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

1911 guy said:

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

Click to expand...

Right, because every other western industrialized nation that has the barest gun control laws quickly slides into totalitarian hell.

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

Dr_B

Click to expand...

I would agree with you.

IF

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

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

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

InkEd said:

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

Click to expand...

Right - because if we simply discarded the background check, no criminal would use freely available over the counter firearms for nefarious purposes, because of their internal sense of honor or something.

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

hogshead said:

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

Click to expand...

I wouldn't link IQ to the possession of firearms, at least for your sake Hog.

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

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

Just your run of the mill socialist, atheist, vegetarian gun lover.

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

Might want to get a grip on the subject being discussed, ShaiVong. The discussion here is about mandatory background checks required for all transfers, not just the current requirement when purchasing from a FFL.

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

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

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

hogshead said:

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

Click to expand...

UK, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Austria, Italy.

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

Of course, as a self avowed communist, you'd see nothing wrong with that.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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

TCB

Dr_B said:

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

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

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

Click to expand...

Private sales are the only thing that make a tyrannical government blink before attempting to take all of our freedoms. Being able to keep and bear arms is fundamental to freedom. No, keep it the way it is.

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

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

We all know that criminals don't follow laws. Quit preaching to the choir.

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

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

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

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

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

1911 guy said:

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

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

Click to expand...

I guess you're probably used to being wrong, so this will come as no surprise.

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

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

This post should be made a sticky and reviewed in 4 years. Let the fox guard the hen house comes to mind.

This post should be made a sticky and reviewed in 4 years. Let the fox guard the hen house comes to mind.

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

And yes, the first paragraph was sarcasm.

Cool read the rest of the post and you will see my thoughts on this. Good night God Bless all of you ,yes even you Shai.

Quote:
Look at this as a tool for us to check out who people really are before we sell to them

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

ShaiVong said:

I wouldn't link IQ to the possession of firearms, at least for your sake Hog.

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

Click to expand...

Shaivong,

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

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

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

hogshead said:

Cool read the rest of the post and you will see my thoughts on this. Good night God Bless all of you ,yes even you Shai.

Click to expand...

And Zeus bless you, hogs.

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

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

1911 guy said:

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

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

And yes, the first paragraph was sarcasm.

Click to expand...

The bifurcation fallacy again as well - just because something cannot prevent all crime, does not mean it can't prevent some crime.

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