gun black market, because it is legal, I'm not a convicted felon, and neither are a majority of other people who do this within their state of residence.
The seller asked me whether I was a convicted felon.

Ridgerunner665
April 21, 2013, 01:28 AM
UBC's are just another step along the way to registration.

History proves that big brother doesn't take our Freedoms all at once, but in increments...if we give them these background checks, then they will start working to get full registration...

That's just how they work....they think we are too niave to realize what's really happening and the OP appears to be just that.

okiewita40
April 21, 2013, 02:29 AM
I am with with CSG on this. Being a current LEO I think that if a gun is used in the commision of a crime. The criminal should get a min. sentence of life. And if said criminal shoots or kills anyone then an automatic death sentence is put in place.

CSG
April 21, 2013, 03:04 AM
God bless, Oklahoma! I know a lot of LEO's who feel the same as you and I do about this issue.

BigBore44
April 21, 2013, 04:26 AM
Okiewita,
Nice to see someone else from northeast oklahoma.

Will someone please explain why we have life in prison? At almost $40,000 a year to keep an inmate, if they aren't getting out, why do we house them? They are obviously too dangerous to be released. So what's the point?

Also some people, no matter how many examples we give, will NEVER understand UBC are an infringement, and a step towards confiscation. They must still think the government would NEVER do something so out of touch or off base with American rights.....

thump_rrr
April 21, 2013, 05:34 AM
I don't understand why people equate a background check with registration?

In Canada we have a PAL (Posession and Acquisition License)
I walk into any gun store and show my license and walk out with any Non Restricted gun.
There is no phone call, no taking of information on what I purchased etc.
I can also purchase from any private individual either face to face or over the Internet the same way. We can even send firearms directly to another individual through the federal mail system.

I understand that you would view licensing as an erosion of your 2A rights.
I also understand that tomorrow I could become a prohibited person who would still be in posession of a PAL.

They could call it a speed pass or a pre-check or something where it is not a license but a pre approval of a background check.

What I'm getting at is that the simplicity of our system in this regard sure beats FFL transfers and a background check every time you go to purchase a firearm.

Armymutt
April 21, 2013, 07:53 AM
We already have that in many states. A concealed carry license in those states serves the same purpose.

I love it when someone cites Politifact on the "lies of the NRA" on this bill that just failed. They claim that it covers transactions between family and close friends. Rather than go by what the author of the bill claimed, I actually read the bill, because that's what the ATF will be enforcing, not comments made to a reporter. The word friend does not appear in the bill. So that "lie" is actually truthful. Family is also restricted. I can't give a gun to my cousin's son, nor could I receive my great-grandfather's rifle from my mom's cousin. You couldn't give a gun to your fiance, and non-married couples are discriminated against. If you post the gun for sale on the office bulletin board, you couldn't sell it to anyone in the office.

Texan Scott
April 21, 2013, 09:07 AM
Also, heaven help you if you're gay or lesbian... your partner will NOT be recognized as a family member. Giving a gun to someone with whom you share a home and a bed, and trust with your life, could make you both "criminals".

buckhorn_cortez
April 21, 2013, 09:50 AM
Some of you need to read more and assume less. Registry for example.

I don't understand why people equate a background check with registration?

Uh...huh...well while you were occupied with watching what the Senate was doing with the UBC bill, two Democrats introduced HR661 in the House.

That bill negated all of the requirements for the federal government to destroy UBC data within a certain time period. What that means is they wanted to make it legal for the federal government to maintain a database of UBC firearms information - that IS, de facto registration.

If you don't think the Democrats want registration and then confiscation of firearms - then answer the question, "Why did two Democrats introduce HR661"?

Please, don't kid yourself - just look at what the Democrats are doing in attempting to regulate and make legal the collection of information on who owns firearms.

I'm not a tinfoil hatter - they're really aluminum foil deflector beanies (AFDB) - but, neither am I naive or stupid enough to trust that the majority of Democrats support the 2nd Amendment - because they don't. They think you can control anything and everything that is "dangerous" - and by doing so, you are making life better for everyone. It's delusional and the antithesis to freedom - but, it makes Progressives feel good - and that's what it's all about.

If you'd like more on making your own AFDB - then go Here (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/) - you might as well have the best.

Redlg155
April 21, 2013, 09:52 AM
Two things...

1. Has universal background checks proven effective in states where you must have a permit to purchase or own a firearm? No. UBCs are just a way to get "free" states in line.

