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

Registration leads to confiscation. The question is merely how long it takes. Rather than grilling Alaska444 about it, go no further than THR to find the history of gun registration and confiscation that has occurred in Breat Britain, Australia, etc. Or go wider on the internet or local library and find that every two-bit regime that has a fear of being overthrown has required registration and then proceeded on to confiscation.

How exactly do background checks assist in enforecement of existing law? They merely add to existing law, not assist in its prosecution or enforcement.

Were the people denied on NICS checks prosecuted for attempting to illegally obtain a firearm? If not, who then is the law aimed at policing?

Citing 92% of the American people doesn't excite me. Most people assume the AWB was about machine guns. And we're going to let the most ignorant among us about a particular topic dictate policy on that topic? That's akin to letting me make decisions about NASA. I may have an opinion, but at least I recognize that my opinion is half-assed and will defer to others more educated in physics and astromony than I.

I just happened to notice that two of the more outspoken in favor of further restriction identify themselves in signature lines as communist and socialist. Coincidence?

Finally, I will not presume to speak for the veterans of WWII.

ah yes, lets look at Los Angeles and point to how gun laws don't work.

then lets look at Houston with its Texas gun laws and higher rates of rape, assault and murder.

source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011


can we please stop with the disingenuous arguments already?

" except that we can't pump our own gas to protect the jobs of the gas station attendants."

Excuse me, the reason you can't pump your own gas in NJ is from the NEWARK RIOTS when people were making molotov cocktails.

I know, because a relative was in the NJ Guard and was being shot at and ducking the firebombs.

WADR, the rest of your proposal is also hogwash.

There is NOTHING in a universal nics check law that will stop ANY CRIMINAL OR PSYCHO.

And since you refuse to consider the nibble / boiling frogs effect of this incremental incursion on our Consstitutional Rights, we have to conclude you are either woefully ignorant of what "they" have planned, or you agree with them.

"Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." ACLU policy statement #47 (1986)

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." Senator Dianne Feinstein on CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

"The Brady Bill's only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. — Charles Krauthammer, The Washington Post, April 5, 1996

1911 guy said:

Registration leads to confiscation. The question is merely how long it takes. Rather than grilling Alaska444 about it, go no further than THR to find the history of gun registration and confiscation that has occurred in Breat Britain, Australia, etc. Or go wider on the internet or local library and find that every two-bit regime that has a fear of being overthrown has required registration and then proceeded on to confiscation.

How exactly do background checks assist in enforecement of existing law? They merely add to existing law, not assist in its prosecution or enforcement.

Were the people denied on NICS checks prosecuted for attempting to illegally obtain a firearm? If not, who then is the law aimed at policing?

Citing 92% of the American people doesn't excite me. Most people assume the AWB was about machine guns. And we're going to let the most ignorant among us about a particular topic dictate policy on that topic? That's akin to letting me make decisions about NASA. I may have an opinion, but at least I recognize that my opinion is half-assed and will defer to others more educated in physics and astromony than I.

I just happened to notice that two of the more outspoken in favor of further restriction identify themselves in signature lines as communist and socialist. Coincidence?

Finally, I will not presume to speak for the veterans of WWII.

Click to expand...

If registration leads to confiscation, why hasn't Clark County in Nevada begun going door to door looking for guns? Registration requirements here date back well before the last assault weapons ban?
What about other areas with registration requirements? Why haven't the trucks begun picking up the guns yet? Finland has registration requirements that would make most pro-gun types in the USA cringe. Why haven't they been scooped up yet?

background check turns up a DQing event in someone's past. The store refuses to sell the gun to this person. Crime of felony possession has been prevented. It isn't rocket science.
Why would you prosecute a disqualified person who didn't actually buy a gun?

Coincidence? I don't know who has advocated further restrictions. Kind of hard to comment. If you are referring to my signature line, I'd suggest reading the essays contained in Chomsky on Anarchism for a real primer on libertarianism. A quick perusal of torrent sites will turn up an electronic copy but of course you should pay for the actual paper or Kindle/Nook copy.
The knowledge of how the principles of classical liberalism have been perverted in the USA by the likes of the Tea Party and Libertarian Party will disgust you.
but that is another matter entirely. One of my pet peeves is being associated with the likes of the Libertarian party anytime I speak on the subject of libertarian socialism.

