I told the NRA today I agree with background checks

[Teddydog]

Check out sambuh's organization to which he provided a link: Gun Victims Action Council

Boy, what a level-headed, unbiased bunch. "Gun victims" Not victims of criminal human beings, but "gun victims." Advocating more "reasonable" and "common sense" gun laws. One of it's assertions is that a mentally unstable person who could not legally buy a handgun legally bought one.

I would not accept one word of their blather as the truth.

Agreed. Anyone who points to that website as a source for (unbiased ?)information regarding gun control issues or "facts" immediately makes his/her motives and comments suspect.

Rob

 

[rakstr]

Well said. Nothing left but a plus infinity!

Attempting to impose background check requirements is just another example of a much bigger problem: the fundamental relationship between free citizens and their government.

The government was created by free people and has only those powers delegated to it, as specified in the Constitution. We are the masters, the government is our servant. The government does not grant us any rights. the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd, merely affirms that our rights preexist the creation of the government and may not be infringed.

The proposed background checks, including NICS, turns this upside down. It makes the government the master, and us the subject. Instead of a right that people can freely exercise, it becomes a privilege for which I must beg my master.

It relegates me to the status of subject instead of citizen.
It assumes that I am guilty, and puts the burden of proof on me to prove otherwise.

The compromisers think I should trade my liberty for slavery, for they promise my chains will be light. I reject this, I will not forfeit my liberty, and they have no authority to take it.

As for the cries of "how do we keep guns out of the wrong hands" - if it comes at the price of my liberty, nothing. Liberty means there is a risk that some will abuse it. So be it. I would much prefer to have liberty and live with that risk, than have none at all.

I see two kinds of compromisers:

1) The well meaning but gullible who doesn't understand the proper citizen/government relationship. They may actually believe that this will solve the problem, and gun control will stop here.

2) The truly evil, who are using these tragedies to push their final goal of total disarmament. They have no respect of individual liberty, self determination, or a government of limited authority serving a free people. For them, the government is omnipotent with them in control, they master, and we are their slaves.

The first group is being used as pawns by the second and are so foolish they don't understand it. They have my pity. The second group has my contempt.

 

[rakstr]

I guess we need to just do away with the entire 4th Amendment. After all, you wouldn't mind getting your home/business/car/person subjected to a search without a warrant "if you got nothing to hide" now would you?

I'm pretty sure he got the 5th on this as well Sure do like all the sobriety checkpoints and forced "donation" of blood (for the record I'm NOT promoting drunk driving, just detest the solution).

 

[CordWood]

I am with BigFred, I could post a very long reply, but would probably end up in hot water. But I still have something to say about this thread.
It amazes me that professing gun owners support an agenda to restrict law abiding citizens in their quest to own, shoot, collect, etc. firearms that fulfill their needs and wants. It does not compute. Give the elected officials any opportunity to consolidate power to themselves, they take it and begin the move to obtain more power. Just look at the last 50 years.
My personal opinion is there are some that have moved to this forum that are here to plant their liberal ideals to possibly influence some of the newer/younger members and gunowners. I think it is the responsibilty of older members (age and experience) to counter the liberal views of these that are attempting to justify yielding to the desires of those that would restrict, reduce, and then remove to freedoms that were presented us by our Founding Fathers with the admonition retain them if we could.
I have tried to post without allowing rancor to invade, without offending any of the moderators, and retain my privilege to post. Now if some of the posters are offended, so be it.
Butch

 

[photoman]

Lol *** are you talking about!? Read the order. Stop assuming

I would love to but, unfortunately, they have not been posted yet. Until then, we are all assuming. You the best and me the worst.

Executive Orders | The White House

I hope you stick around. It's nice to have an opposing view.

 

[cmort666]

It amazes me that professing gun owners support an agenda to restrict law abiding citizens in their quest to own, shoot, collect, etc. firearms that fulfill their needs and wants.

Anybody can "profess" to be anything online.

As the saying goes, "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog."... or Piers Morgan.

Given the number of "gun owners" who've suddenly appeared online to call for total surrender to the anti-gunners, you can safely conclude that there's a "plan" afoot.

Think of them as the internet version of "seminar callers" to radio talkshows.

Don't panic.

1. Identify the enemy.
2. Expose his agenda.
3. Refute his propaganda.

Repeat as necessary.

