Brady Campaign submits gun control strategy to Obama transition team

Status
Not open for further replies.
Timradcliff ...
What they should do is REQUIRE BY LAW that all potential firearm purchasers go through the NICS check.
Click to expand...

My personal property and the disposal of said property is none of the federal government's business.
 
Last edited:
Does this even take into account the fact that Florida issues out of state CCW licenses? If one state issues more licenses it stands to reason that more would be revoked. This doesn't even mention what percentage of licenses revoked were due to violent crime or crime involving a firearm. I know I'm preaching to the choir but this is very frustrating.
 
What they should do is REQUIRE BY LAW that all potential firearm purchasers go through the NICS check. That way Bubba would have to call up the feds and make sure you're not a felon before he sells you the gun. This service should be FREE and very expedient. The seller logs the verification number and the sale can be made. That way the gun will not end up in the hands of a convicted criminal or anyone else who is not competent to possess a firearm. This law makes sense. Not all laws do.
Click to expand...
Freedom is great, as long as the government approves of it.

:barf:
 
Most of the general public, and apparently some of our members, don't understand that private sellers or buyers cannot make background checks. Only federally licensed dealers can, and they can only do that after the buyer has filled out a #4473 form. :eek:

Few criminals obtain guns at gun shows - which are heavily surveillanced by law enforcement, and the gun control crowd knows it. But if private sales have to go through dealers, #4473 forms, and background checks every legal firearms transaction will leave a paper trail that can later be used to impose more conditions and regulations, up to and including confiscation. Also it's a sure thing that the process will not be free. Gun dealers can and do, charge whatever they want for providing dealer-to-dealer services required for out-of-state transactions, and the Brady Bunch wants exactly the same for face-to-face sales.

While private sellers and buyers are being buried in red tape and expense, criminals will be obtaining guns as they do now, through they're own black market, with no paperwork, and no background checks; and as time goes by, individual citizens of good reputation will be doing the same thing as they wise up to what’s going on.

And for those that say…. “Well if the make it easy and for free…” I say, “What makes you think that the ones who are determined to end private ownership of firearms in the United States are going to make anything easy or free? They intend to make it as hard as possible.”

Finely, Democrats would love to get rid of gun shows because they provide a venue for pro-gun political candidates to obtain names on petitions and financial support along with passing out literature – not to mention the tables set up by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America (GOA).

Hopefully we won’t be dumb enough to help them. :banghead:
 
Who gave these people the idea that they have the right to feel safe?

They don't. They have the right to own guns to increase their safety, but they choose not to, and that's where it should end.
 
Tamlin said:
I agree with Timradcliffe345 - The only proposal that makes any sense to me is closing the gun show loopholes. Sorry guys, if this offends you, but it's the criminals that cause all the problems with guns - we all agree that law abiding citizens aren't the problem. So what is wrong with doing everything we can to make sure convicted felons (and the mentally insane) can't buy guns? I"m all for background checks. Everything else in this proposal - not so much.
Click to expand...

What makes anyone think regulating private sales will keep any criminal from acquiring guns? There is already a blackmarket in guns. Britain has made many guns illegal and forbade all defensive uses of guns by private citizens, and guns are being smuggled into the UK all the time.
Criminals causing "problems" with guns is an argument to put them in prison, not pass more laws only honest people will obey.
 
I believe in doing everything we can to make it as hard as a possible for a felon or a mentally incompetent individual from acquring a firearm. However, if you are a law-abiding citizen (that's not you domestic violence practicer) you should not have to jump through hoops and pay large amounts in admin. fees or 'excise taxes'. I don't believe in waiting periods, or stupid 1-gun-a-month rules. If you pass the NICS check (and are not on the terrorist watch list) you should be able to own a M16A4, a full auto uzi, a AT4 - whatever you want. I am a firm believer in the 2A. and I truly believe that it is possible to enjoy firearm ownership with background checks for all firearm transactions. Goodnight everyone.
 
