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

Background checks? Yes; Registration? No.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by revolversrbetter, Feb 8, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sistema1927

    Sistema1927 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,654
    Location:
    "Land of (dis)Enchantment"
    Background checks ARE infringement, and are worse than useless. Don't buy into feel good measures. We have real problems, but access to firearms isn't one of them.
     
  2. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,719
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
  3. phil dirt

    phil dirt Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2011
    Messages:
    324
    Location:
    Northwest
    Why is it so hard for some people to understand that Obama's data base means registration lists.
     
  4. HighExpert

    HighExpert Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    500
    Location:
    Daytona
    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.
     
  5. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,702
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    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:
     
  6. Nico Testosteros

    Nico Testosteros Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2009
    Messages:
    480
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    If you have to show an ID to vote, then you should have to present one to own a firearm.
     
  7. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,362
    Location:
    Central PA
    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?
     
  8. medalguy

    medalguy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,216
    Location:
    New Mexico
    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:
     
  9. barnbwt

    barnbwt Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,121
    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
     
  10. yokel

    yokel Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,197
    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.
     
  11. xfyrfiter

    xfyrfiter Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    726
    Location:
    NW New Mexico
    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.
     
  12. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,450
    Location:
    TN
    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.
     
  13. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,719
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    It is not against Federal law to ask.

    But the Democrats hold that requiring ID will deprive illegal aliens of their right to vote.
     
  14. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    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.
     
  15. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,719
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    They don't have that power -- which exposes the great flaw in the Constitution. There is no penalty for violating the Constitution.
     
  16. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    You mean other than having such a law thrown out by the courts.
     
  17. velojym

    velojym Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    617
    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.
     
  18. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,719
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Having the law thrown out is not a penalty. Sending those who voted for it to prison would be a penalty.
     
  19. basicblur

    basicblur Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2003
    Messages:
    2,650
    Location:
    VA
    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:
     
  20. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    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.
     
  21. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,719
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    In other words, no different from the present system.;)
    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.
    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?
     
  22. 22-rimfire

    22-rimfire Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    11,450
    Location:
    TN
    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.
     
  23. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,719
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    I agree with term limits.

    As for balancing the budget, how about this?
     
  24. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  25. Queen_of_Thunder

    Queen_of_Thunder member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,881
    Location:
    Where God purifies the soul. The West Texas desert
    Bull Hockey
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page