Possession of a gun does not cause one to commit a crime.

I don't care for NICS. It's false security. It cannot keep an adult who isn't locked up from getting a gun.

Crime will be stopped by deterrence and bad consequences for criminals, not by gun control laws. NICS is a gun control law that is no better than the rest.

__________________
I've still got it made.

It isn't just about guns. What are we gonna do? Pass a background check for anything that can be used as a weapon?

Clearly background checks don't work. Ever stopped a straw purchase? Bet you have and so have I. But that doesn't stop a determined person from legally buying a gun, meet someone a block away and selling it to them for twice as much.

The system is seriously flawed. And we all suffer for it.

Our legal system is the problem. Instead of toughening and enforcing laws, good people like you are forced to do the governments work.

Commit a crime of violence and go to jail for life. Period.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Shouting fire is construed as an attempt to create chaos, and therefor do harm to others.

Honor killings - obviously that is murder.

Multiple wives - Why do you care what consenting adults do? I certainly don't.

A former felon buys a gun and takes it home. How have you been harmed? That's correct, you haven't.

Since nukes cost $10's, $100's, or $1000's of millions, I'm not terribly concerned with my neighbors getting nukes. Criminals are usually criminals because they don't have the skills to do anything else. I doubt a person who has those kind of resources is a criminal. Again, I'm not going to waste my time worrying about it.

How about we take your position to its logical conclusion - if one group (former felons) can have their rights denied, how about:

* Those convicted of misdemeanors? That's right, they can - if the crime is punishable by more than 1 year in prison.

* Those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence? Oh, they can for that too. And all that takes is the accusation of an angry spouse.

* Then those who have a restraining order against them - without even any conviction or any kind of ANY proof of wrong doing? Those also.

* What group is next? Those with parking tickets? Jaywalking?

Once you establish that gun ownership isn't a right but merely a privilege extended to the 'in' group, all it takes is a redefinition of the 'in' group to deny the next class, until everyone is banned.

From the limited details in the OP, those people in PA were apparently law abiding folks, and were not wanted by the police or suspected of any crimes. So we have a group of people who may have had a checkered past, but now are not causing any trouble for anyone and tried to buy a gun. I fail to see what problem is being solved by going after them.

My right has been taken away and been replaced with a privilege. I am prohibited from buying from a dealer unless I get government permission first. That isn't a right. Jack booted thugs haven't kicked in my front door either, that doesn't mean I am willing to tear up the 4th too.

It appears you can't figure out the difference between:
* Being in favor of an outcome (former felons getting guns)
* Being able to examine the consequences (loss of rights for EVERYONE, background checks, shrinking class of 'permitted' persons etc), and deciding that the cost doesn't justify the benefit. Do I WANT bad guys to get guns? No. But I am willing to accept that risk rather than trade my rights for mere privilege.

Your logic is what the banners use: If I am against their 'reasonable restriction', I must be FOR the alternative. No, but I can weight cost/benefit, and judge that the minuscule probability that I be a victim is not worth the cost of my rights.

You, on the other hand, have apparently decided it is ok to be in chains if they are long enough.

[/QUOTE]

I have an unlimited right to buy bananas. No background check on those yet.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

snubbyfan, get the popcorn poppin'

__________________
I’m your Boogie Man, uh huh.

Over a hundred posts into it and you're just now asking for popcorn?

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

So.......I guess you are A-OK with selling firearms to illegal immigrants and anybody else that puts $500 on the gun store counter.

not to worry, snubbyfan has the super dooper popper.

__________________
I’m your Boogie Man, uh huh.

My question would be, why should it be up to YOU to decide?

Again, it's not about the buying and selling or the availability of guns. It's about our laws or lack thereof and their enforcement.

Illegal immigrants shouldn't be here anyway. But that's another matter.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Any US citizen that puts $500 on the gun store counter should get a $500 gun . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I'm not ok with illegal immigrants being in my country, armed or otherwise.