2. Before deciding to say "Yes", have you read the entire proposed bill? New Yorkers found this the hard way with their new laws when a vote was pushed before debate and before legislators could read the entire text of the bill in a comprehensive manner.

Elkins45
April 21, 2013, 10:21 AM
Some of you need to read more and assume less. Registry for example.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/obama-says-bipartisan-background-check-plan-outlaw/

There is no "black market" for guns in America. How can there be if legal transactions don't require checks. That makes the "legal" market fraught with illegal transactions.

Also, the majority (if not all) claims are false by the gun lobby. Check it out.
http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=guns
You're using Politifact as a reference? HA! Just because a website says it is a fact-checking site doesn't mean it really is. Politifact is well known it interpret every statement by liberals with the widest possible latitude and to narrowly parse every word a conservative says.

Politifact carries absolutely NO weight with thinking people.

Trung Si
April 21, 2013, 10:51 AM
Politifact carries absolutely NO weight with thinking people.

I happen to agree!

HKGuns
April 21, 2013, 11:26 AM
I am a gun owner and I support universal checks.

Then you are part of the problem, turn your thinking around and start being part of the solution. One more to add to my ignore list....Thanks for your post.

Old Fuff
April 21, 2013, 12:39 PM
I would hope that the member who opened this thread, (as well as others) would be wise enough to read the actual bills covering universal background checks that the senate voted on last week, rather then depend on any media source with an agenda.

Those that took the time to do this know that the bill, written by Sen. Shumer D/NY, would have required even temporary private transfers between individuals be brokered through a federally licensed gun dealer where the buyer would have to fill out a 4473 form as well as pass a background check. The background check wasn't what bill's supporters wanted. To them a complete hard-copy record detailing the gun owners personal details as well as specifics about the firearm (make, model, serial, description, etc.) was.

Prior to the vote, some negotiations occurred between Republicans and Democrats concerning a background check procedure that wouldn't involve a 4473 form, but the effort failed because the Democrats refused to consider any system that didn't leave a hard-copy record. A later compromise was put to a vote and failed because it too would have left a paper trail.

The lesson here should be, never make up your mind on legislation on the basis of what the media says about it. Instead read what is being voted on yourself.

wild cat mccane
April 21, 2013, 12:50 PM
then you object to the regulation of automatic weapons? Notice how auto weapons are never used? why? Law.

Arbo
April 21, 2013, 12:54 PM
Some of you need to read more and assume less. Registry for example.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/barack-obama/obama-says-bipartisan-background-check-plan-outlaw/

There is no "black market" for guns in America. How can there be if legal transactions don't require checks. That makes the "legal" market fraught with illegal transactions.

Also, the majority (if not all) claims are false by the gun lobby. Check it out.
http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=guns
Politifact is a partisan site, full of crap.

The reality is, if the fed's need your name, address, SSN all to do a BGC on you, they then know you bought a gun. That in and of itself is a registry. Period.

gego
April 21, 2013, 01:01 PM
What other right can be infringed by us being required to get government approval before we can exercise that right? If exercise of a God given, and Constitutionally guaranteed right requires prior government approval, hasn't that right been destroyed and turned into a government granted privilege. Did you need to get a background check before you registered on this site to express your thoughts? Do journalists need government approval before they can write or report on news events? Do you need government approval before you can buy pencil and paper (or computer)? Do you need a background check before you go to your church?

If you use your rights to commit a crime, then you are punishable, but not before. We are not slaves; we are free men. The real risk we face is not from other free men, but from politicians and fellow citizens who don't believe in freedom or understand freedom, and can go through mental contortions to justify destroying rights, some on this site included.

Deanimator
April 21, 2013, 01:05 PM
I am a gun owner and I support universal checks.
You SAY you're a gun owner.

You support REGISTRATION, because that's the ONLY way that sham "universal background checks" can EVER be enforced.

Now tell everyone how REGISTRATION was used in Chicago to create and enforce a BAN.

Nobody's buying the B.S..

No registration.
No bans.
No confiscations.

NO, I REFUSE.

Deanimator
April 21, 2013, 01:10 PM
Also, the majority (if not all) claims are false by the gun lobby.
I don't know ANY gun owner who uses the term "gun lobby".

You're not just a troll, but a singularly ineffective one.

beatledog7
April 21, 2013, 01:14 PM
Notice how auto weapons are never used? why? Law.

No, it's because they proved to be inefficient in rounds per hit terms. Fully automatic weapons are difficult for most shooters to hold on target and just plain expensive to buy and operate.

But sure, it is illegal to commit murder with a fully automatic weapon. Or any other weapon.