 

[CordWood]

cmort, I was trying to be vanilla in my post. I know what these people are and take what they spew for what it is, GARBAGE.
The last time I used the T-word I got in all kinds of hot water. So the newer and nicer me is posting on this thread.
Butch (much nicer in public now)

 

[Titan]

In liberal-speak, a 'resource officer' is a social worker/administrator who will work to ensure every child in the school is terrified at the sight or mention of a gun.

There will be organized drills to scare the children, and there will be efforts to get them to 'educate' their parents about the harm firearms can do.

Just remember how they approached 'global warming' (oops, I mean climate change).

 

[cmort666]

cmort, I was trying to be vanilla in my post. I know what these people are and take what they spew for what it is, GARBAGE.
The last time I used the T-word I got in all kinds of hot water. So the newer and nicer me is posting on this thread.
Butch (much nicer in public now)

Asking the hard questions harms their plans far more than any name will. The proof is their incandescent rage at being questioned.

It's enough merely to demand to know what gun rights have been restored in exchange for concessions to anti-gunners. They claim not to know or have no answer at all. That's all anyone needs to know.

No one can possibly discredit online anti-gunners as effectively as they discredit themselves. Their arrogance defeats them every time.

 

[keith44spl]

Hey Boys,

To all y'all that's been hangin around here a while...And you know who y'all are.

Where'd all these pecker-woods come from? The Brady Bunch?

.
I remember back before the GCA of '68...Laws and more laws fix nothing!

Criminals will continue to ply their trade, no matter the passage of the stautes and additional penial codes.

It makes not one tittle of the instrument in hand...It's what dwells in the hearts of the men that matters.

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men....The Shadow Knows"

So to all that think that the gov't can fix it....You got more serious issues than what can be dealt with here.


.
And just keep those cards and letter!


Su Amigo,
Dave

 

[tyusclan]

I'll connect the dots for you...

A criminal can go to a private gun owner, and purchase a gun from him "legally"

NO, he canNOT! The very fact that he is attempting to purchase the gun is ILLEGAL.

That is to say that in most situations where criminals are using guns in crimes have used a legally way to purchase that gun. Not through a licensed dealer where a background check is required. But through a perfectly legal channel. You are right it's technically not legal... Thus the problem. Thank you for understanding and helping explain that point.

It is NOT 'technically' illegal and he is not going through a 'perfectly legal channel'. It simply IS illegal, and once again, just the fact that he is attempting to purchase a firearm is violation of the law.

I tell my kids all the time that what they do speaks so loudly that I can't hear what they're saying. You can claim to be a 'gun owner' all you want, but what you're advocating proves otherwise.

Nice touch throwing out shooting the 'Model 66', though. You're working hard to sound believable. Too bad for you it's not working.

 

[sambuh]

Modified by me... Due to a time waster here...

 

[cmort666]

So before you get your Damned panties all wadded up, figure out what I'm actually standing for.

It's pretty obvious what you're actually standing for.

Have you managed yet to think of a SINGLE example where anti-gun restrictions have been removed in exchange for concessions on the part of gun owners? Even ONE...?

 

[redlevel]

This is cute.

Go back, re read what I posted. Tell me what it is I stand for according to my recent posts. I'll wait to hear from you on that.

I'm not claiming to be a gun owner. The fact that I own quite a few pistols, a revolver, shotguns and rifles; not all SWs, three now, - would all buy indicate that I am in fact an owner of guns. Or in your words "a gun owner"

And I hate to break it to you. But because it is illegal, doesn't change the fact that it happens. And it happens more often than it doesn't. That's right. Let me spell it out for you so you don't have to think for yourself. What I stand for, and what I have been asking about since this post started was simply this -

We as gun owners, responsible or not, have the god given right to life. We are also then afforded tht right to defend the which we have been given by our creator, and also by the document on which our document was founded.

So then I ask, as a responsible gun owner, what are we to do with those who are skirting the system, by using a very legal means to purchase that which should be illegal. I merely suggested that "maybe", no not definitively, that a more stringent background check procedure is a way to cut down on gun crimes where, again, guns are purchased through a legal means. Again... More than 55% of crimes where guns are used by criminals were purchased in a way where nothing could be done.

I as a responsible gun owner, with kids, a home and family I stand to defend, cannot look at that and say, "BFD there is no answer, and I'm ok with doing nothing"

I then followed up that sentiment up by saying, "I'm not saying bg checks are the way. It is a way that makes sense to me"

So before you get your Damned panties all wadded up, figure out what I'm actually standing for. You, among a vast amount of others attached to this thread, look like a complete and total bigot arguing a point that was never brought up in the first place.

