Democrats paid after the AWB passed.
Let's see a repeat. The national folks remember, but these local folks seem new to the concept.
Let's see a repeat. The national folks remember, but these local folks seem new to the concept.
Changed my mind on universal background checks
- Thread starter mack
- Start date
- Status
splattergun
Member
UBCs are not universal, as they leave out dishonest people, ergo, those they are supposedly screening out. Pointless, unworkable infringement. Period.
Change your mind back to where it belongs.
Change your mind back to where it belongs.
Deanimator
Member
Excuse me, but were you paying attention as ***NY STATE*** just passed the most restrictive gun laws in the country???
What part of ***NY STATE*** did you miss???
It's ***NY STATE***!!! What did you EXPECT???
In OHIO (to name one of MANY), we couldn't care LESS what they do in ***NY STATE***.
We're not going to get stampeded into sham "compromise" because of ANYTHING they do in a place that amounts to Venezuela with snow.
The Termite
Member
Understand this: at its core, the "gun control" debate isn't really about guns.
It's about 2 completely different mentalities; one is about independence, self-reliance, and personal responsibility; the other is one of subserviance and dependance.
A large portion, perhaps even the majority, of the American population wants to be ruled, and told what to do(within reason). They are very "risk-adverse" and DO NOT want to be responsible for their own lives. Call them "serfs" if you will. (The SciFi Klingon word would be 'tokhe straav'; a willing slave.)
They also want to feel "safe"; even though they really can't express what will make them feel "safe".
This mentality is not limited to just guns. It is expressed in their views on health care, retirement planning, etc.
The other mentality is that of self-responsibility and self-determination. That a person is responsible to provide for themselves, including their own personal safety. It is also the understanding that there are precious few guarrantees in life; that even the best laid plans and preparations can be for nought.
Sam Adams probably said it best:
"If ye love [strike]wealth[/strike] security better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
I do not think that the two mindsets can be reconciled. They are simply too different.
It's about 2 completely different mentalities; one is about independence, self-reliance, and personal responsibility; the other is one of subserviance and dependance.
A large portion, perhaps even the majority, of the American population wants to be ruled, and told what to do(within reason). They are very "risk-adverse" and DO NOT want to be responsible for their own lives. Call them "serfs" if you will. (The SciFi Klingon word would be 'tokhe straav'; a willing slave.)
They also want to feel "safe"; even though they really can't express what will make them feel "safe".
This mentality is not limited to just guns. It is expressed in their views on health care, retirement planning, etc.
The other mentality is that of self-responsibility and self-determination. That a person is responsible to provide for themselves, including their own personal safety. It is also the understanding that there are precious few guarrantees in life; that even the best laid plans and preparations can be for nought.
Sam Adams probably said it best:
"If ye love [strike]wealth[/strike] security better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
I do not think that the two mindsets can be reconciled. They are simply too different.
Billy Shears
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,020
Yes, because what happened there could never, ever, in a million years happen in other states.
Nevermind that several other states, as I said, are lining up to enact their own more restrictive laws. Nevermind that even in Missouri -- hardly "Venezuela with snow" -- Democrats felt safe in introducing a bill to confiscate firearms. I grant you, it won't pass the legislature there, but the point is that in the current climate, politicians feel safe in coming out openly in support of gun control measures they would have run screaming from a year ago. And you know what? More and more of those voters out there who aren't gun owners are inclined to support them. Why do you think that laws like these always come in the wake of these tragedies? It's no accident that the NFA of 1934 came in the wake of the 1929 St. Valentine's Day Massacre and other prohibition-era gang crime, where the Tommy Gun became famous as the gangster's weapon of choice. Nor is it an accident that the GCA of 1968 followed hard on the heels of the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Why do you think the people of the UK lost their guns after the Dunblane shooting?
Highly visible, horrific events like that stir up people's emotions, and lead them to pass measures that they would not were they thinking rationally instead of emotionally. Politicians capitalize on that, hence the saying "never let a crisis go to waste." Now you've got a host of politicians doing just that again, and not only in New York. And I point out again, they feel safe enough in doing it, that NRA A rated Senators like mine, in a mostly red state, are going to support the push to renew the ASW ban. Why do you suppose they feel this is politically safe now?
You can stick your hand in the sand and pretend we're safe if you like. I'm not going to be so complacent. There are going to be spectacular crimes committed with firearms in the future. And the more spectacular and horrifying they are, the more the general public will see greater controls as reasonable. If we are going to win this fight, we not only have to combat that, we have to appear to be the reasonable people in this argument, with facts on our side. I don't see living in denial as accomplishing that.
Last edited:
huntsman
Member
yeah I don't see any repercussions for gun grabbing in the mid-terms only because the fiscal issues we face are still going to affect more citizens, we'll have more people on the dole and the Dems make all the promises that folks want to hear.
Support you State groups and politicians who'll stand for RKBA and if your State passes laws that infringe you'll have some real soul searching to do.
As counter-intuitive as it is, don't think there are not RKBA Dems out there that voted for Obama believing he was telling the truth about his support of gun owners. If you have doubt about their existance, don't forget that the NRA supports them with positive ratings right along side of Reps.