Deanimator
April 21, 2013, 01:18 PM
then you object to the regulation of automatic weapons? Notice how auto weapons are never used?
REGISTERED automatic firearms are rarely used in crimes. Unregistered ones are.

Since you are such a big fan of the National Firearms Act, do you advocate that ALL firearms sales be subject to the same restrictions?

Should I need the approval of the "chief law enforcement officer" of my town in order to buy a handgun?

Again, you're not fooling ANYBODY.

springer7676
April 21, 2013, 01:37 PM
Once the Government, any Government any country, has registration of anything it has control. Simple as that. All one has to do is take a look at how you as an American citizen are already registered with the Government. No need to name them but in all those registrations who has the final word, you are the government, state or federal?

yokel
April 21, 2013, 03:12 PM
We all know the wretched NFA's true purpose: To deter, dissuade, and inhibit ownership of anything deemed objectionable by the powers that be.

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

Such an abomination constitutes a disadvantage for us in every sense of the word and must be done away with somehow.

Indeed, it remains to this day a road map for the exponents of domestic disarmament by showing them their ways around and through their problem of how to "regulate" the Bill of Rights into insignificance and oblivion!

gc70
April 21, 2013, 03:51 PM
The background check wasn't what bill's supporters wanted. To them a complete hard-copy record detailing the gun owners personal details as well as specifics about the firearm (make, model, serial, description, etc.) was.

Our opponents deny that they want registration, but they are absolutely insistent that any new legislation creates more ownership records that are necessary for a registration system.

CSG
April 21, 2013, 03:56 PM
The OP is nothing more than a troll. Lots of them planted on gun forums these days.

Carl N. Brown
April 21, 2013, 04:04 PM
There is no "black market" for guns in America. How can there be if legal transactions don't require checks. That makes the "legal" market fraught with illegal transactions.

The neighborhood I grew in, the hoods got their guns illegally, often from bootleggers (we were "dry" until 1968, except for a few members-only clubs licensed by the state like Eagles and VFW). So "There is no "black market" for guns in America." fails the personal experience test.

Black market did not show up in the National Survey on Private Ownership and use of Firearms NSPOF used by the Obama administration for that infamous 40% stat, but it was a survey of random selected non-institutionalised citizens. Legal gun acquisitions represent the majority of the national gun market. Sources used by the average citizen were broken down by the (NSPOF):
NSPOF Survey: From whom did you acquire your gun?
43% Gun store
6% Pawnshop
11% Other store
4% Gun show or flea market
3% Through the mail (pre-1898 or muzzleloader)
17% Member of the family
12% Friend or acquaintance
4% Other
NSPOF Survey: How did you acquire your gun?
60% Retail purchase
13% Purchase from private party (used guns)
3% Swap or trade from private party (used guns)
19% Gift from family or friend
5% Inheritance
Notice that 40% non-store acquisition is not 40% sales at gun shows without a background check.

No mention of black market in the NSPOF survey; for black market, you have to survey state inmates or armed criminals.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics survey gave these as sources of guns possessed by state inmates:
13.9% Retail Sources:
8.3% Retail store
3.8% Pawnshop
1.0% Flea market
0.7% Gun show
39.6% Friends or family:
12.8% Purchase or trade
18.5% Rent or borrow
8.3% Other
39.2% Street/illegal source:
9.9% Theft or burglary
20.8% Drug dealer/street
8.4% Fence/black market

(I count drug dealers, fences, burglars with the black market. And "friends" of criminals are often criminals themselves. Sometimes family of criminals are also criminals.)

In the more focussed felon survey of 1,874 felons convicted of crimes while armed (Wright & Rossi, "Armed and Considered Dangerous"), about half of gun sources were street sales: fence, burglar, drug dealer, smuggler, black market; one-fourth were loans from fellow criminals ("friends" in the BJS survey); one-eighth were guns stolen for personal use and the remaining one-eighth or so were retail purchase at gun store or pawn shop by friend, lover or family member with no criminal record (usually "straw purchase").

While about 13% of "armed and considered dangerous" felons reported stealing guns for personal use, 40% of them reported stealing guns--for resale to fences or other criminals or trade with drug dealers. Sources stolen from included manufacturers, truck shipments, wholesalers, retailers, police and homes. Most of those sources would still exist under a total ban on civilian gun ownership.

Bianchi?
April 21, 2013, 04:14 PM
Carl, do you have link to those sources?

