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. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,005
    Location:
    Frozen North
    So, you support a 'buyer card'

    OK, and how would this be enforced???
    Please tell me...

    BTW, this would create a database that contained the name and address of every purchaser in the US...
    Yeah a registry is illegal, well doesn't stop the ATF from 'digitalizing' their records into a 'searchable' from...
     
  2. Kiln

    Kiln Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,465
    Yo dawg, I stole this piece last night. I want $150 for it but we gotta go do a background check and make sure you're not prohibited. - said no criminal ever
     
  3. tomrkba

    tomrkba Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,952
    Why?

    What do they do to stop criminals? Any background check does nearly nothing with regard to crime (it only stops the lazy and stupid). Any enterprising criminal can either work a little bit and steal the gun or ask someone he or she knows will pass the check. A nutcase can do the same thing and we have documented instances of stolen guns used to commit murder. The Columbine murders used a patsy to buy the guns for them.

    Those in government know background checks do nearly nothing to stop crime. It's a placebo to entice you into believing "government is doing something" while disguising the true purpose. The true purpose is to track which law abiding citizens have weapons. We know this because of how states such as California have behaved in the past and are currently behaving. This is not fantasy; we know what California did to gun owners who had previously legal SKS rifles.

    The "universal background check" tracks the entire pool of known guns and their owners. It tracks all transfers between law abiding citizens and guns that exit the system due to theft or destruction. It is not possible to track transfers between criminals since those guns are either in the pool and labeled "lost or destroyed" or they were never in the system to begin with.

    Furthermore, the US government does not control the border. They cannot stop the flow of narcotics and weapons. These weapons will never be tracked and will go directly to criminals. So, again, how does stop any of this? It does not and the politicians know it. Therefore, again, the purpose of universal background checks it to track citizens. Why do they need to know this information unless they intend to use it?
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2013
  4. CSG

    CSG Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    Out West
    Is the OP even for real or just trolling on a Saturday night?
     
  5. Thermactor

    Thermactor member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    992
    He hasn't come back to the thread since he poked the beehive. Maybe he's busy fiddling with his double-barreled wabbit hunting shotgun.
     
  6. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5,499
    Location:
    Arkansas
    He usually just pops up to say the supreme court upheld the AWB in 1993 then refuses to give a source. Not hard to believe he supports "universal background checks" since he isn't on our side.
     
  7. buckhorn_cortez

    buckhorn_cortez Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    525
    Of interest is the fact that the National Institute of Justice concluded that requiring background checks on otherwise private firearms transfers would be “ineffective” without requiring gun registration.

    If you don't believe that UBC would be a prelude to gun registration, you're naive or kidding yourself. If a UBC was passed, just exactly how long do you think it would be before we started hearing that "In order for the UBC to be totally effective, we need gun registration"?

    It's not out of character that Obama was "outraged" that gun control didn't pass. It's interesting that he's "outraged" about that and not Benghazi, the Muslim backed terrorist explosions at the Boston Marathon and a number things isn't it?

    The reason he was outraged had nothing to do with crime, public safety or any other charade he's tried to pass off as concern about the American people.

    What was really going on is that the Senate was supposed to have passed the UBC bill so that it could fail in the House. In that way, Obama could use it as a "wedge issue" in the 2014 elections to attempt to gain control of the House so that he could steamroll whatever legislation he wanted (e.g. - Obamacare) in 2015 and 2016.
     
  8. ShelbyV8

    ShelbyV8 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2005
    Messages:
    200
    Location:
    Killeen
    If me and you decide to trade guns or I decide to sell you a gun there is no way to know unless the government knows what guns we already own and come out and check to see what we have today. As to mentally deranged people unless they are adjudicated by a judge there is no public record. Doctor patient privilege prevent access to patient records without a court order so how is that going to work. BS BS BS
     
  9. Ignition Override

    Ignition Override Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Messages:
    5,249
    Location:
    The Mid-South.
    According to one report on a very popular news channel (which does Not film the US prison system as entertainment..;)), there are numerous states which have Not entered thousands of "mentally-adjudicated" people into the database accessed by the NICS. Or something to that effect.

    Even if all such cases were entered, this is just a small part of the solution.

    A personal transaction involving a guy selling me a rifle in a McDonald's parking lot is Not a gun black market, because it is legal, I'm not a convicted felon, and neither are a majority of other people who do this within their state of residence.
    The seller asked me whether I was a convicted felon.
     
  10. Ridgerunner665

    Ridgerunner665 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,396
    Location:
    Upper East Tennessee
    UBC's are just another step along the way to registration.

    History proves that big brother doesn't take our Freedoms all at once, but in increments...if we give them these background checks, then they will start working to get full registration...

    That's just how they work....they think we are too niave to realize what's really happening and the OP appears to be just that.
     
  11. okiewita40

    okiewita40 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Messages:
    446
    Location:
    Northeast Oklahoma
    I am with with CSG on this. Being a current LEO I think that if a gun is used in the commision of a crime. The criminal should get a min. sentence of life. And if said criminal shoots or kills anyone then an automatic death sentence is put in place.
     
  12. CSG

    CSG Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    Out West
    God bless, Oklahoma! I know a lot of LEO's who feel the same as you and I do about this issue.
     
  13. BigBore44

    BigBore44 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2013
    Messages:
    1,490
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Okiewita,
    Nice to see someone else from northeast oklahoma.

    Will someone please explain why we have life in prison? At almost $40,000 a year to keep an inmate, if they aren't getting out, why do we house them? They are obviously too dangerous to be released. So what's the point?

    Also some people, no matter how many examples we give, will NEVER understand UBC are an infringement, and a step towards confiscation. They must still think the government would NEVER do something so out of touch or off base with American rights.....
     