Clean97GTI said:

ah yes, lets look at Los Angeles and point to how gun laws don't work.

then lets look at Houston with its Texas gun laws and higher rates of rape, assault and murder.

source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011


can we please stop with the disingenuous arguments already?

Click to expand...

Please do.

"Last I checked DoJ statistics, almost half of Federal felons convicted of gun-related crimes obtained their gun legally. In other words, they passed (or would have passed) a NICS check without issue, and yet they would go on to be Convicted Bad People."

WADR, I find that very hard to believe without a source / link. The antis would be throwing that out EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY, and they aren't so I think you may have misread something.

ah yes, lets look at Los Angeles and point to how gun laws don't work.

then lets look at Houston with its Texas gun laws and higher rates of rape, assault and murder.

Click to expand...

What stats are you looking at Clean???
2011 from your link - FYI table 8
I took the stats from the top 5 largest cities in the US..

Alaska444 said:

Please do.

Click to expand...

Go on and regale us with more tales of confiscations that never occur and bans that fail to materialize while being slapped in the face with statistics that would seem to counter your arguments.

You tell us registration leads to confiscation.
I point out from my own home that this isn't the case.


You tell me tight gun laws make things worse.
I use actual data to prove the opposite would appear to be true.


Or we can acknowledge that there is probably another set of causes that need to be addressed as a society. You will get a lot further by accepting something like universal background checks (which you consider ineffective and pointless) and in return you get to push for something much better like the reduction and removal of harmful drug laws and mandatory minimums that will actually benefit our nation.

or I can continue to destroy petty circular arguments.

No, a crime has not proveably been prevented, but one has been committed. It is yet another felony for a prohibited person to attempt to take posession of a firearm. So the question remains, why is there no means of prosecution for prohibited peope breaking the law by attempting to take posession?

Pointing to cases that are exceptions (for now) to a well established rule does not make for a strong argument. Since the invention of gunpowder, gun control was a means to repress people. Before that it was restrictions of edged weapons.

I've said before and I'll say again: If there was a way to really make an impact on reducing crime against innocent people or even to make the firearm no longer the weapon of choice for these whack-jobs, I'd be more than willing to entertain the idea. But everything proposed so far ignores the reality that barring the complete and total removal of guns from America, there will be no way to do it. Just like making drugs illegal didn't work. All laws do is provide penalty for wrong doing. They prevent nothing. Those inclined to break the law will do so regardless of what law is made.

tarosean said:

What stats are you looking at Clean???
2011 from your link - FYI table 8
I took the stats from the top 5 largest cities in the US..

Click to expand...

You left out the populations of those cities. The rates of crime are higher in Houston.

Is this enough yet, for Browning's sake?

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

Bifurcate this:

Just because an un-vetted, admitted admirer of marxism and islam puts forward an anti-constitutional "executive action" putatively designed to "stop some crime" does not mean it won't be really used to disarm God-Fearing, Law-Abiding, Meat-Eating, Commie & Jihadi-killing, Capitalism & Freedom-Loving Americans.

Especially since thats what "he" and his cohorts have been pushing FOR YEARS.

It is for me. I'm going to bed. I'll let the others conspire to piss away our gun rights one background check at a time amongst themselves.

If limiting access by felons were the goal and we could be assured of that, I'd be all in. But we know from their own mouths that the end goal is confiscation by way of registration. I see no reason to aid them in their crusade. And it's just plain unworkable. There's no reason to give an inch when you know ahead of time you'll get nothing in return.

Clean97GTI said:

Go on and regale us with more tales of confiscations that never occur and bans that fail to materialize while being slapped in the face with statistics that would seem to counter your arguments.

You tell us registration leads to confiscation.
I point out from my own home that this isn't the case.


You tell me tight gun laws make things worse.
I use actual data to prove the opposite would appear to be true.


Or we can acknowledge that there is probably another set of causes that need to be addressed as a society. You will get a lot further by accepting something like universal background checks (which you consider ineffective and pointless) and in return you get to push for something much better like the reduction and removal of harmful drug laws and mandatory minimums that will actually benefit our nation.

or I can continue to destroy petty circular arguments.

Click to expand...

Let me see, socialists have insulted me, insulted my mother, called me a pig headed dumb ass, state I am filled with circular reasoning and YOU ask me to back up my comments with facts and evidence?

However, the facts are that the number of guns owned in a nation are not correlated to firearm crimes. Why not just ban all firearms to reduce suicide and homicide? Well, that does not correlate to violence in a given country, other factors prevail:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

How well did the gun bans in D.C. and Chicago work?