X-Rap
April 21, 2013, 04:14 PM
Another one of the 5000 proud Bull Moose-rs shilling for Sen Udall

HKGuns
April 21, 2013, 04:31 PM
Come on Carl, it doesn't matter what the facts are "if you can save just one life."

Deanimator
April 21, 2013, 04:41 PM
Come on Carl, it doesn't matter what the facts are "if you can save just one life."
I'm fond of telling anti-gunners:

"It would be virtually impossible for most serial killers to operate if the United States adopted Soviet style internal passports and legally tied ones residence to their place of employment. If it would save just ONE life, wouldn't it be better to restrict your freedom of movement?"

I've never had a SINGLE ONE take me up on it.

Clearly, they're NOT interested in saving a LOT of lives, nevermind ONE, if guns AREN'T involved...

Thermactor
April 21, 2013, 04:48 PM
Motion to BAN this troll!

SuperNaut
April 21, 2013, 04:55 PM
I'm fond of telling anti-gunners:

"It would be virtually impossible for most serial killers to operate if the United States adopted Soviet style internal passports and legally tied ones residence to their place of employment. If it would save just ONE life, wouldn't it be better to restrict your freedom of movement?"

I've never had a SINGLE ONE take me up on it.

Clearly, they're NOT interested in saving a LOT of lives, nevermind ONE, if guns AREN'T involved...
Dude it is scary how alike we think. I totally went off on the "if it saves just one life" crap yesterday on FB.

Shadow 7D
April 21, 2013, 04:55 PM
Still in effect BTW, YET the soviets did have a number of serial killers, they were either limited to: the immediate city, OR 'designated' lines of travel, and using their internal passports and the (HUGE) compiled information about who when where, they were usually (eventually) able to limit them to a small pool of possible people

Then again,the soviet ALSO happen to have the most voluminous mass murders, er executioners

Kiln
April 21, 2013, 05:08 PM
Motion to BAN this troll!
Meh, let him spread his opinions. He's not winning over anybody here. People who supported the universal background check bill were genuinely mislead into thinking it would make somebody safer when the obvious reality is that neither of the last two shootings that started this debate would have been stopped by background checks.

It has zero to do with anything. It has everything to do with using a tragedy to forward an agenda that has been in the heads of quite a few political figures for years. They just overestimated the support they'd have behind them for gun control measures.

Dazen
April 21, 2013, 05:23 PM
You got me if he is a troll or not. CNN told me the other day that 74% of all NRA gun owners think this is a good idea. I for one have a very hard time believing this. If they just keep saying it over and over it will eventually become truth to the low information voter.

Kiln
April 21, 2013, 05:51 PM
You got me if he is a troll or not. CNN told me the other day that 74% of all NRA gun owners think this is a good idea. I for one have a very hard time believing this. If they just keep saying it over and over it will eventually become truth to the low information voter.
The only reason they think it is a good idea is because they've been mislead by the media and/or they're not seeing the full scope of what is going on.

Carl N. Brown
April 21, 2013, 06:31 PM
"... It costs $7. ..." The private background check in Tennessee that has been around awhile is $30 but no real effort is made to publicize how to access it and it is largely unused. The D.C. private background check for guns is $125 but they are simply trying for no private transactions. Gun taxes are like poll taxes: an attempt to "regulate" a right into oblivion.

You don't have to hear the interview; NPR has a transcript at the link. I am not impressed with either of them.

"Coburn Proposal Would Make Buyer Prove Ability To Buy Guns", NPR, 18 Apr 2013.

NPR's Seigel interviewing Sen. Coburn of Oklahoma.

Coburn: "...if you've ever been to a gun show, the vast majority of guns sold at gun shows aren't sold by licensed dealers."

The gun shows I have attended at Meadowview Convention Center, the Kingsport Civic Auditorium, and Appalachian Fair Grounds, most vendors with guns ARE licensed dealers and HAVE run backgrpund checks and 4473 sale record, same procedure as at their storefront gunshop. Yes, private individuals do buy, sell or trade used guns at gun shows, but they (including me) have been the minority. Remember, gun shows used to be private collectors and general public only only and dealers were not allowed to set up shop by ATF regs.

Siegel: "But there seems to be some circular reasoning here. Wasn't the whole idea to try to extend background checks to transactions at gun shows?"

Dealer transactions--the majority of gun show sales--are already subject to the NICS background check. The circular reasoning is the claim by the Obama administration that NSPOF "40% of non-dealer acquisitions" are sales at gun shows without background checks, when gun shows and flea markets were only 4% of all NSPOF gun acquisitions.

