1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Thought experiment RE: private sales of firearms

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ngnrd, Jan 16, 2013.

  1. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    Background checks do not violate the constitution either and the supreme court has said so.
  2. JohnBT

    JohnBT Well-Known Member

    "Freedom of speech does not kill people"

    Then why are there laws against inciting riots [18 USCS ยง 2102] and yelling fire in a theater? Hmm?
  3. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    Please provide me with these court rulings.
  4. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    Please provide a cite to this decision.
  5. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Well-Known Member

    No. But I don't have to know that because I'm not obligated to conduct such a check. However, assuming that guy wants a gun really bad, he will simply steal a gun if he can't buy one. So your background check law won't solve anything.

    ngnrd, you seem intelligent. How can you keep missing that point?
  6. kalel33

    kalel33 Active Member

    Glad to know there are people out there wanting drunk 12 year olds running around or think that heroine being legal is OK. Just glad you're in the very small minority.
  7. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    I'll bet you'd watch gun violence take a significant drop if you were to legalize and regulate drugs. Much less incentive for gang bangers to shoot each other over territory when anyone can go buy their smack from the local "drug" store.
  8. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    Printz v. United states which held that the interim provision requiring local law enforcement to perform background checks was unconstitutional.

    What this meant was that between the passage of the Brady Bill in 93 and the go live date of NICS in 98, local law enforcement could not be compelled to do the checks. The law required the federal government to perform these checks and in 1998, NICS began and has been upheld since.

    by the way, I'm still waiting for the "data" on NICS that you said I should examine. Please provide this so we can all get the straight dope.
  9. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    Which had nothing at all to do with the background check itself.
  10. chipcom

    chipcom member

    Way ahead of you on that...I dumped the GOP after they went bat-shiite freakin crazy after 9/11. Party affiliations mean squat, they're all big government toadies when comes right down to it.
  11. chipcom

    chipcom member

    I did my time in elected office and have seen what good intentions turn into once they become codified - bad laws.

    But I wouldn't want to derail your fast train to doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result "this time". Idealism is great, had a little of it myself once...but idealism doesn't conquer hard realities...and the hard, sad reality is that our government can no longer be trusted to administer the important aspects of our lives...our means of self defense being one of them. You want to give your plan a shot in hell at credibility? Wave your wand to somehow restore trust in their governments to the American people. A good start would be to get them to function in a manner that breeds trust, rather than destroys it. Till that happens, you're just trying to put lipstick on a pig.
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  12. chipcom

    chipcom member

    and of course nobody would EVAR change the rules in secret...for national security sake of course...and embed information in a mag stripe or rfid, would they? They'd never make an appeals process an exercise in hair-pulling futility, would they?

    Serious question, have you been paying attention over the last decade?
  13. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    Well, I think I've spent just a bit too much time wrestling with the pigs here. You guys seem to like it, and I feel just a little dirty for the effort. Before I adjourn, I would like to thank you for having this discussion with me. It was enlightening.

    To summarize:

    Citizens should be afraid of a corrupt government, so it's better to do nothing than to include them in the process. Criminal activity can't be curbed, so we shouldn't waste money trying. Either allow violent criminals and the clinically insane full access to guns, or lock them away forever, otherwise there's a risk that individual's rights could be infringed. And, a person doesn't have any responsibility, or duty to society, in regard to preventing gun violence, if doing so could infringe on individual rights. And, I'm sure I've missed another couple of big points. I'll have to go back and read this all again when I get a chance.

    In this thread, I've heard all of these statements presented as reasons to oppose those who would try to force any more gun restrictions on the American People. A few of these arguments were well presented and logical, but lacked much substance; many were seething with as much emotion as the arguments of the anti-gun advocates. And several were either just simple and pure ad hominem attacks on the the messenger, or entirely off topic.

    The point is that very few were actually effective in presenting the poster's positions, and fewer still were able to provide a reasonable expectation that somebody's mind could be changed. It's disappointing, really. I was hoping to see a more cohesive and united front, one that could actually make a strong voice heard, instead of a cacophony of voices all trying to be the loudest. In that regard, I think the pro-rights, pro-gun community needs to rethink its strategy, and pick a couple of really strong positions to build on. Because, the other side of this argument has already done just that. And the stakes for losing are so very, very high.