  14. thump_rrr

    thump_rrr Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    Messages:
    803
    Location:
    The North Country
    I don't understand why people equate a background check with registration?

    In Canada we have a PAL (Posession and Acquisition License)
    I walk into any gun store and show my license and walk out with any Non Restricted gun.
    There is no phone call, no taking of information on what I purchased etc.
    I can also purchase from any private individual either face to face or over the Internet the same way. We can even send firearms directly to another individual through the federal mail system.

    I understand that you would view licensing as an erosion of your 2A rights.
    I also understand that tomorrow I could become a prohibited person who would still be in posession of a PAL.

    They could call it a speed pass or a pre-check or something where it is not a license but a pre approval of a background check.

    What I'm getting at is that the simplicity of our system in this regard sure beats FFL transfers and a background check every time you go to purchase a firearm.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2013
  15. Armymutt

    Armymutt Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    231
    We already have that in many states. A concealed carry license in those states serves the same purpose.

    I love it when someone cites Politifact on the "lies of the NRA" on this bill that just failed. They claim that it covers transactions between family and close friends. Rather than go by what the author of the bill claimed, I actually read the bill, because that's what the ATF will be enforcing, not comments made to a reporter. The word friend does not appear in the bill. So that "lie" is actually truthful. Family is also restricted. I can't give a gun to my cousin's son, nor could I receive my great-grandfather's rifle from my mom's cousin. You couldn't give a gun to your fiance, and non-married couples are discriminated against. If you post the gun for sale on the office bulletin board, you couldn't sell it to anyone in the office.
     
  16. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    Also, heaven help you if you're gay or lesbian... your partner will NOT be recognized as a family member. Giving a gun to someone with whom you share a home and a bed, and trust with your life, could make you both "criminals".
     
  17. buckhorn_cortez

    buckhorn_cortez Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    525
    Uh...huh...well while you were occupied with watching what the Senate was doing with the UBC bill, two Democrats introduced HR661 in the House.

    That bill negated all of the requirements for the federal government to destroy UBC data within a certain time period. What that means is they wanted to make it legal for the federal government to maintain a database of UBC firearms information - that IS, de facto registration.

    If you don't think the Democrats want registration and then confiscation of firearms - then answer the question, "Why did two Democrats introduce HR661"?

    Please, don't kid yourself - just look at what the Democrats are doing in attempting to regulate and make legal the collection of information on who owns firearms.

    I'm not a tinfoil hatter - they're really aluminum foil deflector beanies (AFDB) - but, neither am I naive or stupid enough to trust that the majority of Democrats support the 2nd Amendment - because they don't. They think you can control anything and everything that is "dangerous" - and by doing so, you are making life better for everyone. It's delusional and the antithesis to freedom - but, it makes Progressives feel good - and that's what it's all about.

    If you'd like more on making your own AFDB - then go Here - you might as well have the best.
     
  18. Redlg155

    Redlg155 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,724
    Location:
    NW Florida
    Two things...

    1. Has universal background checks proven effective in states where you must have a permit to purchase or own a firearm? No. UBCs are just a way to get "free" states in line.

    2. Before deciding to say "Yes", have you read the entire proposed bill? New Yorkers found this the hard way with their new laws when a vote was pushed before debate and before legislators could read the entire text of the bill in a comprehensive manner.
     
  19. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    3,534
    Location:
    Northern KY
    You're using Politifact as a reference? HA! Just because a website says it is a fact-checking site doesn't mean it really is. Politifact is well known it interpret every statement by liberals with the widest possible latitude and to narrowly parse every word a conservative says.

    Politifact carries absolutely NO weight with thinking people.
     
  20. Trung Si

    Trung Si Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2009
    Messages:
    169
    Location:
    Texas
    I happen to agree!
     
  21. HKGuns

    HKGuns Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,396
    Location:
    Bora Bora
    Then you are part of the problem, turn your thinking around and start being part of the solution. One more to add to my ignore list....Thanks for your post.
     
  22. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    I would hope that the member who opened this thread, (as well as others) would be wise enough to read the actual bills covering universal background checks that the senate voted on last week, rather then depend on any media source with an agenda.

    Those that took the time to do this know that the bill, written by Sen. Shumer D/NY, would have required even temporary private transfers between individuals be brokered through a federally licensed gun dealer where the buyer would have to fill out a 4473 form as well as pass a background check. The background check wasn't what bill's supporters wanted. To them a complete hard-copy record detailing the gun owners personal details as well as specifics about the firearm (make, model, serial, description, etc.) was.

    Prior to the vote, some negotiations occurred between Republicans and Democrats concerning a background check procedure that wouldn't involve a 4473 form, but the effort failed because the Democrats refused to consider any system that didn't leave a hard-copy record. A later compromise was put to a vote and failed because it too would have left a paper trail.

    The lesson here should be, never make up your mind on legislation on the basis of what the media says about it. Instead read what is being voted on yourself.
     
  23. SunnySlopes

    SunnySlopes Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Messages:
    746
    I'm a gun owner and object to the govt having any say whatsoever in the exercise of my Constitutional rights. At what point did we, the people, decide it was govt's business what guns we own?
     
  24. wild cat mccane

    wild cat mccane Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    968
    then you object to the regulation of automatic weapons? Notice how auto weapons are never used? why? Law.
     
  25. Arbo

    Arbo Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2013
    Messages:
    290
    Location:
    Colorado
    Politifact is a partisan site, full of crap.

    The reality is, if the fed's need your name, address, SSN all to do a BGC on you, they then know you bought a gun. That in and of itself is a registry. Period.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page