As far as us gun nuts having an unfounded fear that the Democrats want make a gun registry, try this article in the wake of Newtown:
http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/111266/franklin-roosevelt-the-father-gun-control#
Adam Winkler, "Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control", The New Republic, 19 Dec 2012.
Gun control is one of the great pieces of unfinished business for the Democratic Party. ... Like health care, social security, and so many other issues central to the Democratic agenda, the party’s support for gun control stems from Franklin D. Roosevelt. ... Roosevelt’s original proposal for what would become the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun control law, sought to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns. ....
FDR as a New York Democrat saw the NY Sullivan Act as a model of gun control for the nation. It was FDR's 1934 National Firearms Act and 1938 Federal Firearms Act that promoted the NRA to get involved in defending the Second Amendment.

Wiki- The New Republic (TNR) is a liberal American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts published continuously since 1914
TNR- Adam Winkler is a professor at UCLA School of Law and the author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America.

Carl N. Brown
April 21, 2013, 06:51 PM
Crimes are committed with illegal machineguns. For example, the North Hollywood Bank Robbery. Alan Berg was assassinated by a white supremacist gang with a illegal machinegun made for them by a white supremacist group called Covenant Sword and Arm of the Lord that made machineguns for other groups.

The claim that no legally registered machine guns are used in crime points out the fact that legal owners are lawabiding citizens who don't commit crimes. Even though no legally registered machine guns are used in crime, the Democrats used the Hughes Amendment to close the NFA registry to new machineguns in 1986, freezing the legal number at that point in time. If semi-auto military replica rifles are made NFA, watch for a limited amnesty window for registration, then a closure of the registry to new guns.

Carl N. Brown
April 21, 2013, 07:04 PM
The NSPOF survey used by the Obama administration for the claim that 40% of gun sales are at gun shows without a background check, is available here:
http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt
http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf
The PDF version includes the graphs. It was a fairly big random survey of 2,568 gun owners, conducted by Chiltons for the Police Foundation under a grant from National Institute of Justice. It is old: it is the survey used in 1997 for Clinton Administration gun policies. But it is the survey used by the current admin for the 40% figure. However, the number of gun owners reporting buying a gun between Nov 1991 and Dec 1994 was 251 of the total sample.

Caroline Wolf Harlow, "Firearm Use by Offenders", Bureau of Justice Statistics, 4 Nov 2001, NCJ 189369.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt
Over 14,000 state inmates were interviewed for this project.

Shadow 7D
April 21, 2013, 07:29 PM
If they opened the NFA
I'd convert EVERYTHING I own...
just because

As for the 40% number, it's pretty bad when the anti gun WaPa give's 4 Pinocchio's for an agenda they are pushing...

Carl N. Brown
April 21, 2013, 07:49 PM
Glenn Kessler, "Obama's continued use of the claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks", The Washimgton Post, The Fact Checker: the Truth Behind the Rhetoric, 2 April 2013.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-continued-use-of-the-claim-that-40-percent-of-gun-sales-lack-background-checks/2013/04/01/002e06ce-9b0f-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_blog.html

Be careful touching a politician's statistics, you never know where they have been or came from.

razorback2003
April 21, 2013, 08:10 PM
Add in a true compromise by allowing people to register NFA WW2 to Nam machine guns, repeal Hughes, and then I might listen to the background check ideas. Without that, I'll leave things the way they are and not entertain the anti gun idea of so called 'compromise'.

The-Reaver
April 21, 2013, 08:12 PM
Yeah, background checks is an incredibly stupid idea.

Carl N. Brown
April 21, 2013, 08:32 PM
If we could get fences, burglars, drug dealers, smugglers, criminals, family and friends of criminals, etc. to run background checks and refuse to transfer firearms to persons who don't pass, THEN we might impact gun crime.

2011: 80,000,000 gun owners, 430,000 gun crimes per year.

2011: 6,220 handgun homicides out of 112,000,000 handguns or 1 in 18,000.

Should the criminal justice system focus on crime?
Or should the criminal justice system focus on gun owners?
Resources are limited.
Canada decided to repeal its long gun registry 2012.
New Zealand repealed its gun registry in 1983.
But as Adam Winkler points out, FDR's 1934 dream of a US registry of all guns remains unfulfilled, his legacy incomplete. It is a dream he had.

Texan Scott
April 21, 2013, 08:33 PM
There is no black market for handguns? How do they get them in Chicago?
They're illegal in the city ... require a FOID in Illinois, and federal law regulates interstate transfer. How do Chicago criminals get them? Isn't this a failure of gun control?

