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

Anti universal background check Oklahoma Senator sounding stupid

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by wild cat mccane, Apr 20, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wild cat mccane

    wild cat mccane Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    968
  2. Solo

    Solo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    838
    What specific parts of it did you disagree with?
     
  3. mr.scott

    mr.scott Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    353
    Well op, you seem to be in the minority because most of us don't want the government being involved in private transactions.
     
  4. Tcruse

    Tcruse Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    Messages:
    485
    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.
     
  5. Vector

    Vector Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    675
    Location:
    USA
    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.

    `
     
  6. Dean Weingarten

    Dean Weingarten Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2012
    Messages:
    423
    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.
     
  7. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    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.
     
  8. Thermactor

    Thermactor member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    992
    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.
     
  9. TCB in TN

    TCB in TN Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,938
    Location:
    Middle, TN
    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.
     
  10. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    North Carolina
  11. Nikdfish

    Nikdfish Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    339
    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
     
  12. Sambo82

    Sambo82 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Ar
    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.
     
  13. Tomcat47

    Tomcat47 Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    1,316
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Wild Cat ....



    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:
     
  14. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,005
    Location:
    Frozen North
    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...
     
  15. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,957
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    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.
     
  16. wild cat mccane

    wild cat mccane Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    968
  17. buckhorn_cortez

    buckhorn_cortez Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    520
    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.
     
  18. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    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.
     
  19. Arkansas Paul

    Arkansas Paul Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    Messages:
    7,332
    Location:
    Central Arkansas
    Hey! Are you that bearded guy in that Bloomberg commercial?
     
  20. beatledog7

    beatledog7 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Messages:
    5,093
    Location:
    Tidewater
    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.
     
  21. mg.mikael

    mg.mikael Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    Messages:
    306
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    HA!.....gave me a good laugh. ;)
     
  22. CSG

    CSG Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    Out West
    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.
     
  23. r1derbike

    r1derbike Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2012
    Messages:
    848
    Location:
    Northwest Arkansas
    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!
     
  24. clutch

    clutch Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Messages:
    871
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    I think we should just repeal GCA68. That abomination should have taken a Constitutional amendment to be legal.
     
  25. rdhood

    rdhood Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Messages:
    943
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page