Pull it together and keep your eye on the ball. It's a crucial part of any level of intelligent discussion.

McBear, is that you??

 

[keith44spl]

Great question... Well in Virginia, we have a background check law. however i was at a gun show a. Few weeks back. nobody there is making anyone do a background check.

Clearly, you cannot make a case for legislating every single situation. However, you can look at the broader picture and create consensus, and smart law. For example, to your point; when speaking to gun crime, more that 65% of crimes committed, (according to the FBI/ATF) are with guns purchased privately. Do people steal guns? Yes. But more often than not, they actually don't. They buy them. They pay private, non licensed dealers, cash for weapons. In fact less than 13% of guns are stolen.

A background check, efficient and accessible and thorough, would not eradicate gun crime. But rather make it far more difficult. Take California and Hawaii as an example. A couple of the lowest crime rate with a gun, both require background checks for all sales. Both are also near the bottom in abstract crime rates as well.

I do however see the point being made, give an inch and watch them take a mile. While I would like to see a universal background check in place, I'm not sure I trust our legislators to make the right decision.

Sir,

As an Law Enforcement Officer, I must ask;

Did you witness a felony firearm transaction?

Did you personally assist directly or indirectly in the above self discribed transaction(s)?

Did you know personally, any person or persons directly or indirectly involved in the discribed
transaction(s) or have any knowledge of violation(s) of state or federal law?

Did you report the above discribed illegal activity that you observed to the proper authorities?



.

 

[redlevel]

Sir,

As an Law Enforcement Officer, I must ask;

Did you witness a felony firearm transaction?

Did you personally assist directly or indirectly in the above self discribed transaction(s)?

Did you know personally, any person or persons directly or indirectly involved in the discribed
transaction(s) or have any knowledge of violation(s) of state or federal law?

Did you report the above discribed illegal activity that you observed to the proper authorities?



.

Those are very good questions. You have implied to me twice that you saw FFL dealers selling without conducting a background check. Is this what you meant to imply? No meandering or circumlocution . . . . did you or did you not witness FFL dealers selling without a background check?

Also, your foolishness about criminals procuring guns "through otherwise legal channels" is just that--so much foolishness. The analogy is an eighth grader stealing his Grandpap's Lortabs, obtained by Granddad through legal channels, and pedaling them to classmates on the playground. Certainly not legal, and the eighth grader certainly didn't gain possession of the hydrocodone through "otherwise legal channels."

More and more you are reminding me of former member McBear who left here under less than honorable conditions a while back. He was condescending, slick with words, self-important, and most of all, he was wrong.

 

[keith44spl]

Those are very good questions. You have implied to me twice that you saw FFL dealers selling without conducting a background check. Is this what you meant to imply? No meandering or circumlocution . . . . did you or did you not witness FFL dealers selling without a background check?

redlevel,

I agree...If someone witnesses a felony and does not report it to the proper authorities....

They are a greater part of the problem than the perp, we'll eventually catch the perp....It's those witnessess that are diffcult to encourage to come forward.


Su Amigo,
Dave

 

[bushmaster1313]

Hey Boys...I had to go back and see who started this thread....

To all y'all that's been hangin around here a while...And you know who y'all are.

Where'd all these pecker-woods come from? The Brady Bunch?

Well excuse me.
I am not calling people names because they disagree with my opinion.

If you think that violent felons and the insane should be allowed to buy guns - then no background check is the way to go.

If you think that there should be some restrictions, background checks make sense.

They do, however, need to be quick and cheap, and New Jersey's background check system is currently busted.

 

[DeathGrip]

Well excuse me.
I am not calling people names because they disagree with my opinion.

I agree, Let's keep the name calling and jabs out of this otherwise enjoyable debate. It's not productive.

I don't agree with you on the subject and I won't call you names.

 

[rburg]

Way back in the 1700s some pretty darn intelligent men came up with a document. Then they added on 10 amendments. The idea was that Democracy is fine, but only within limits. They also felt a quick and simple majority could not impose their will on the rest of the country if it was in violation of the original principles the country was founded on. One of those was pretty clear. The government was not to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. If you can't buy the arms, then you can't keep and bear them. Here you've got some extremely liberal coastal states trying to push legislation that would significantly restrict the ability of many people to keep and bear arms. I have no use for anyone who would agree with their ideas or goals. If you think the Federal government should pass legislation that ill advised, you have a very flawed thought process. You have become the enemy.