KTXdm9
April 21, 2013, 08:34 PM
Yo dawg, I stole this piece last night. I want $150 for it but we gotta go do a background check and make sure you're not prohibited. - said no criminal ever
Awesome. That is all.

Carl N. Brown
April 21, 2013, 08:47 PM
Gary Kleck has published studies that there is no organized black market, which some folks persist in representing as no black market.

Well, there was no organized rumrunning in America, just some disorganized moonshining and bootlegging, until the Prohibition Amendment and Volstead Act made rumrunning profitable enough to attract organized crime gangs.

There is disorganized black market traffick in guns--fences and drug dealers who deal in other contraband--no national organisation. Yet. But the folks who gave us Prohibition and the War on Drugs are working on it.

jerkface11
April 21, 2013, 09:13 PM
If there is no black market for firearms where do stolen guns go?

Bruno2
April 21, 2013, 09:20 PM
I am a gun owner and I support universal checks.

You may not be a gun owner for long then.

Coburn was in favor of Background checks. Inhoffe was totally against them. Coburn voted for all the anti gun bills to be debated. He also voted for cloture so that Reid's bill could be debated.

I think Coburn is your style of Senator being in favor of UBC's and all. You probably wouldn't like Jim Inhoffe though. He is an absolutists on gun rights and even passed a law here that says we wont enforce any Federal law that is unconstitutional.

DeepSouth
April 21, 2013, 09:21 PM
Motion to BAN this troll!

After reviewing some of his posts in other threads, I second.

Let's keep this place The High Road, that means removing argumentative low roaders. IMO

Carl N. Brown
April 21, 2013, 09:21 PM
They often go to gun using criminals (often the one who stole the gun does not want to be caught with it). And according to Wright and Rossi ("Under the Gun", "Armed and Considered Dangerous") they are often fenced like stolen DVDs or video games to otherwise ordinary citizens who don't question used "bargains" that are priced too low to be legit.

Tinpig
April 21, 2013, 10:38 PM
Motion to BAN this troll!
Let's keep this place The High Road, that means removing argumentative low roaders.

Not at all.
Low Road would be to ban a member for voicing opinions that fail to toe the ideological line or conform to the majority stance.
High Road is summoning fact and reasoned argument to oppose those opinions.

That's what makes this The High Road.

Tinpig

Bruno2
April 21, 2013, 10:42 PM
Agree Tinpig. Eventually he may change his mind. Let the facts speak.

DeepSouth
April 21, 2013, 11:09 PM
I agree with you.
Read some his other posts I feel you will find a serious lack of "reasoned argument" which is the key to any argument, that is the problem. Even in this thread he has made no argument, other than the crazy no black market guns statement, he has 3 short, pointless post in a 4 page thread the HE started.

I encourage debate, but not engaugeing in pointless bickering with someone that is trying to stir up...........fecal matter.


Sorry, but that's how I see it.

We can disagree, it doesn't really matter anyway. I'm not a Mod, lol

Deanimator
April 22, 2013, 12:56 AM
Agree Tinpig. Eventually he may change his mind.
Only if Sarah Brady tells him to...

Ridgerunner665
April 22, 2013, 01:11 AM
Carl N. Brown again fills a thread with facts...

You and I really should shake hands someday...We've probably passed each other in those crowded isles at the gun shows many times over the years.

On topic,
I don't have much to add except to reiterate that he made some very good points in his posts.

cwo2lt
April 22, 2013, 01:48 AM
I oppose UBC not because of the 2nd Amendment but because of Article 1. Where does it say the Federal Government has the authority to regulate a private, intrastate sale to my neighbor?

CapnMac
April 22, 2013, 01:53 AM
Criminals won't comply with a UBC to obtain a firearm.

Not only that, but we have stare decisis to unequivocally state that it would be a 4th & 5th Amendment violation to require criminals to participate in a UBC and/or Registration scheme.

And that is just the de jure legis ergo, rather than logica legis, whereby a person with mens rea to be an armed criminal would be deterred by the possibility of perjury?

Bruno2
April 22, 2013, 01:55 AM
That $7 argument is weak as well. How much do you think it will go to after the first yr? What would keep the antis from turning it into a poll tax to mak gun ownership more expensive? It's all BS and I am not buying into any of it. I am in the 96% of NRA members that oppose any big brother activity during a gun sale.

csspecs
April 22, 2013, 02:31 AM
Just a point of fact.

There is no need for the law to require a 4473 to be created for private background checks, unless the goal was to create a national registry using that data at a later point.