Of course there is a black market for guns - there always will be a black market for guns. I think everyone understands that. Criminals will always steal guns, or buy stolen guns from other criminals. Can you tell me that they are not buying otherwise legal guns from private parties? Think about this: Say you own an extra handgun, and want to sell it. Do you really want to sell it to a convicted felon who will use it in a crime? John Doe answers your newspaper ad for your S&W revolver. He's got cash. You're happy - he's happy. Problem is, John Doe just got out of prison. The only way he could get a gun is through a private sale. Wait a minute, you say. I have a right to buy and sell my own property. Well, yes. But John Doe just took your gun and robbed a convenience store. He doesn't give a crap about responsible gun ownership - he shot the storekeeper while escaping. Now the antis have another statistic in their favor. If you had sold your gun to someone who wasn't a prohibited possessor, the chances of that gun becoming a statistic would be reduced dramatically. My point is, it is the bad guys that are giving us all a bad name. The antis are champing at the bit to get rid of all guns because of the actions of the criminals. If we as responsible citizens and responsible gun owners make it as difficult as possible for prohibited possessors to get guns, it will decrease the amount of guns in criminals' hands. Yes, they will still get guns. Just like drug addicts will still get otherwise legal prescription drugs. No one faults pharmacies just because they have the drugs - we all understand drugs will make their way to the criminals. But we are doing everything we can to prevent it. Society is built on a balance between individual rights and collective rights. We, as a society, decided that it was prudent to require people to get driver's licenses and education before one was allowed to drive a car on the public streets. Now we require that those same drivers carry insurance. Why? The public interest of safety outweighs the private right to just drive a car. We also require that if a driver needs glasses, that he needs to wear his glasses while driving. These are not onerous conditions - they are reasonable for the good of public safety. What is wrong with requiring background checks for handgun transfers? What is wrong with requiring a minimum safety course? It really is not infringing on the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms - just like the 4th amendment does not prohibit ALL searches and seizures - just UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. We all know changes are coming - wouldn't you want to be the one to define "reasonable," rather than the Brady Bunch?
 
No one faults pharmacies just because they have the drugs - we all understand drugs will make their way to the criminals. But we are doing everything we can to prevent it. Society is built on a balance between individual rights and collective rights. We, as a society, decided that it was prudent to require people to get driver's licenses and education before one was allowed to drive a car on the public streets. Now we require that those same drivers carry insurance. Why? The public interest of safety outweighs the private right to just drive a car.
Click to expand...

And how come they don't fault the pharmacies for drugs? Why aren't pharmacies being sued for prescription drugs being sold on the street? People steal from pharmacies and break into pharmacies. How come people are so quick to want to sue gun manufacturers when someone gets shot? Just like drugs will make their way to people who want them so will guns. What makes you think a background check is going to keep someone from committing a crime? No one was born a criminal. If someone want a gun they're going to get one. Period.

AMERICA is built on the people's rights over the government's rights. And last time I checked, according to our great government :rolleyes:, driving is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. That's what they tell us anyway. WE will let you drive. You don't have a RIGHT to drive. WE will tell you what to do. What does insurance do but make sure someone gets PAID in the event of an accident? That's all it's about. People drive unlicensed and uninsured ALL THE TIME. Just because you say to do something doesn't mean people are going to do it. It seems we need a law for EVERYTHING. We're treating symptoms not the illness. Yeah, soup is good when you have a cold. It might make you FEEL better. But that cold isn't going anywhere until it runs its course. Miles are made up of inches and best believe they're going to end up with miles if we keep giving them inches.

just like the 4th amendment does not prohibit ALL searches and seizures - just UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. We all know changes are coming - wouldn't you want to be the one to define "reasonable," rather than the Brady Bunch?
Click to expand...

And who decides what is reasonable? If we keep giving them more and more, unreasonable turns to reasonable and that goes right out of the window.
 
