Background checks? Yes; Registration? No.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The ONLY reason for UBC and the registration aspects is a list of what to pick up and where. These same people who are pushing this law have made statements that you should not have a gun at all. Do you really think they are going to write a perfectly simple law that just stops criminals and nuts from buying guns? Oh, thats right we already have such a law....Form 4473. You mean to tell me that it is not working? No UBC. No AWB. and No Ammunition background check.
 
I do not get the beef with background checks here. Whenever I buy a gun at a dealer - there is a background check but NO registration. yes... the yellow forms are being kept on file for a few years but they are not being handed to the Feds and the Feds are not allowed to create their gun owner database.
Click to expand...

And isn't there a big argument going on about if the Government has the right to kill Americans with drones. I'm not trusting them on gun owner databases either.

:mad::cuss::banghead:
 
If you have to show an ID to vote, then you should have to present one to own a firearm.
Click to expand...
SHOULD have to? What kind of crap is that? There is no law that says you have to present ID to buy a firearm (except in interstate commerce and/or from an FFL dealer, at least in "free" states) and that's JUST like it should be.

Why oh why would we willing pile MORE manure on our own heads? :fire: We've got a long enough road to tavel before we get back to what is RIGHT (repeal of GCA'68 and NFA'34), and you want to take just one more step in the wrong direction?
 
revolversrbetter, let me ask you this: What if I were the person who got to decide whether YOU were allowed to purchase a weapon. Would that make you feel any better? When you say you favor background checks, who is going to be the guy who says yes or no to the purchase? As long as I get to make that decision, I'm in favor of it. When someone else gets to decide whether I can exercise MY clear Constitutional right, I get a little less willing to go along with that. :scrutiny:
 
And isn't there a big argument going on about if the Government has the right to kill Americans with drones. I'm not trusting them on gun owner databases either.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's not like they were wiretapping the entire internet, or anything! :D Our country was built around -not the ideals of freedom- but that government will sieze any opportunity to accumulate authority.

This whole background check thing ultimately comes back to "we don't know who the criminals are until they commit their crimes" :banghead: I have no idea why the concept of crime preceding guilt is so complicated for people. Minority Report was a dystopia, not a utopia, remember? (not that utopia can exist, anyhow ;)).

Crazies aren't crazies until they go crazy, so this whole database thing in the name of safety is basically not happening. So what's the point? To spend money? To feel better? To better enforce already un-enforced law? To gain valuable info on the "resources" of the populace? None of these things serve the stated goal of the legislation, so any logical-minded person should accept that UBC's aren't a solution, and will look elsewhere.

TCB
 
The ONLY reason for UBC and the registration aspects is a list of what to pick up and where. These same people who are pushing this law have made statements that you should not have a gun at all. Do you really think they are going to write a perfectly simple law that just stops criminals and nuts from buying guns? Oh, thats right we already have such a law....Form 4473. You mean to tell me that it is not working? No UBC. No AWB. and No Ammunition background check.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the ultimate goal is to whittle down private gun ownership and destroy the right to keep and bear arms gradually as if by cutting off bits with a knife.

"Public safety" and "crime prevention" is a mere pretext.

The unfortunate reality of the matter is that our intransigent adversaries regard the Second Amendment with extreme repugnance and dislike strongly anyone who seeks to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment.
 
Present an ID to "own a firearm" or buy a firearm?

I already present an ID to a FFL dealer when I purchase a firearm and in some cases such as Walmart, I may present an ID to purchase ammunition. The ID may not be technically required, but many dealers will not sell you a firearm without an ID.
 
IDK about Texas. but here in NM, we don't have to show id to vote, and I thought it was against fed law to ask.
Click to expand...
It is not against Federal law to ask.

But the Democrats hold that requiring ID will deprive illegal aliens of their right to vote.
 
When did we give Congress the power to regulate private sales? Where can I find that in the Constitution. I see where it says the power to tax, make war, call out the Militia, etc.

I can't find the part where it says Congress can regulate individual citizens.

I don't think Congress has that power.
 
So long as the bureaucrats and politicians can dictate what constitutes a disqualifying condition, I can't support any government run background check scheme. There are plenty of people who are either non-violent "criminals" who harmed no one, or otherwise honest folks who may have made a mistake at some point in their lives. In neither case would I heavy-handedly come down and and proclaim that their lives aren't worth defending.
On the other hand, if a voluntary association of gun shop owners kept a list of *violent* offenders... public information right off the blotter page... and refused to sell to them, I'd be ok with that.
Even a universal background check scheme like the one that we have now, which ONLY disqualified people convicted of actual violent crime, it'd sure beat what we have now.

As for perceived mental condition... I've known plenty of people otherwise thought of as crazy, just because they didn't follow the herd. Where's the line? I suppose if someone acts oddly *and* threatens violence, I'd pull the rug out.