Yes the FBI is currently shredding its data, and its currently illegal for ATF to make a national registry... But as long as every transaction has a 4473 a complete registry is just a law away.

I am not opposed to background checks. I insist on them when I sell a firearm. However I'm opposed to any system that collects data that could be used for a national registry/confiscation list. It is possible to generate a system that makes people safer, and does NOT erode rights, sadly politicians are opposed to reason.

A system that allows checks on a state level using state IDs for both employment and other checks that prevents the state from knowing what the nature of the check is.

alsaqr
April 22, 2013, 08:15 AM
In order to understand where Coburn is coming from read the current Time magazine article about the 100 most influential Americans. Note the author of the Coburn writeup. The author is president Obama: Coburn and president Obama are close friends.

Sam1911
April 22, 2013, 10:07 AM
Not at all.
Low Road would be to ban a member for voicing opinions that fail to toe the ideological line or conform to the majority stance.
High Road is summoning fact and reasoned argument to oppose those opinions.

That's what makes this The High Road.

It is good to see that some do understand how we view such things here! :)

We will NOT ban someone for expressing an opinion or asking questions -- even if they think the opinion may be unpopular, or if they believe the questions may be "tough" ones.

If nothing else, such a thread gives us a useful sparring "dummy" (the thread, NOT the poster! :D) to practice battering around. If all we do all day is sit around telling ourselves how right we are, that's not very effective. Exercising our arguments and PROVING why we believe what we do is very useful.

...

Having said that:

If you suspect someone is deliberately "Trolling" -- DON'T waste your breath and our space calling them a troll. 1) You're probably wrong and 2) If you're right, so what? You think they'll throw up their hands and say, "Awww, ya GOT me!" :rolleyes:

Just hit the report post button and ask the Staff to handle the matter. Thanks.

jerkface11
April 22, 2013, 11:04 AM
A quick check of his posts proves he isn't honestly disagreeing.

Sam1911
April 22, 2013, 11:54 AM
A quick check of his posts proves he isn't honestly disagreeing.That would be a perfectly acceptable thing to put in your REPORTED POST comment to the Staff.

Doesn't add anything to the public conversation, though.

Arkansas Paul
April 22, 2013, 12:16 PM
http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac223/prgann/Backgroundchecks_zps835c59a2.jpg (http://s902.photobucket.com/user/prgann/media/Backgroundchecks_zps835c59a2.jpg.html)

Vector
April 22, 2013, 12:19 PM
Not at all.
Low Road would be to ban a member for voicing opinions that fail to toe the ideological line or conform to the majority stance.
High Road is summoning fact and reasoned argument to oppose those opinions.

That's what makes this The High Road.

Tinpig

I agree as well.

I agree with you.
Read some his other posts I feel you will find a serious lack of "reasoned argument" which is the key to any argument, that is the problem. Even in this thread he has made no argument, other than the crazy no black market guns statement, he has 3 short, pointless post in a 4 page thread the HE started.

I encourage debate, but not engaugeing in pointless bickering with someone that is trying to stir up...........fecal matter.


Sorry, but that's how I see it.

We can disagree, it doesn't really matter anyway. I'm not a Mod, lol

You cannot agree with him on the one hand then still make a case to do the opposite of what he said.

Education and the civil exchange of ideas is what it is all about. If you feel he is a troll, so be it, and just ignore his posts. You can even make a counter point without quoting him or mentioning his ID. Sooner or later the light bulb will go off, and he will likely moderate his views based on the steady stream of informed, fact based information.

`

Steel Horse Rider
April 22, 2013, 12:31 PM
People like the OP prevent this place from becoming an echo chamber similar to the one in Washington DC from whence the stupidity now radiates. We need to understand what he other side believes so that we may not be blindsided by friends, neighbors, or the education system. His points of reference are also educational in the fact that they illustrate that he is not very interested in exposing himself to factual data that will not support the agenda he has hitched his wagon to. Blinders can generate a false sense of comfort.

Carl N. Brown
April 22, 2013, 12:34 PM
... argumentative low roaders.
Chorus: "Who, me? I resemble that remark!"







Curly Joe in Three Stooges' "Idle Roomers" (1943).

DeepSouth
April 22, 2013, 05:18 PM
Never mind, apparently I am not communicating my point well enough, as most of you don't seem to understand what I'm trying to say.

Sorry

Thermactor
April 22, 2013, 08:28 PM
allowing wild cat mccane, a known agent provocateur and known espouser of vitriolic anti freedom sentiment to continue posting his 'gun owning' 'commonsense' viewpoints on here is nothing less than welcoming the AHSA as a legitimate spokesman for all gun owning, law abiding American citizens. this cannot be tolerated.