Relax people, this is just SSDD. The Brady Bunch has sent this to every new president since they came into being. The only thing added is the stuff about preventing purchases by suspected terrorists.

If you want to make a difference here, the people to write to are your legislative representatives, and your president (Yes, you can write him a letter, too. He claims to listen to the people, let's see if he does. Just make sure you keep the language simple, nonagressive, to the point, and well written.)
 
I believe in doing everything we can to make it as hard as a possible for a felon or a mentally incompetent individual from acquring a firearm. However, if you are a law-abiding citizen (that's not you domestic violence practicer) you should not have to jump through hoops and pay large amounts in admin. fees or 'excise taxes'. I don't believe in waiting periods, or stupid 1-gun-a-month rules. If you pass the NICS check (and are not on the terrorist watch list) you should be able to own a M16A4, a full auto uzi, a AT4 - whatever you want. I am a firm believer in the 2A. and I truly believe that it is possible to enjoy firearm ownership with background checks for all firearm transactions. Goodnight everyone.
Click to expand...
HOW would the government know if I did a NICS check when I sold somebody my personally owned firearm? They WOULDN'T... without REGISTRATION. Of course, how can you have CONFISCATION without REGISTRATION...?

You AHSA guys aren't fooling anybody.
 
Congress and Obama won't go near this.
There are a lot of very Conservative Democrats in congress.
If they go near this they will be out of office before you can blink.
Obama and Pelosi and Reed need to protect the Dem's majority.

Beside there's those pesky things right now that really demand attention. Things like a war and recession.

AFS

Go Gators
 
Face it friends; the Brady bunch is being smart. Has anyone heard of the NRA or the GOA giving a similar white paper to the transition team? If they don't lay our counterarguments out, then only one side gets heard. This would be an excellent action by the NRA that would help us encourage all gun owners to support them via dues.
 
Last edited:
We should not give in at all to any of their demands. That's how rights are stripped away.

They didn't take away all guns from the UK overnight.
 
How many posters in this thread are frogs in the pot? In a forum populated by "gun enthusiasts" the new breed clearly has no recollection of recent history.

Some of us here remember Howard Metzenbaum's triumphal crowing in 1994 that "The Camel's Nose is Under the Tent!" Others remember Feinstein's bleat that "If I'd had one more vote, Mr. & Mrs. America, they would turn them all in."

Santanyana: Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.

Jim H.
 
Actually, after thinking more about it, I'm OK with requiring some sort of safety course for new handgun purchasers.
Click to expand...

Uhhh...yeah, right. That's why highly trained people never have gun accidents. That's why cops from the DEA are the only ones "professional enough" to carry Glocks.

Don't get me wrong...I'm all for proper training. I just don't think it should be a requirement to buy a gun. After all, when will the requirements become so strict that only the police or other gov't agents will meet the criteria for gun-ownership?

Come on, admit it - guns are at least as dangerous as cars.
Click to expand...

No, I won't admit it. And neither should you. Far, far more people are killed and/or injured in motor vehicle accidents every year than they are by firearms. As a matter of fact, even if you add firearm suicides and firearm homicide deaths together (all ages) you come up with a figure that is only about 63% of the total for MV deaths. And keep in mind that includes all firearm homicides...even the justifiable ones such as self defense shootings, police-involved shootings, etc... And those that are bent on suicide will use other means if they don't have a gun. Over 3 million people are injured and treated in hospitals every year due to MV accidents. Even the rabidly anti-gun website "Washington CeaseFire" lists only about 65,000 non-fatal firearm injuries every year. (2004 stats from the CDC...latest info I could find on their website) So tell me again how guns are as dangerous as cars?

When you start making up your own statistics why should anyone listen to what you have to say any more than they should listen to the Brady idiots?