The (D) voters were assuming the evil Reps were just trying to get them to vote against their party with a fake wedge issue. However now that their eyes have been opened with everything that has been happening in the last few months, they might very well become more of a one issue voter. Plus lets not forget that some might also see that his policies of the last four years have not worked, and he is still trying to double down on them.
`
huntsman
Member
^starvation is an excellent motivator when one party controls access to the .gov teat all will be forgiven.
Deanimator
Member
The same people propose the same legislation, just about every year.
It's in places like New York, New Jersey and California where it passes.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
NRA ILA letter re. background checks, dated 2-13-13:
http://cms.nraila.org/media/10900841/nra_letter_to_congress_2-13-13_backgroundchecks.pdf
http://cms.nraila.org/media/10900841/nra_letter_to_congress_2-13-13_backgroundchecks.pdf
easyg
Member
Where did you get these numbers?
An independent organization with no agenda in the gun control debate, or from some government organization with an agenda in the gun control debate?
The wise citizen questions all data thrown at him.
Biggerbore
Member
How can this private universal background check law ever be enforced unless all guns owned before the enactment of the law are first registered? Example: I want to sell you a gun that I owned before the universal background check law was enacted. I sell you the gun and give you a written receipt dated before the law was enacted. I keep a copy of the receipt for myself. Problem solved unless it was a gun bought after the law was enacted.
SoCalNoMore
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 107
SoCalNoMore
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 107
I have to disagree, everyone should care about what happens in other states. As what prevails on those places can very well become law in the nation. Remember, complacency kills.
Last edited:
Spike_akers
Member
I didn't read through all the pages, but my problem with the universal background check, is there is no way, to enforce it without guns being registered. If the guns weren't registered then how many people would actually go through the background check procedure?? It's very cut and dry in this instance. Now, I could see running a background check at a gun show... But not privately. That's unenforceable without registration. And as soon as we have to register guns, they will be taken away. And my fear would also be, say your registered guns are stolen, and used in a crime, I am POSITIVE that some lawyer, somewhere, would have a field Day in court prosecuting you for negligently allowing a criminal to steal your firearm, and so on and so forth.
Zak Smith
Member
The way the UBC bill is being proposed in Colorado, there is no effective difference between possession and ownership, and it would effectively stop lending your buddy or brother in law a shotgun for day's hunting unless you are right there with him. It doesn't apply to just buying, it applies to all transfers of possession!
Different versions of the bill either required all FFL's to process background checks for third parties, or didn't, and the current version I believe sets a maximum an FFL can charge. Talk about intrusion into business!
Furthermore, if FFL's are NOT required to do background checks for this parties (and since the fee is capped) there is not guarantee you can find one willing to do your transfer. Or how about people who live in remote areas, or simply a small town without an FFL. Those people are effectively locked out of simply transferring possession of firearms.
The whole proposal is fraught with problems.
Different versions of the bill either required all FFL's to process background checks for third parties, or didn't, and the current version I believe sets a maximum an FFL can charge. Talk about intrusion into business!
Furthermore, if FFL's are NOT required to do background checks for this parties (and since the fee is capped) there is not guarantee you can find one willing to do your transfer. Or how about people who live in remote areas, or simply a small town without an FFL. Those people are effectively locked out of simply transferring possession of firearms.
The whole proposal is fraught with problems.
Spike_akers
Member
but problems that supporters are either ignorant enough to not notice, or just not care about. these bills are not to prevent crime, they are to lessen gun ownership. the way they see it, if you cant get to an ffl then thats fine. it means you cant transfer your firearms.
simonjester
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2012
- Messages
- 34
I vote we just make a law that killing or shooting people is illegal.
That should fix everything....
Laws do not prevent crimes, then define them.
That should fix everything....
Laws do not prevent crimes, then define them.
SoCalNoMore
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 107
TBH, no one can claim ignorance. Obama has said it, printed and espouses it daily that he wants to disarm Americans. He was saying in college how he does not believe in the 2A and most of the BoR or the Constitution. Read the book by Ed Klein or even read Obama's own book. It is on record about how and what he is willing to do to propagate his anti-colonialism views.
22-rimfire
Member
This fits the old "if one life is saved" argument that the politicians like to make. 1% is not a high percentage and they only prosecuted 14 people. Something seems to be a bit off here.
New York State (versus the city) was never that bad in terms of gun laws. I would hope that there will be an effort to repeal that law. NYC will continue to do what it has been doing for a long time since the city is essentially populated by socialists and view government as the answer and not the problem. Big government = high taxes. It is out of control right now and it will remain so because the debt is something that can not be addressed in any kind of short term approach. The government is simply going to devalue the American dollar to the point that the debt is meaningless.
VegasAR15
Member
Let me know when you figure out how to make criminals buy all their guns using a background check.
x1wildone
Member
Can you provide any info about the final result of these rejections? Such as how many of these were prosecuted and actually served time.
Tim the student
Member
No.
If you want to have a background check done everytime you buy or sell, have at it. Have an FFL do the transfer. Leave me out of it.
If you want to have a background check done everytime you buy or sell, have at it. Have an FFL do the transfer. Leave me out of it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
