My main problem with NICS-type background checks is that they are an invention of anti-gun bigots, and are actually aimed at me. That is why they have no measurable effect on crime – criminals are not the targets. The true purpose is to harass and intimidate gun purchasers, and to stigmatize gun-ownership as a sign of criminal intent, deserving of special (negative) treatment by law enforcement. In today’s world, background checks are analogous to voter literacy tests in the old South – it sounds like a plausible idea, until you see who draws up the tests, and what the real effects are. We are Blacks/Jews, and the people pushing the “reasonable” regulations are KKK/Nazis.
Argument against NICS and/or other BG Checks
- Thread starter eric.cartman
- Start date
- Status
Rex B
Member
write your congressperson
RDhood, my advice to your friend would be to write his congressman.
Include a case number or any other information.
Perhaps a discreet inquiry from a congressman might speed the process?
If nothing else, that representative needs to know that the NICS system is not error-free.
RDhood, my advice to your friend would be to write his congressman.
Include a case number or any other information.
Perhaps a discreet inquiry from a congressman might speed the process?
If nothing else, that representative needs to know that the NICS system is not error-free.
FieroCDSP
Member
They would kill it any way they could before it became law. Reason? Many of the votes for those people are contrived or illegal anyway. Subtract the already dead persons' names, the illegals, and the simply made up ones, and they don't have a chance to get elected. Funny how the people complaining loudest about voter fraud are the ones most likely to do it for their own benefit.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Specious Origination
The NICS check (aka Brady check) was pushed into law because some guy (a known stalker), with a small calibre pistol that he'd owned for a long time, shot the president and his press secretary.
The direct and only consequence of this act was to improve personal security around the president and his staff during his travels and appearances.
BWAAAA HA HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
No, wait, the consequence was to outlaw stalkers?
No, wait, the consequence was to outlaw small calibre pistols that have been owned a long time?
Or not.
The consequence was . . . ready? . . . to ban high capacity magazines, pistol grips on rifles, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, certain foreign imports, and . . . to impose a waiting period after a background check.
As though ANY of those things would have done ANYTHING to prevent the shooting of the president. AT ALL!
Think!
He shot the president with a small revolver. Therefore I will ban magazine capacities of more than ten on autopistols.
He shot the president with a gun he'd owned for a long time. Therefore I will impose a waiting period.
He had no prior convictions for violence before shooting the president. Therefore I will require checks for felonies before any gun sale.
He shot the president with a pistol. Therefore I will ban certain rifles.
Hello?
Why do I think NICS is a terrible idea? Because it solves a problem that doesn't exist and never did.
The law books are full of this DO SOMETHING! crap.
NICS was never about reducing crime. The excuse for implementing it is completely specious.
It's not about "gun" control.
It's about "people" control.
And it needs to go away.
The NICS check (aka Brady check) was pushed into law because some guy (a known stalker), with a small calibre pistol that he'd owned for a long time, shot the president and his press secretary.
The direct and only consequence of this act was to improve personal security around the president and his staff during his travels and appearances.
BWAAAA HA HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
No, wait, the consequence was to outlaw stalkers?
No, wait, the consequence was to outlaw small calibre pistols that have been owned a long time?
Or not.
The consequence was . . . ready? . . . to ban high capacity magazines, pistol grips on rifles, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, certain foreign imports, and . . . to impose a waiting period after a background check.
As though ANY of those things would have done ANYTHING to prevent the shooting of the president. AT ALL!
Think!
He shot the president with a small revolver. Therefore I will ban magazine capacities of more than ten on autopistols.
He shot the president with a gun he'd owned for a long time. Therefore I will impose a waiting period.
He had no prior convictions for violence before shooting the president. Therefore I will require checks for felonies before any gun sale.
He shot the president with a pistol. Therefore I will ban certain rifles.
Hello?
Why do I think NICS is a terrible idea? Because it solves a problem that doesn't exist and never did.
The law books are full of this DO SOMETHING! crap.
NICS was never about reducing crime. The excuse for implementing it is completely specious.
It's not about "gun" control.
It's about "people" control.
And it needs to go away.
ConfuseUs
Member
Simple reason why NICS should be abolished: If NICS actually worked the way its proponents say it would then murders with firearms should have dropped by 80% or more immediately after it went into effect and the murder rates involving firearms should have stayed at that new level for years afterward. Furthermore, all criminals caught with firearms would have only old firearms that existed in the market before NICS.