I swear, for a bunch of people who are constantly professing they're "pro 2nd Amendment" I just don't understand the lack of reasoning or research into the facts that goes into some of the statements I see written here.

Some of you people need to get a grasp on the concept of "incrementalism".

I'm not even gonna get started on the "gunshow loophole" nonsense. I already need a double dose of blood pressure medicine after reading some of the BS in this thread from allegedly "pro gun" folks.

I'll apologize ahead of time for any hurt feelings, but....DAMN, people.
 
Can someone please, please tell me where they get their info that they post as fact? I have never anywhere heard of over 4000 Florida CWP being revoked.
 
Do you have anything to hide dear Jim?
Click to expand...
By submitting myself to a background check for CCW, I think I have alleviated the possibility that I may have something to hide.
BUT... if a buddy and I are talking, and I really want a gun he is thinking about selling, I dont want to pay the transfer fee to buy it from him.
I also dont want to have to go to a FFL and have him act as the middle man.
Since the gvmt will not set it up so private citizens could do the steps a FFL does... I REALLY dont want to go thru the hassle.
Criminals wont do it, even with the most stringent gun laws possible.
All it does is allow "The Man" to put his thumb down harder on We The People.


Jim
 
Tamlin said:
Criminals will always steal guns, or buy stolen guns from other criminals. Can you tell me that they are not buying otherwise legal guns from private parties? Think about this: Say you own an extra handgun, and want to sell it. Do you really want to sell it to a convicted felon who will use it in a crime? John Doe answers your newspaper ad for your S&W revolver. He's got cash. You're happy - he's happy. Problem is, John Doe just got out of prison. The only way he could get a gun is through a private sale. Wait a minute, you say. I have a right to buy and sell my own property. Well, yes. But John Doe just took your gun and robbed a convenience store. He doesn't give a crap about responsible gun ownership - he shot the storekeeper while escaping.
Click to expand...

If the red part is true, the blue part is irrelevant. If you could prohibit criminals from "buying" guns from honest people they will simply change their behaviour and acquire them elsewhere.
"John Doe just got out of prison. The only way he could get a gun is through a private sale." Wrong. A newly released con is unable to steal a gun? Unable to obtain one from another con, steal one from a family member or friend, obtain from blackmarket? In fact you actually contradict your own post's first sentence.

Again, the only thing forcing a NICS check on a private FTF sale does is to force honest people to go to a FFL and pay a fee for the service.
Don't you get it? The criminals don't obey the law. That's why they're criminals.
 
Again, the only thing forcing a NICS check on a private FTF sale does is to force honest people to go to a FFL and pay a fee for the service.
Don't you get it? The criminals don't obey the law. That's why they're criminals.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth, most gun laws fail to address the only cause of gun crime. The person commiting the crime.
 
Since the federal assault weapon law expired in 2004, police in major cities report a resurgence
of assault weapon use in crime, with hundreds of people killed on our streets with these weapons of
war since late 2004.74 Law enforcement throughout the nation has called for them to be restricted to
the police and military. Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and
George W. Bush all have supported a federal ban on assault weapons.
Click to expand...

recycled fertilizer :banghead:
 
ShadyScott999 wrote
Can someone please, please tell me where they get their info that they post as fact? I have never anywhere heard of over 4000 Florida CWP being revoked.
Click to expand...

The staff magician goes to a dairy farm and pulls them from a deep dark place. Everyone stands around and agrees that those numbers will do. :evil:

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Whos excited for this!
Replies
11
Views
1K
Art Eatman
A
P
  • Locked
No Gun Left Behind
Replies
13
Views
795
Zen21Tao
Z
G
  • Locked
Brady Campaign grades Obama: "F" in gun control
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
5K
Redneck with a 40
R
J
  • Locked
Brady Foundation Report
Replies
2
Views
555
mljdeckard
mljdeckard
N
  • Locked
The dumbest thing the Brady Campaign has done to date...
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
KODB
K
Back
Top