The notion that my 2A rights should be infringed upon pursuant to illegals entering the country kinda sounds like the Sarah Brady Solution Center.

I agree with a lot of what you say John, in principle. But I can't agree in practice. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and what works in theory doesn't always work in the real world. I also understand your slippery slope theory. I've made a lot of the same arguments myself. But as I've gotten older my position has changed. Just as rights of free speech, and religious practice, have limits, I see a place for limits on the right to own firearms too. I don't see prohibiting people who through their own behaviors and choices have shown that they can't be trusted with implements of deadly force as an unacceptable limitation. Any more than I see selling those same weapons to underage children or those with the developmentally disabled or the insane. I also don't equate being checked against a list of such known persons, as being "put in chains" either. That's a pretty sophomoric exaggeration.

There are people rich enough to purchase a nuke. Plenty of them right here in the US. But even if there weren't you didn't really address my main point. WE - the USA - are "prohibiting" other nations from getting or developing nuclear weapons. Why? Because they have shown they can't be trusted to have them. Just as those convicted of violent crimes have shown that they can't be trusted with guns. The PRINCIPLE is the same. So, are you OK with the "risk" of North Korea or Iran having the bomb? Or do you think OUR GOVERNMENT - the same government who says felons can't have guns (and incidentally for the same reason) should continue to oppose and try to prevent them from gaining nuclear capability?

What is to keep the anti-2A crowd from eventually banning guns or barring everyone from possessing them? WE ARE - through eternal vigilance and being politically active and voting against them. Apathy and inactivity and failure to do those things are how places like California ended up in the situation they are in. Not a happy truth, but it is the truth. 2nd amendment supporters sat back and let it happen over the last 50 years. In the last several years on the whole, we have been winning - as evidenced by the majority of states relaxing concealed carry laws or even going to "constitutional carry". We haven't won every battle, but we are winning the war, and as long as we don't get complacent and if we continue to actively fight I believe we will continue to do so. And there are PLENTY of bad gun laws on the books for us to work towards repealing.

I'm done. Obviously we aren't going to agree. Anybody who takes the position that they are OK with someone who beats their wife or who has been convicted of violent crimes being able to walk into a gun shop and buy a gun no questions asked isn't going to be swayed by anything I or anyone else has to say.

Amendment II

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

No disrespect to anyone, but I fail to see what the problem is.

I don't see any limitations, exclusions, amendments, and's, if's , or but's, or what if's?

I see something clear and concise. Easy to understand.

Some people have the problem of construing the true meaning of this right to suit their beliefs. And by doing so we fall right into the hands of those that are trying to take that right away.

We all need to be on the same page folks. "They" laugh when we argue amongst ourselves.

Give em an inch and they'll take a mile.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Not to mention that a large majority of "illegal possession of a firearm" charges are plea bargained down to garner a guaranteed minimal conviction, or in some cases, for information that the perp may have that the DA wants. I got into a little tit for tat several years ago with my local DA about this very flaw in the judicial system. His comment was that it was better to plea down the illegal firearm charges to get the guaranteed conviction and get the criminal off the street for a "few" years, than it was to spend the tax payers money trying to get a federal firearms conviction.

__________________
I reckon so

I wish that it were that simple or that absolute my friend.
Even our forefathers didn't extend that right to all people.
Slaves didn't have that right.

It SHOULD be that simple and resolute. And I agree, we aren't perfect. The 120,000 or so Japanese that were interned during WWII are proof of that.

But that doesn't mean we should alter our thinking or quit trying.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

Yet they'll yank some poor slub's PP and long guns for some bogus alleged "domestic dispute" or DUI.
You'll need a lawyer to hopefully get back your property, costing you thousands. It's happened numerous times in NYS.
The PP holders walk on eggshells fearing even a speeding ticket, and the criminals get a pass.