    Think about it. Go back and read your posts. Dissect what happened, and pull the best parts of your arguments out from the rest. Then use these bits of truth to forge a stronger, more fluid attack strategy. This battle is far from over. We're going to need all the strength we can muster.

    For the record, I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment. My grandfather (rest his soul) was a decorated War Veteran. I own multiple revolvers, semi-auto pistols, bolt rifles, semi-auto rifles, single shot rifles, pump shotguns, semi-auto shotguns, single shot shotguns, and some other stuff I probably shouldn't admit. I am also a Professional Engineer that likes to pick things apart just to see how they work. And, I absolutely believe that the Federal Government has overstepped its authority on many fronts, not the least of which is its relentless battle on the 2nd Amendment; the only means by which the remainder of the Constitution can continue to stand.

    Soldier on fellas.

    And, thanks again for participating in the discussion.
  14. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    it had everything to do with a background check. The background checks themselves were valid provided the federal gov didn't force state or local law enforcement to perform them.
    You are going to have to accept that your legal opinion runs counter to that of the guys whose job it is to interpret the law.
    put simply, you're wrong.
  15. VA27

    VA27 Well-Known Member

    I see by this post that you have no sense of humor. Had I known that, I would have left that part out of my post. My ex-wife had only a partial sense of humor, so I know how difficult it must be for you sometimes. Perhaps a tag in your sig line could have alerted me to this fact, and so have prevented me from intruding. I go in peace and wish you well in your quest.
  16. ngnrd

    ngnrd Well-Known Member

    Oh, I have a sense of humor. It may be a little twisted, and sometimes overpowered by an odd blend of sarcasm and cynicism, but it's definitely there.

    Heck, I'm smiling just reading your post again. Seriously. There's even a faint chuckle to go with it.
  17. VA27

    VA27 Well-Known Member

    The funny thing is, my idea was serious. A toll free number that anyone can call to run a check.

    IIRC, when an FFL calls in a check, the buyers information is entered, the transaction type (purchase, picking up a pawn, etc.), firearm type ( handgun, long gun or other, i.e., AR lower) and that's it. I personally wouldn't have a problem doing that.

    I WOULD have a problem with being required to go to an FFL and fill out a form and pay for the 'privilege' of making that transaction. Anyone who's ever bought or sold a house can understand this. I know, I know, real estate is different from a firearm, but you get the idea.

    (And I did pick up on the sarcasm in that last line.:D)
  18. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    Sorry, quoted wrong post......
  19. Zoogster

    Zoogster Well-Known Member

    First off being able to prohibit people means the 2nd for its original intent is in essence destroyed. It may or may not be outdated, but it is still the reason for the existence of the 2nd Amendment.
    Anyone taking any hard stands against the government can become a prohibited person whether legitimately, or even if pursued for frivolous charges.
    The GCA of 1968 creating prohibited persons essentially allowed just that, being able to disarm those in the civil rights movement, labor movement, various militant groups, etc And being able to arrest or charge them in the future just for having a gun after thier initial confict with authority that gave them a felony. (While it was some high profile assassinations that gave the public support.)
    Even assaulting a police officer is typically a felony, which means even unarmed protestors clashing with police in a demonstration could then be disarmed for life.
    The unarmed protestor then couldn't legally even have a firearm in thier home anymore. Making it even easier for government to bully them.
    It is an authoritarian tool.
    And one which we have seen is relatively ineffective against common criminals anyways.

    So while there is certainly people I would like to see be prohibited and remain unarmed, I think it is unConstituional. It essentially gives government the tool to disarm the very people the 2nd was supposed to insure could remain armed. Having a law that disarms those who have ever had conflict with government diminishes the very check against tyranny the 2nd was meant to provide.

    As for NICs being available to more people it would be abused.
    If it is free then everyone will use NICs to screen even for unrelated things.
    Not just firearm transfers, but everything. It would become the defacto way to check and see if anyone is a felon.
    The resulting amount of callers would require many new employees to handle the calls. Millions of calls would be a common occurance. From parents trying to check on thier daughter's latest boyfriend, to employers using it as the initial background check. The level of traffic would be large and endless.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  20. brboyer

    brboyer Well-Known Member

    I think many of us stated our positions quite clearly but perhaps you failed to comprehend.

    I'll summarize it for you: No Compromise, No Concession, period!

    Hope that's clear enough.

Share This Page