Pro-Gun Groups Disagree on Bill Improving Background Checks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rather than bash the NRA, write them a letter telling them you will NOT renew your membership if they support this bill.


It is way easier to reform the NRA than it is our government. Step one is to get the 800lb gorilla NRA supporting what WE want, not to compromise with the gun grabbers. What does the NRA think they'll gain by compromising on this bill? The gun grabbing leftists will NEVER compromise with us. Actually, there shouldn't be any compromising, as there shouldn't be any bills like this in the first place. You can't compromise God-given Rights. End of story.
 
I just got off the phone with NRA-ILA. They are absolutely convinced their action regarding this bill is appropriate. Their reasoning goes something like this: Even though it is probably unconstitutional in the first place, the NICS is a fact of life. H.R. 1415 only improves upon the NICS, making it possible to find and root out the problems that have prevented lawful citizens from purchasing guns. They do not consider the possibility that H.R. 1415 will eventually be used against lawful gun owners to be worth worrying about.
There were other things they continue to congratulate themselves on, most recently, the lawsuit against the City of New Orleans. The fellow I spoke with got very defensive when I pointed out that the Second Amendment Foundation was the leader in that action and that NRA only jumped on the bandwagon after it got going.
I told him that I felt the NRA was too eager to compromise on legislation harmful to gun owners and that - since I only maintained my membership because it was a requirement of my club, I might leave the NRA and go over to the GOA. At least they fight before they admit defeat. He was not happy with that idea but I was not happy with the stand the NRA has taken on H.R. 1415 either.
Might I suggest others make a similar call? 1-800-392-8683, option 4.
 
My thought is that IF we are going to continue NICS, then it makes sense for NICS to be as efficient as possible. There are people with no criminal records out there who are being delayed from buying guns because of the deficiencies of NICS. As long as NICS is a law, then it needs to work as legislated.

So on that ground, I would support this bill.

However, I would also support a bill that would completely eliminate NICS.
 
Lone Gunman, I'd like to know just why you dislike NICS. Since it's unlikely we'll be able to carry this discussion on in real time, let me jump to a conclusion here.

If you're like most gunowners, the NICS seems both unconstitutional and a total waste of time and manpower since it does nothing to prevent bad guys from getting any guns if they really want.

And you want to make it work better? :banghead:

Maybe I just jumped to the wrong conclusion... I hope.
 
If the local hardware store can get an okay on a $1000+ personal check in about 4 seconds then why can't the gun store get a purchase approval that quickly?

John
 
Bill

The NICS is better than a wait, but I doubt many criminals try to get firearms other than via theft or the blackmarket. The NRA does compromise too much for my liking, and I definitely do not trust Rep. McCarthy. Incrementally is the way to ban guns, (unless your Sen. Feinstein) and we know how the antis love to slip in more infringing riders on their bills.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate (for an outright ban), Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" -Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
 
I agree with the NRA's position on this one. Unfortunately, overturning the NICS requirement isn't currently possible - so if we're going to have it, we might as well make it function as efficiently as possible. This bill won't make it any more (or any less) difficult to scrap the NICS system eventually.

Opposing this bill simply because you oppose the NICS is the kind of windmill-tilting that has always bothered me about the GOA.
 
I don't like the idea that the Federal government will have a huge massive centralized database by which they will be omniscient. While it may help others in getting a firearm due to confusion, this can easily be abused to hunt down and seize firearms from individuals who the government has deemed ineligible for ownership.


Hospital records? What would you need a hospital record for in determining someone's suitability for firearm ownership? Hmmm.


Think long and hard about that guys. Long and hard. This is the famous GATEWAY legislation towards much worse gun control.


The NRA is backing this only because they want to appear like they are playing ball with the gun grabbers to look moderate and sensible to the world. I still question how this bill can fix problems, while preventing new ones. The NRA didn't deny that it could cause future problems, they only said it was unlikely. HA!


Bottom line, this bill doesn't do anything significant for OUR RIGHTS. Thus, it it is just wasted time, wasted money. Why don't they go after the sporting purposes clause or something more productive. They might not get it today or tomorrow, but at least if they BEGIN trying from now, someday we might get it done. Instead, they are backing bills that look harmless, but can offer no good, but can potentially be abused one day.
 