__________________
I’m your Boogie Man, uh huh.

My point is that although they WROTE it in absolute terms, even THEY didn't extend that right universally to everyone. They expounded and codified the principle, but in practice even they put limits on it.

Where? What limits?

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

I guess you missed my previous post.
Were slaves people? Because they were not afforded the right to own guns. Why? Because the founding fathers didn't even want to recognize them as people, ergo they had NO rights, ergo they had no right to own a gun.

I know in Ohio there was a mandatory 3 day jail sentence when convicted of OMVI or DUI. Many courts will waive the mandatory jail time if the individual participates in an in patient alcohol dependency program. Most are done on the weekends, so people would not miss work. The one thing they don't realize is part of the plea states they are alcohol dependent. I have to assume folks would not be reporting these. I wonder if this is something that could be easily identified and pursued.

I understood that. So what you're saying is that because of mistakes, the 2A is no longer valid or has the same meaning?

And slavery is a poor example to use. Back then it was considered normal.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

All this nuke stuff is dizzying.

Who's used a nuke against another country?

__________________
I’m your Boogie Man, uh huh.

No, I am saying that even the founding fathers allowed for exceptions to this inalienable right. In Chicago and DC prohibiting everyone from concealed carry and from having magazines >10 round capacity, and from owning an AR-15 is "normal" too. The majority of their citizens have agreed to it and allowed it to become the law. Just as slavery was "normal" and codified into law at the time the constitution was written - and even accepted by the writers of the constitution.

Does the fact that the majority didn't consider slaves as people mean they weren't people? If bearing arms is a totally UNRESTRICTED right of ALL people, why was it not extended to slaves? That is where I see there being a difference between the ideal embodied in the principle and the practical application of it. That is why I am less of an absolutist on this question.

I see a difference between asking "permission" to buy a gun, and verifying that I am not someone who has no business owning a gun. Because I do believe that there are people who have demonstrated, through their behavior or mental state, that should not be allowed to own a gun.

It is a subtle distinction that the absolutist mindset cannot accept - a fact that I guess I will just have to accept.

Well sir, we disagree.

I'm not living in the past. I'm moving forward.

In the past the anti's have been allowed to slowly chip away at our 2A rights. And they will continue to do so if we let them.

Slowly giving them what they want is how we got here in the first place. And it all started with background checks.

__________________
Life Is A Gift. Defend it!

This thread is yet another indicator of why I think Bloomberg will continue to have good success with universal background checks on state ballot initiatives. A great many gun owners support background checks.

Ya know.... there hasn't been one nuclear detonation in a state requiring universal background checks.

Well, Phil, all I can say is that I think you are partially right.
Since even the NRA supports the idea of BGCs - and they have 5 million members - I'm sure there are a lot of gun owners who support SOME kind of system of background checks. Maybe not the system we currently have, but some kind of system.

I don't think there's any doubt about it. Polling in Washington showed strong support for universal background checks among gun owners. They got it now.

Yeah, I-594 even passed here in Spokane by 51% - and this is the conservative side of the state.

FWIW, I voted against it and even attended several protest events against it. A lot of my opposition was in regards to the fact that it was so poorly written and its definitions were so vague.

This illustrates the virtue of the "absolutist". It matters not what trickery or foolishness is imbeded in these universal background check schemes or how dishonestly they're advertised. The absolutist knows better.

If you say so. I prefer to think that we (pro-2A folks) can instead support better more effective forms of BGC laws and work to have the vague and poorly written ones revoked or superseded. But we can't do that without getting involved in the process of drafting them.

ANY US CITIZEN....... And how does the gun dealer determine whether or not a person is a citizen? Identification alone does not.

What about the non-citizens that are currently allowed to legally purchase firearms?

Our 2nd amendment rights have no connection with illegals.

As somebody who has been through the process of non-immigrant visa holder, Green card holder and citizen, I have stories to tell on that subject.

__________________
Release the Kraken

I'm sure there enough material in this thread to draft something.