Well, murders involving guns did not drop like a stink trout in a well right after NICS went into effect and criminals have been regularly caught with new guns for the past 10 years or so. NICS is an utter failure at keeping guns out of criminal hands.
Well, murders involving guns did not drop like a stink trout in a well right after NICS went into effect and criminals have been regularly caught with new guns for the past 10 years or so. NICS is an utter failure at keeping guns out of criminal hands.
TallPine
Member
Only for three business days.
[/QUOTE]
The 3 business day rule only starts after your FFL has reached a NICS operator and received a "delay" on your purchase
TallPine
Member
Well, then please explain to me why I had to wait 24 hours and make another 100 mile round trip because the "system was down" a few years back ...
Back to the original question
I just had a discussion with my brother about this. We started off with the question, "Should murderers be allowed to purchase firearms?"
1) The CATO map shows a shocking number of no-knock raids on the wrong address. If the owner shoots and kills a cop, thinking him to be a BG, and goes to jail, that keeps him from ever owning a firearm. This is not right.
2) A crime of passion might happen once in youth. When said person is 60 or 70, should we deprive an aged man the ability to defend himself?
3) The fashionable BG weapon around my parts these days is the machete. If guns require a background check, shouldn't machetes?
It's this last point that makes the whole argument. A gun is a TOOL, nothing more. It happens to be fairly effective at killing people. However, unless we are willing to regulate chain saws, cars, nail guns, and knives, then it is stupid to regulate guns.
It can be educational to replace the word "guns" with "teddy bears." As in, "Should murderers be allowed to purchase teddy bears?"
A gun is a non-dangerous, inert tool, that's all. NICS is insanity.
I just had a discussion with my brother about this. We started off with the question, "Should murderers be allowed to purchase firearms?"
1) The CATO map shows a shocking number of no-knock raids on the wrong address. If the owner shoots and kills a cop, thinking him to be a BG, and goes to jail, that keeps him from ever owning a firearm. This is not right.
2) A crime of passion might happen once in youth. When said person is 60 or 70, should we deprive an aged man the ability to defend himself?
3) The fashionable BG weapon around my parts these days is the machete. If guns require a background check, shouldn't machetes?
It's this last point that makes the whole argument. A gun is a TOOL, nothing more. It happens to be fairly effective at killing people. However, unless we are willing to regulate chain saws, cars, nail guns, and knives, then it is stupid to regulate guns.
It can be educational to replace the word "guns" with "teddy bears." As in, "Should murderers be allowed to purchase teddy bears?"
A gun is a non-dangerous, inert tool, that's all. NICS is insanity.
pcosmar
member
I am against both, but let me explain.
NICS does not work, as others have said. Backround checks do not accurately check anyones backround.
A local gun dealer would sell me a gun IF he could. He knows me. He knows my family, my past, my "crime" and has known my brothers and my family,and me since birth. He knows my backround.
He would sell me a gun, If he could.
NICS has a notation about my conviction, but nothing about Me.
What about someone who will commit a felony,but has not yet. It does nothing to stop a future felon. That would be dumb to even consider.
It is a failed system, based on a flawed premise.
NICS does not work, as others have said. Backround checks do not accurately check anyones backround.
A local gun dealer would sell me a gun IF he could. He knows me. He knows my family, my past, my "crime" and has known my brothers and my family,and me since birth. He knows my backround.
He would sell me a gun, If he could.
NICS has a notation about my conviction, but nothing about Me.
What about someone who will commit a felony,but has not yet. It does nothing to stop a future felon. That would be dumb to even consider.
It is a failed system, based on a flawed premise.
That is misunderstanding the real purpose.
It is intended to harass and stigmatize gun-owners.
And it works wonderfully well.
Which is why the antis like it so much.
Saying NICS is insanity is like a bull calling the matador a fool for waving that silly cape.
And the sword gets ever closer.
Well, in response to another poster, I advised my friend to write his Senator. He did. WITHIN THREE DAYS, he got a response from the FBI NICS. It turns out his 25 year old misdemeanor was incorrectly listed as a FELONY. On the FBI report, it stated that his sentence was a $33 fine, received in a municipal court. But, the PD input the WRONG code in the "Statute" field... a code for a FELONY. Upon calling the PD where he was convicted (he was convicted in the municipal court of that city 20 days after the arrest), they do not have records from 25 years ago. Neither the PD nor the municipal court has records for that long ago. As the PD records department clerk commented, "oh, that was a mistake that was input at the jail...". Now, because there are no records, no one wants to step up to the plate and write a letter to correct the mistake even though it is CLEAR from the FBI report that a mistake was made. No one from the FBI, the NCIS, the Georgia Crime Information Center, the Police department or the Municipal court is willing to change anything at all without lawyer involvement.