THIS BILL IS BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

I suggest you contact the members of that committee particularly James Sensenbrenner and lobby against it.

Otherwise your just blowing smoke on the internet.
 
I'm against it.

But, only for the reason of believing it's a slippery slope, which I believe is enough of a reason. The meat of it doesn't bother me. As Lone Gunman said, as long as we are going to have it, make it work as correctly as possible.
 
Lone Gunman, I'd like to know just why you dislike NICS.

NICS flags some people as being ineligible to purchase who are in fact eligible. This delays their ability to buy guns. Hopefully, this bill would fix that.

Also, I do not think the government is really purging all NICS records, and these records can be used to identify gun owners.

NICS also approves some people who are ineligible to own firearms.

NICS itself is probably constitutional, but it may make it possible for the government to enforce other unconstitutional laws (if that makes sense).
 
The NICS records are being purged.

The law requires it and Ashcroft said 24 hrs, NO MORE.

Why do you think that upset and STILL DOES Sarah Brady?
 
Well, those records were supposed to be purged back in the Clinton administration also, but were not. Ashcroft is gone. There is simply no way to know for sure. Computer records are easy to save and transfer.
 
Everyone should be calling the NRA and telling them to turn their position around on this bill. If this bill is passed I 'm willing to bet a months pay that your medical records will be sold to the highest bidder. Your insurance company will have them. Heck they may just end up on the i-net. Direct mailing companies will have the records. The company you work for will have them. Everyone will know what was in your records. Why bother fighting for your 2nd amendment rights when your most intimate information is in a gov. database and is being sold to anyone and everyone with the cash.

Your privacy just went out the door if this is allowed to become law.
 
LAR-15 said:
The NICS records are being purged.

The law requires it and Ashcroft said 24 hrs, NO MORE.
ROFLMAO.gif


You know - I've got a special deal just for you. Trust me...

This bridge in Brooklyn is in great shape, the potential earnings from tolls is unlimited.

Because I like you - you get special deal - today only... just for you...
 
"I have a List"

I think 'We' have bigger problems than nics. Chose your battles. Incomplete FBI records means denials not approvals. They will not err on the side of approval.

They already know more about everyone than they ever have. Joe McCarthy would be proud.

In February 1950, a little-known junior senator from Wisconsin entered the fray with his infamous "I Have a List" speech to a Republican Women's Club in Wheeling, W.Va. Although McCarthy's accusations were patently false, Republicans saw him as their ticket to power. He was soon the most sought-after speaker in the nation as he raged against political opponents determined "to reduce security ... to a nullity."

Over the next few years, a growing sense of national anxiety caused Americans to fear Americans and led millions of citizens to confuse panic with patriotism.

Of course, Joseph McCarthy did not invent the use of fear and invective for partisan political gain. As early as 1798, when the United States was on the verge of war with France, bitter political conflict buffeted the nation and called into question the very survival of the Constitution. Although supporters of Thomas Jefferson questioned the need for war, anti-French Federalists warned that "unless the nation prepared immediately for war," it could expect "nothing but bloodshed, slaughter, pillage and a complete subjection to France." President John Adams placed the country in a state of undeclared war against France, and a wave of patriotic fervor swept the nation. The Federalist Congress gave Adams everything he asked for, and the man who had won the presidency only two years earlier by only three electoral votes over Jefferson suddenly became a national hero.

When Jefferson's supporters questioned the president's call to arms, they were charged with dishonesty and disloyalty. Federalist congressman "Long John" Allen questioned whether they loved their country and Federalist congressman William Edmund charged them with being "so degraded" that they were willing to receive whatever "boon we can beg" from the French. In a pattern that has become all too common, Federalists blurred the line between dissent and treason. Congressman Robert Goodloe Harper charged Jeffersonians with attempting to prepare "the people for a base surrender of their rights," and Adams accused them of supporting measures that "would sink the glory of our country and prostrate her liberties at the feet of France." Such people, he observed, were deserving only of "our contempt and abhorrence."

In this crisis, the Federalists saw--and seized--the opportunity to strike a critical blow at their opponents. By discrediting Jefferson as weak in the face of a supposed external danger, the Federalists attempted to entrench themselves as the nation's dominant party. By leveraging a moment of high patriotism, they managed to enact the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 in an effort to cripple forever the party of Jefferson and Madison.