It's a symptom of irresponsible, bad choices, lack of care for others and a host of other ills.

A headache doesn't mean you have brain cancer.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"

The 2nd could have said the right can't be abridged. But it says more. It says why it can't be abridged. Having firearms isn't just a right, it's a duty. Prohibited classes of people still have the duty. The felon needs to protect his family and neighbors as much as anyone else does.

I cringe at the idea that government will release into the public threats to the people, based on the idea that it's okay, cause they make it illegal for them to buy a firearm. It is government's prime directive to keep threats away from us. And the irony is that government's action creates a greater need for us to be armed, while they create restrictions on our being armed in the name of keeping the wrong people from being armed. Government gone mad.

I remember seeing in Western movies over 50 years ago, criminals being released from prison/jail, the jailer handing them their guns back as they are released. Made sense then; makes sense now. If you can't trust them with a gun (or a knive, or baseball bat, etc.), don't let them go. It's your job, government.

__________________
I've still got it made.

US passport . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I brought my original posts subject up on my FB homepage, and we true 2A defenders have a huge problem. My friends are mainly conservative with enough liberals to keep discussions lively. Almost every reply was in favor of tougher background checks for any gun purchase. Several suggested registering handguns, because to them, handguns are only good for criminals. Then the discussion turned toward semi auto rifles and it got really ugly as the Fudds chimed in with the usual stupidity of "you only need one shot".

__________________
Virtue,Liberty & Independence

No more so than your assertion that I want terrorists, rogue nations who have stated their intent to do us harm, wife beaters, and violent criminals to have nukes.

Big difference - Terrorists, North Korea, and Iran have all stated their intent to attack and do us harm when they gain the capability to do so. They are a future threat. The US has a duty to use every means possible to keep them disarmed.

Now if Sweden wants a nuke, I don't care. They are not our enemy, have never stated an intent to attack us, and are a sovereign nation. The US has no business interfering in and dictating to other nations who mean us no harm.

Felons who can prove that they are willing to live under society's laws should be released with their full rights restored after their sentence is served. Those who are unwilling should stay in prison.

That would be too expensive? A start would be to eliminate all those unconstitutional 'malum prohibitum' crimes. The US has the 2nd highest incarceration rate in the world. Free up that prison space for real crimes.

But that recidivism rate - offenders are likely to re-offend. That could be interpreted as evidence of a future threat against us to justify the prohibition. True enough, but that means that our justice system has failed. So I should have to pay for that failure by accepting lowest common denominator restrictions on my liberty? No.

In PRINCIPLE, if you accept that I must seek permission to buy a gun from a dealer, than you must also demand that private sales be outlawed, guns registered, I submit to psychological tests, and otherwise prove myself to be 'fit' to be granted permission.

There is no compromise with the banners. Every 'reasonable restriction' is just one step closer to their goals. Give an inch, they take a mile. The way to fight them is to never give them that first inch.

Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. We have forfeited the principle that gun ownership is a right, now it is merely a privilege. We are reduced to fighting over the degree of infringement.

Again, do I want bad guys to have guns? No. But I am I willing to downgrade my right to a privilege for the chance of reducing the very small probability that I will be the victim of a crime? Also no.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

There is no difference. You ARE asking permission. Remember when the NICS system was down a few months back for a software update? Gun transfers stopped. People who are wrongfully delayed or denied? The burden is on THEM to prove they are 'eligible'.

The govt is now the master who gets to decide who can and who can't own firearms.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

You don't draw a distinction but I am hoping your "conservative friends" are not the ones suggesting gun registration much less "tougher" background checks. Or your definition of conservative differs from what I usually associate with the term.

You do only need one shot. BUT it is a whole lot more fun to shoot bunches more. Me, I prefer 6 at a time but hey, whatever trips your trigger so to speak.