Requiring nearly 100% FFL for all gun sales/transfers in California has NOT accomplished any diminishing crime statistics within state boundaries. If you are looking at interventions, one accepted scientific method is before and after data. Comparing LA to Houston is simply apples and oranges since there are many confounding factors making the data not comparable directly. The data in LA is not good my friend. The intervention of background checks through an FFL for ALL gun purchases is ignored and bypassed by the criminals. CA is one of seven states that requires back ground checks for all private sales at gun shows. It is an all encompassing system. The only transfers that don't have to go through NICS are transfers as gifts between father, grandfather and son for instance. Only direct transfers between a direct intergenerational lineage in a family.

The entire premise of gun control fails because it is not access to firearms that determines crime rates in a given nation. You twist in the wind thinking it is the gun that is the problem when in fact it is not the root cause of the violence in our nation or any nation.

So who my friend has the circular and petty arguments?

Any compromise will only bring us one step closer to their stated goals of gun confiscation. Not understanding this simple fact in many ways is a result of the brainwashing of our public school kids in Marxism. My son went to UCLA for business school. I warned him at the start of his school year that UCLA was a Marxist institution. He rolled his eyes as if I was just an old fogey who didn't know anything.

At the end of his Freshman year, he asked me to review a term paper. In his very FIRST paragraph, he quoted Marx. I confronted him on this and he denied the leftist bias of his education.

"Go on and regale us with more tales of confiscations that never occur"

Turkey and the Armenians.
Germany and the Jews (and the Christians, & gays, and the socialists and the retarded..).
Stalin and Russia, and 130 million more disarmed in Eastern Europe.
Mao and China.
Castro & Cuba.
Pol Pot and Cambodia.
Kim Jung Il & North Korea...

I don't like giving in any more to gun laws. They're bad enough as they were. Now we have Biden talking about "you don't need a 12 round magazine to hunt a deer, if you do then you missed the deer 11 more times and shouldn't have a gun."

Maybe Joe was born with a natural shooting ability. I'm betting not. 12 rounds is a common sized pistol magazine capacity. What that has to do with deer, I have no idea.

It irritates me to no end that the typical media-fed liberal with an affinity for marijuana and off-color statements champion their first amendment right and fight for the right to toke up, and argue that we know nothing about it. Conversely, those little trolls don't know a thing about guns or the constitution for that matter.

Anybody hear about background checks in NY for ammo? I'm guessing the legislators up there don't know about reloading. Close the "loophole", open another that's more easily exploited. Genius.

tyeo098 said:

NICS should be available to mere mortals like us.

However it should not be required.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Laws don't prevent crime (FALSE!), so laws are useless? What type of strange world do you live in where there is no incarceration for repeat offenders, and no dissuasion from the penalty of breaking a law?

Click to expand...

Laws do not PREVENT crime......if that were true, then why are our prisons so full?

i challenge you to name me one law that PREVENTS me from doing anything.

all the laws do is allow the prosecution AFTER the law has been broken.

now are laws useless?....it depends on what you are expecting, if you are thinking that if you pass enough laws people will stop breaking them, then yes, laws are useless in that regard......if you pass laws with the intent of being able to prosecute the offender, then no, the laws is acting exactly as it was designed.

I bet bringing back the firing squad and hard work labor camps/chain gangs to punish criminals might be a more effective crime reducer than Universal NICS checks. I know this may sound unethical to some, but I was just trying to proving a point about what could effectively reduce crime.

ShaiVong said:

Are you SERIOUS?

Laws don't prevent crime (FALSE!), so laws are useless? What type of strange world do you live in where there is no incarceration for repeat offenders, and no dissuasion from the penalty of breaking a law?

Click to expand...

You're talking about punishment again, not prevention.

coolluke01 said:

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.

Click to expand...

You can already do this by choosing to go to an FFL for transfer. What's better is that you CHOSE to do it that way, weren't told you have to by the FED.

ShaiVong said:

Right, because crypto-fascists are all for free speech, unless they disagree with it.

Click to expand...

Wow. We were having a heated, but adult discussion up until now.

Your 1st amendment rights are not protected on THR, and if you read clearly the rules and regs section, attacking the arguer is a no-no.

Consider yourself from hence ignored, sir, for being shameful and petty.

dirtengineer said:

I agree with this.

Click to expand...

Just as well, as this is how the system already is. Why change it?