Sam1911
April 22, 2013, 08:38 PM
allowing wild cat mccane, a known agent provocateur and known espouser of vitriolic anti freedom sentiment to continue posting his 'gun owning' 'commonsense' viewpoints on here is nothing less than welcoming the AHSA as a legitimate spokesman for all gun owning, law abiding American citizens.Bull-pucky.

As I already explained, if someone wants to debate a point they disagree on, we have NO problem with that. WE WELCOME THE CHANCE TO AIR OUT OUR VIEWS.

If we cannot present logical counters to their points (and we CLEARLY can) then what is the point of sitting around the circle patting each other on the back? If we don't have the ability to meet another person's theories and opinions with fact and sound rebuttal, we're all wasting our time here.

Having one less-resolute member stand up and say he doesn't stand quite so firm on one of our pet issues harms no one and provides a useful sparring drone for some of us to exercise our best arguments upon, and allows many spectators to read all our strongest arguments on a topic in one concise place.

Heck, if folks like this didn't occasionally give us a little workout, we'd have to do this ourselves just to keep each other in fighting trim!

this cannot be tolerated.Oh really? :rolleyes: If such things are intolerable, to you, you're free not to click on the thread or get your back patted elsewhere.

Bruno2
April 22, 2013, 09:29 PM
When I don't like what is being displayed on TV I just change the channel. Calling the station and protesting that they change their programming probably wouldn't work so well.

beatledog7
April 22, 2013, 09:37 PM
Allowing these views to see the light of day is the only way to refute them. An unaired point of view is an unchallenged point of view.

HOOfan_1
April 22, 2013, 09:52 PM
Not at all.
Low Road would be to ban a member for voicing opinions that fail to toe the ideological line or conform to the majority stance.
High Road is summoning fact and reasoned argument to oppose those opinions.

That's what makes this The High Road.

Tinpig

Plus that is what the amazing "ignore list" feature is for.

Texshooter
April 22, 2013, 10:22 PM
PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE

Forest for the trees, please.

OP "wild cat mccane"

mccane, mccane, mccane ............

McCain:what::what::what::what:

goon
April 22, 2013, 11:59 PM
I'd love a system where I could run a check on a private buyer before selling a gun to him, and I'd gladly allow a seller to run one on me if it were possible.
But it isn't. Not without providing a system that could be abused for identity theft or violations of privacy and that will eventually require a registry.

And we have to be careful to not place blame on the huge majority of people who have varying degrees of mental illness and who HARM NO ONE, EVER.

Last, why all the calls for banning this guy?
So you don't agree with him? Put your big kid pants on and deal with it. I live in a country full of people I don't agree with... and that's just how it is. The guy has the right to his opinion. No one is forcing anyone to participate in any discussion here or anywhere else.

VVelox
April 23, 2013, 01:29 AM
This is embarrassing.

I am a gun owner and I support universal checks. It costs $7. Using dumb arguments like this boggles the mind in their logic.

Worth listening to. If you don't catch it, it's circular logic.

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/18/177825289/coburn-proposal-would-make-buyer-prove-ability-to-buy-guns
Interesting. Would you also be oppose to that $7 fee being applied to all your other rights as well?

This is nothing less than a poll tax.

316SS
April 23, 2013, 05:50 PM
And we have to be careful to not place blame on the huge majority of people who have varying degrees of mental illness and who HARM NO ONE, EVER.

I also have a real problem with abridging the rights of the mentally ill as a class. Socio-demographic and economic factors and substance abuse are far greater indicators of violent tendencies than mental illness. In fact I have read that the mentally ill, in the absence of those other factors, are no more likely to commit violent crimes than "sane" people (I have yet to meet one of them "sane" people).

Certainly, some (very few) mentally ill people do terrible things, and some (again, very few) have issues that make responsible gun ownership impossible. But I think it is unfortunate that they are far more often unfairly scapegoated.

Arkansas Paul
April 23, 2013, 06:15 PM
Interesting. Would you also be oppose to that $7 fee being applied to all your other rights as well?

I was thinking the same thing. How about a $7 fee every time you want to exercise your 1st Amendment rights?

Bruno2
April 23, 2013, 06:49 PM
How about it doesn't cost me anything to buy or sell a gun in a private transaction now. Why would I want to start paying $7?

If you enjoyed reading about "Anti universal background check Oklahoma Senator sounding stupid" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!