There would also have to be a mechanism to hold someone accountable, in case an individual is unduly oppressed, and suffers loss as a result. The accountable person would be the one who stamped "No" on the 4473 request. Good luck finding someone who'd want that job.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vern Humphrey
They don't have that power -- which exposes the great flaw in the Constitution. There is no penalty for violating the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You mean other than having such a law thrown out by the courts.
Click to expand...
Having the law thrown out is not a penalty. Sending those who voted for it to prison would be a penalty.
 
BIDS vs. NICS
As I've heard it discussed, the BIDS system would work (Blind Information Database System), and at much lower cost than NICS.

The problem is the BIDS database is blind, and those in power just can't stand that.
They've got to have names attached to the guns, for whatever the future holds.

BTW - since I'm:
1. An old (probably angry, if you listen to the media) white male.
2. Wear a cheap Casio watch (the choice of terrorists).
3. Am an NRA member (a lifer, no less)!
4. Have a beard.
I'm probably on somebody's Terrorist Watch List X number of times over.

Gotta run...I think I hear a drone over the house...! :what:
 
Vern Humphrey said:
Having the law thrown out is not a penalty. Sending those who voted for it to prison would be a penalty.
Click to expand...
No. Then no one would ever run for office, except criminals who are willing to risk jail.
The "penalty" is to vote them out of office and replace them with people who will uphold the Constitution. It's silly to keep voting for the same people then expecting there is some other method of disciplining them.

Stop electing them.

If Congress passes such a law, it is the job of courts to throw out the law, and our job to throw out the politicians. The system works fine.
 
No. Then no one would ever run for office, except criminals who are willing to risk jail.
Click to expand...
In other words, no different from the present system.;)
The "penalty" is to vote them out of office and replace them with people who will uphold the Constitution. It's silly to keep voting for the same people then expecting there is some other method of disciplining them.
Click to expand...
Except that the career politicians have a lock -- it's almost impossible to vote them out, given all the advantages they have voted for themselves.
If Congress passes such a law, it is the job of courts to throw out the law, and our job to throw out the politicians. The system works fine.
Click to expand...
So explain how we're running trillion dollar deficits, how the Congressman who was supposed to be overseeing Fannie Mae was sleeping with the vice-president of Fannie Mae (and never even got called on it) and how the President unconstitutionally stiffed General Motor's secured creditors (calling them "speculators") and never got a day in jail?
 
Term limits! If there is no approved budget, the government shuts down until a budget is approved. The only thing that continues to be funded are the debt interest, the military and social security and medicare. No more automatic increases in spending for inflation. If the politicans can not find a way to agree on budget cuts... cut everything 10% and go from there. Next year, cut it again by 10%. Eventually the American people will see what's going on and rationale thought and actions will prevail.
 
I agree with term limits.

As for balancing the budget, how about this?
The Balanced Budget Amendment

1. If the Federal debt is higher at the end of the calendar year than it was at the beginning of the calendar year, or the United States shall default on its obligations, the budget is not balanced.

2. If the budget is not balanced, Congress shall take a temporary twenty percent pay cut for five years. This money, and all other public money due to members of Congress, plus twenty percent of all other income, from any source, public or private, shall be placed in an interest-bearing account. If the budget is balanced at the end of the fifth year, the money with interest shall be returned to the members of Congress. If the budget is not balanced, the money shall be forfeited to the Treasury, and the cut shall be permanent. For the next five years there shall be a further twenty percent cut under the same rules. This process shall continue until the budget is balanced.

3. The power to tax is exclusively reserved to the people, and no tax or other revenue-enhancing measure shall be created, and no existing tax or other revenue-enhancing measure shall be increased except by a vote of the majority of the people at a regularly scheduled Federal election. The people have the right to place tax and revenue measures on the ballot by presenting a petition bearing the valid signatures of registered voters amounting to one percent of those voting in the previous Federal election.

4. In time of war or grave emergency, the people may suspend the requirement for a balanced budget by majority vote in a Federal election, but no such suspension shall be in effect for more than two years.
Click to expand...
 
How many mass shootings has NICS stopped recently? Cho at VATech purchased through NICS. Loughner (Giffords) purchased through NICS. The Aurora guy bought through NICS. The only person who didn't use NICS was Lanza, who murdered his own mother and took her guns.

So, what do you guys think is going to happen WHEN there is another shooting? What are "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!" going to do with that list of who owns what? Registration is also important to advance incremental gun control because once you know who owns what, you can target the politically weakest groups first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Would Universal Background Checks be acceptable if no firearm information was required?
2 3 4 5
Replies
106
Views
6K
GEM
G
MatthewVanitas
  • Locked
Antis on the Charter Arms Undercover, post shooting (article on GunGuys.com)
Replies
17
Views
1K
grampster
grampster
1
  • Locked
Artilce re background checks and records
Replies
10
Views
500
22-rimfire
2
H
  • Locked
background check question
Replies
18
Views
1K
Sam1911
S
D
  • Locked
‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not
2 3
Replies
72
Views
5K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top