In the "war on terrorism," we once again see the manipulation of fear and the corruption of public discourse in pursuit of partisan gain. Shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush warned, in terms strikingly reminiscent of language used by John Adams, "You are either with us or with the terrorists." Although the president was referring specifically to other nations, the underlying message was unmistakable. Shortly thereafter, U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft underscored the point, castigating Americans who challenge the government's policies: "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies."

As the election nears, the president, Vice President Dick Cheney, and many of their supporters have stepped up their use of the fear card. The vice president's recent assertion that a vote for John Kerry would endanger the nation was part of a cynical campaign to frighten and confound the American people. As former Ambassador James Goodby has written, in the Bush administration, as in the age of the Sedition Act and the era of McCarthy, fear has too often "become the underlying theme of domestic and foreign policy." The "bottom line has been ... 'You are scared--trust us.'"

In our history, such tactics may work for a time, but they always end badly. Joseph McCarthy was eventually censured by the Senate and repudiated by the American people. In the election of 1800, Americans removed John Adams from office, put an end to the Federalist Party, and elevated Jefferson to the presidency.

Sometimes, Americans cannot passively count on judges and legislators to preserve their most fundamental values.

Sometimes, they must do it for themselves.

America's new McCarthyism
 
I don't believe they are going to collect ALL the medical records, just the involuntary commitments and such, the disqualifying ones, it appears.

Meanwhile, from the NICS site, it appears they have a pretty good database up and running already.

"Records contained within the databases searched by the NICS include those of the Interstate Identification Index (e.g., millions of criminal history records), the National Crime Information Center (e.g., protection orders and active felony or misdemeanor warrants) and the NICS Index, a database created solely for the use of the NICS which contains information provided by local, state and federal agencies pertaining to persons prohibited under federal law from receiving or possessing a firearm. Additionally, a fourth search of the applicable databases via the Department of Homeland Security's United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be conducted for background checks initiated on all non-United States citizens."

Of course, many states like Virginia use the State Police call center to do the approvals. In addition to accessing the federal info they search their own databases.

John
 
It is the ultimate in arrogance to believe one man has the authority to strip another of his inalienable rights, as it implies rights originate from man and not from our Creator.
Using that logic, how can you advocate self defense? After all, if you shoot someone in self defense, you're stripping them of their right to life.

The Fifth Amendment says that you cannot be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." You can disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, a rapist (or other violent felon) who is prevented from legally owning a gun has lost that right through due process.

Which rights can or should be taken away through due process, and whether due process is honored in a given case are very debatable and subjective, but the idea that rights can be taken away is not a new one.
 
Using that logic, how can you advocate self defense? After all, if you shoot someone in self defense, you're stripping them of their right to life.

While I understand that you're using this as an example, and it is not your argument, I believe this logic to be totally distorted and insane. That is an argument often used by anti-gun pacifists as a justification for their twisted views of the world.

The key to such an argument are the definitions. That type of an argument implies or automatically defines certain things by default. It defines the argument and frames the debate in a manner advantageous to the arguent.


You see, if I shoot some gun wielding thug in the face in SELF defense - I'm not "taking" away his right to life. I'm merely defending myself by the use of effective means. I am shooting to stop the threat - not to kill him or deprive him of life. His death is a side-effect caused by HIS actions, not mine. Thus, the act of self-defense is NEVER a form of life-deprivation as claimed by that rediculous argument.


If an argument like that were to actually stand (like it does in England), then the victims become helpless, while the predators become protected.
 
You see, if I shoot some gun wielding thug in the face in SELF defense - I'm not "taking" away his right to life. I'm merely defending myself by the use of effective means. I am shooting to stop the threat - not to kill him or deprive him of life. His death is a side-effect caused by HIS actions, not mine. Thus, the act of self-defense is NEVER a form of life-deprivation as claimed by that rediculous argument.

I agree. In relation to the point I was trying to make, a felon whose right to own guns has been taken away has lost that right because of their own actions as well. I'm all for debating which rights should be lost for which crimes, but the idea that noone has the authority to take away anyone else's rights is obviously ridiculous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top