Don't get mad, just a question,

[Queen_of_Thunder]

No compromise!

 

[armedandsafe]

Regarding compromise:

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-repost.html

A repost
"We cannot negotiate with those who say, 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable.'"

-- John F. Kennedy, Address to the American People, 25 JUL 1961

Most people tend to substitute the word 'compromise' for the first 'negotiate' in that quote, and it does tend to fit the current circumstances.

Once again the anti-gun people are starting to trot out the tired and hackneyed meme of "compromise" in the "national gun conversation".

Compromise is where you give up something. In this case, they are asking us to give up something which is not ours to surrender. Your right to dispose of your private property is not mine to surrender. Your right to keep and bear arms is not mine to surrender.

Have you the power to surrender MY rights?

Pops

 

[larryh1108]

There are no laws to prevent all bad guys from doing their deeds. Nobody can guarantee 100% compliance on anything I'm aware of. The criminal mind will always find a way to do what they wish to do. Look at the war on drugs (lol). The only thing about the war on drugs is that we've spent billions of dollars on it and it is more rampant than ever. Drugs drive a large portion of the gang activity and guns used in crimes. It is a joke but all that it does prove is if you prohibit something, a black market will step in to fill it. Ban guns and we'll have more crimes where illegal guns are used and more gangs will get bigger and badder and crime will reach an all-time high. Funny how politicians know this but don't care.

 

[cluck]

Back on thread

The only support I have in any background check system is completely selfish. I can only be accountable for me. If the one action I take in a private firearm sale is to make sure I'm not enabling the enemy, (criminals in our society) then I can have a clear conscience. The firearm I sell today should not be a problem for YOU tomorrow. Thats what I have control of. That and my votes and I don't have enough of those in my bank to matter. Besides, like I said before, I've already got my permit, and I prefer to sell to permitted people. Any other sale I simply consign through my "friendly neighborhood weapons dealer" and let them do the paperwork. Sure, I make less money, but in todays market I'm not exactly suffering. I'm sure being a CCW holder I'm already on some type of database so that doesn't concern me either. I'm not afraid of them coming to take my guns. Because the second amendment works!

 

[hogshead]

"I'm not afraid of them coming to take my guns. Because the second amendment works!" You must not live in New York

 

[cluck]

"I'm not afraid of them coming to take my guns. Because the second amendment works!" You must not live in New York

No. But you let me know when the jack booted thugs are kicking down doors in NY. Then, I'll top off my mags.
Not gonna happen like that.

 

[SoCalNoMore]

Not to mention the system is only as good as the data that is entered in to it. Too easy to falsify identity unless you are using a fingerprint system that check against the nationwide criminal system. Which we dont have.

Enforcement is futile and so is any type of registration system. Enforce the laws we have, tighten up the sharing of information that agencies currently use and see how that works before we start adding on new things that WONT work.

 

[Akita1]

Great comments and perspective all. A few thoughts:

1. Comparing guns to cars, hammers, ACME safes thrown from cliffs by coyotes, etc. doesn't appear to be a sound strategy. Guns are made for one purpose only, and we all know that proper training and target selection are the keys to responsible ownership and use. You can NOT use hyperbole or have that rational conversation with a ban freak - they are extremist and do not hear logic so going the "I can kill you with my ham sandwich by shoving it down your throat" route falls on deaf ears.

2. The sound position here is RKBA, which "shall not be infringed." The 2A words are clear, almost irrespective of the Founders' intent as we no longer live in that world (as a student of history and given the context at the time, I personally believe 2A was included there to allow the citizenry to protect itself from a tyrannical government, hunting or defense from criminals are simply excellent fringe benefits). SCOTUS just ruled on it (Heller) - they are the last authority in our beloved Republic. I do not expect Congress to amend the Constitution by adding a multiple choice option to the Bill of Rights, but then again expectations are nothing more than expectations...

2. Something WILL be done whether we like it or not (and already has in various states, cities, etc. where executive branches are simply ignoring the legislative process). Either way, we are being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency driven by emotional intent. The trick becomes limiting the impact of what will be done - we are all truly disgusted that this is the situation but we are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise.

3. UBCs are likely to be the one nationwide result of all of this noise. It it is hard to argue in the public arena that giving my son that 22 he got for his birthday last year without any paperwork is more important than keeping guns from crazy people. It's a band-aid and we all know it won't do anything to stop criminals or crazies from getting guns.

It's a giant sh** sandwich and we'll all have to take a bite.

Keep the faith, keep fighting the good fight.

 

[DammitBoy]

"...as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check..."

And how would you know if this was followed? How would you compel enforcement?

The federal government has:
Incarcerated individuals without charges.
Executed individuals without any judicial procedure.
Performed extensive wire tapping and searches without warrant.
Sold firearms to dangerous criminals deliberately as a false flag operation to incite the citizenry against those who own firearms.

What, pray tell, would keep them from retaining the data?

I agree strongly with this post

 

[JRH6856]

When data is outlawed, only outlaws will have data?

 

[Deadman644]

Want to rid ourselves of crime, it's simple. The first time a person is convicted of a gun related crime, or the third time of any felony, they are locked in a 10 by 10 steel room without outside contact. No Windows or TV, or books. After the first few are locked criminals won't take the chance.

 

[silicosys4]

Want to rid ourselves of crime, it's simple. The first time a person is convicted of a gun related crime, or the third time of any felony, they are locked in a 10 by 10 steel room without outside contact. No Windows or TV, or books. After the first few are locked criminals won't take the chance.

If the death penalty doesn't deter, a cot and three squares a day with plenty of time to relax by yourself won't either. .:banghead:

 

[wacki]

"...as long as the language of the law states in black and white, that the information gathered is legally useable ONLY for the purpose of the check..."

And how would you know if this was followed? How would you compel enforcement?

The federal government has:
Incarcerated individuals without charges.
Executed individuals without any judicial procedure.
Performed extensive wire tapping and searches without warrant.
Sold firearms to dangerous criminals deliberately as a false flag operation to incite the citizenry against those who own firearms.

What, pray tell, would keep them from retaining the data?

Who were the executed?

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 2

 

[wacki]

Would it be acceptable to give the Sudetenland to Germany, as long as the language of the agreement states in black and white, that the rest of Czechoslovakia will remain sovereign and inviolate?

You presume that I have the tiniest iota of trust or respect for the other side.

I don't.

They're bad people with bad goals and bad motivations, and whose word is worth less than nothing.

Lol. Someone won a Nobel Peace prize for that.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 2

 

[wacki]

No. This was an MSNBC poll. Four of their employees signed up for the NRA. They then asked these four employees whether they support universal background checks. All four said yes, but MSNBC thought that 100% might not be believable, so they switched the answer for one of them and came out with the 75% approval number.

Link? Proof?

Sounds crazy but then again its MSNBC. Home of the photoshop video edits.

Sent from my GT-P3113 using Tapatalk 2