In short: Error inputting info at jail -> Georgia Crime Information Center database -> FBI database -> NICS database. The FBI and GCIC require the issuing entity to correct the mistake (PD). The PD clerk says , "The error was due to incorrectly inputting information at the jail. We maintain no records from that time period, as it was before their computerization. Sorry, but we can't change it."
This is the NCIS system at work. It propagates errors made by idiots. My friend has no proof of anything, and neither do they. All they have is some bits in a database and some fingerprints. Fortunately, the bits in the database conflict as the charge description, the municipal court hearing, and the $33 sentence all go to show that my friend is NOT a felon. Now all he has to do is come up with $1500 to put an attorney on retainer (fat chance) to sue the city to get it changed.
This is the NICS system at work, and the nature of databases in general. All gun owners are just a keystroke away from losing their 2A rights. More as this case pans out....
edit: At least Georgia law allows for the collection of attorny fees and court costs to correct mistakes made by the state and local governments concerning erroneous information in the GBI database at adversely affects gun owner qualification. It IS possible to sue the state or jurisdiction and get your 2A rights back, along with attorney fees and other costs.
Last edited:
That is SICK, INSANE, and DISEASED
The biggest problem with computers is that people trust them more than the person standing across the counter. If the computer says you're a felon, you're a felon. If the computer says you're God, you're God. Most peoples' faith in computers is absolute.
Why do we even have a background check, anyway?
We don't need a background check to purchase a car, and those are much more dangerous to oneself and others!
The problem with NICS is that it is a gun-ban-in-a-bottle. They stop approving, guns stop flowing. Of course, people will still possess guns, but the same thing could happen to our beloved ARs and 1911s as has happened to machine guns; expensive collector's pieces that very few people own, let alone use. That only took 21 years for machine guns!
The biggest problem with computers is that people trust them more than the person standing across the counter. If the computer says you're a felon, you're a felon. If the computer says you're God, you're God. Most peoples' faith in computers is absolute.
Why do we even have a background check, anyway?
We don't need a background check to purchase a car, and those are much more dangerous to oneself and others!
The problem with NICS is that it is a gun-ban-in-a-bottle. They stop approving, guns stop flowing. Of course, people will still possess guns, but the same thing could happen to our beloved ARs and 1911s as has happened to machine guns; expensive collector's pieces that very few people own, let alone use. That only took 21 years for machine guns!
dave_pro2a
Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 447
Real easy.
2A and gun ownership is an unalienable right.
That means every free person has it. If someone is not incarcerated, or on probation, then they are a free member of society.
Limiting gun ownership to only a certain class, or having intrusive hoops and checks that must be jumped through (or licenses), is an infringement.
Gun grabbers say 'control,' but in reality it's just an infringement.
2A and gun ownership is an unalienable right.
That means every free person has it. If someone is not incarcerated, or on probation, then they are a free member of society.
Limiting gun ownership to only a certain class, or having intrusive hoops and checks that must be jumped through (or licenses), is an infringement.
Gun grabbers say 'control,' but in reality it's just an infringement.
The existance of NICS is based on emotion and lies. :banghead:
Of course, if we were to cut out everything in the USG that's based on emotion and lies, we'd be left with...
hmmm....
...Let me think here. I'm sure I'll think of something...
Well, probably something like we used to have, funded by tariffs and excise taxes, so small it was practically nonexistant. Yay! That's more my speed, for sure.
I recently had the experience of talking to a beautiful young lady about gun control. She grew up in this area (Rhode Island is very anti-gun) and, having grown up anti, was quite anti herself. She'd never actually thought about the reality of being accosted by multiple assailants, and what having a gun might mean in that sort of situation. Once she thought about it, she could see why one might carry. She herself is quite afraid of guns, but intellectually, she sees the point.
For the sufficiently mature, reason does still rule emotion.
Someday we will be able to get rid of NICS.
One step at a time.
Of course, if we were to cut out everything in the USG that's based on emotion and lies, we'd be left with...
hmmm....
...Let me think here. I'm sure I'll think of something...
Well, probably something like we used to have, funded by tariffs and excise taxes, so small it was practically nonexistant. Yay! That's more my speed, for sure.
I recently had the experience of talking to a beautiful young lady about gun control. She grew up in this area (Rhode Island is very anti-gun) and, having grown up anti, was quite anti herself. She'd never actually thought about the reality of being accosted by multiple assailants, and what having a gun might mean in that sort of situation. Once she thought about it, she could see why one might carry. She herself is quite afraid of guns, but intellectually, she sees the point.
For the sufficiently mature, reason does still rule emotion.
Someday we will be able to get rid of NICS.
One step at a time.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Repeating Myself
This subject is very closely tied to another current thread, over in General Gun Discussions: Are background checks good or bad?
I have a few posts in there that pretty well lay out my position:
Not like I actually have an opinion or anything on this subject. . .
This subject is very closely tied to another current thread, over in General Gun Discussions: Are background checks good or bad?
I have a few posts in there that pretty well lay out my position:
Bad Framework
Better Than They Are
A Narrower Brush
Punishing The Innocent
Joe
Just So
Venkman
Helpful?
"Background checks are fine."
Easier?
. . . barring ineligible criminals . . .
Strawman?
A Bad Idea With No Flaws
Dr. Peter V.
Prohibit vs Prevent
Specifically Targeted Rights
Right To Refuse Service
Premise Error
Making The FFL Comfortable?
. . . but I thought it would be in bad taste to copy them all here, so you just get the links.Better Than They Are
A Narrower Brush
Punishing The Innocent
Joe
Just So
Venkman
Helpful?
"Background checks are fine."
Easier?
. . . barring ineligible criminals . . .
Strawman?
A Bad Idea With No Flaws
Dr. Peter V.
Prohibit vs Prevent
Specifically Targeted Rights
Right To Refuse Service
Premise Error
Making The FFL Comfortable?
Not like I actually have an opinion or anything on this subject. . .
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
To me, it's a question of the federal government exceeding their jurisdiction. I believe that the US Constitution reserves police powers to the States. If a Virginian wants to buy a firearm in Virginia, he shouldn't need permission from the federal government.
If a State had something like NICS, then I might talk about the effectiveness of the Statewide NICS system. But being a federal/national system, I don't care if it is effective or ineffective ... it's not as if the US Constitution delegates a federal power to do whatever is effective.
If California passed a law that said that Virginians buying a gun in Virginia had to get permission from California first, that is the way I see NICS. Just as California has no jurisdiction over such matters in Virginia, neither does the federal government.
I think it would make sense to have a national database where a State could check to see if a person had a history which, by that States' laws and judgement, disqualified him from certain aspects of the RKBA. But when it becomes a matter of the federal government defining the disqualifications, and telling a State whether or not one of its Citizens has federal approval to purchase a firearm, I think we have lost sight of the US Constitution and the government it frames.
If a State had something like NICS, then I might talk about the effectiveness of the Statewide NICS system. But being a federal/national system, I don't care if it is effective or ineffective ... it's not as if the US Constitution delegates a federal power to do whatever is effective.
If California passed a law that said that Virginians buying a gun in Virginia had to get permission from California first, that is the way I see NICS. Just as California has no jurisdiction over such matters in Virginia, neither does the federal government.
I think it would make sense to have a national database where a State could check to see if a person had a history which, by that States' laws and judgement, disqualified him from certain aspects of the RKBA. But when it becomes a matter of the federal government defining the disqualifications, and telling a State whether or not one of its Citizens has federal approval to purchase a firearm, I think we have lost sight of the US Constitution and the government it frames.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
eric.cartman said:
That is because you are being treated like a criminal. You will not be allowed to buy your gun until you prove you are not a criminal. This is NOT sarcasm.
Woody
Truth be told, soap boxes and ballot boxes are made out of empty cartridge boxes. B.E. Wood
Michigander
Member
"... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1828 said:
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary 1913 said:
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Johnson's Dictionary, 1755
INFRINGE, INFRINGEMENT, INFRINGER
Hasn't changed much. In fact, it means the same now as it did then.
Woody
"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood
INFRINGE, INFRINGEMENT, INFRINGER
To Infringe, v. a. [infringe, Latin.]
Infringement
Infringer
1. To violate; to break laws or contracts,
2. To destroy; to hinder
2. To destroy; to hinder
Infringement
Breach; violation.
Infringer
A breaker, a violator.
Hasn't changed much. In fact, it means the same now as it did then.
Woody
"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood
eric.cartman
Member
ArfinGreebly,
You and I are on the same page.
You and I are on the same page.
- Status