Those guys wouldn't be trap shooters, would they? The club where I used to shoot in Cincinnati had trap, skeet, pistol, and rifle. The skeet shooters were mostly easy to get along with, but the trap shooters had no use for anyone else, even the skeet shooters.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

Lol, you're citing what they did in movies as your argument? OK, I'll play...

Watch those old movies again and see how many of those prisoners took those guns that were given back to them and immediately went out and used them to commit more armed robbery, rape, murder, and mayhem. Probably not the best argument for letting criminals have their gun rights restored.

Another thing to consider. At that time there were a few million people in this country and maybe a few hundred violent criminals. There are now tens of thousands of violent predators and a few hundred million of us for them to prey on. What worked then doesn't necessarily work now. Unless you want to go back to frontier "justice" where we hang people for property crimes like stealing a horse. Like I said before, our society cannot afford to house a 20 year old convicted of armed robbery for the rest of their lives.

All I can say to the absolutists, is you can sit back, arms folded, and say "Nope. not acceptable, not gonna go along with it, blah, blah, blah", but it ain't gonna change anything or convince anybody. Or you can get involved, engage, and have input into how these laws are made. Because guns ARE going to be regulated. Rant and rail all you want about "chains" and "getting permission" etc., but the majority are against you. No matter how much we dislike and oppose it, the fact is the vast majority of people favor the idea of a BGC. Keep refusing to engage and get involved and they're going to get more of what THEY want - and we're going to get less of what WE want.

Too many of us took the former approach in WA and we got I-594. If more of us had got off our behinds and got involved instead, we might have ended up with something that wasn't so vague, and poorly written. You can stand on ideology and deny the reality of the situation all you want. You're just going to get steamrollered. Reality is reality. Operating as if the world is the way you WANT it to be - as opposed to the reality of the way it really IS - has always been one of the major pitfalls of the approach of our opponents in this fight. I choose to operate in the real world and deal with reality as it exists. BGCs are a reality we are going to have to deal with because the overwhelming majority support them. Good luck changing that.

I'm out.

They've been fed the statist pablum and are lapping it up.

__________________
I’m your Boogie Man, uh huh.

That's exactly right. There will never be enough background checks to satisfy Bloomberg and his gun-owning collaborators.

Banning private sales (universal background checks) will not be enough. The next step will be that the background check must include a registration process for tracking enforcement and prosecution. Bloomberg's gun-owning collaborators will then lecture that 'absolutists' should join in and help draft a gun registration bill rather than object. No thanks.

Betcha.

People will be regulated.

__________________
I've still got it made.

No one has ever won by capitulating to their oppressors. Losing slowly is still losing.

I wonder how many people told George Washington he couldn't win.

We all know that the NRA will never admit that NICS was a bad idea, it was their brainchild after all. So it is pointless to go to them for help.

Here are some ideas, rather than giving up:

For now, leave NICS in place to increase that slight chance that the NRA might help.

Reform NICS to make it less a 'permission' system - for example, when someone buys a gun, they take it home regardless of NICS delays or malfunctions. If it comes up as 'deny', they still get to take it home. The ATF has the burden to follow up and confirm that it is accurate. If confirmed, it is the ATF's responsibility to go notify the purchaser and provide him with all records documenting the reason for the denial. The purchaser gets a time period to attempt to resolve the situation, during which the ATF is prohibited from taking possession of the firearm. The ATF is only allowed to confiscate it AFTER all due process is followed.

Start repealing all those prohibited classes, maybe start with those with restraining orders against them.

Eventually, there is no one on the 'prohibited' list, so NICS goes away.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

I'm a simple person and I've always found simple is better! I refuse to accept any "it will ultimately be" statements. Those are the words of incrementalists.

So here it is.

If I am eligible to vote, I can possess a firearm. If I have served my sentence and paid my debt to society and am of legal age, I am eligible to vote. The reader can easily show the remaining logic.

Q.E.D

Let's hear the cries when you put the restrictions on voting in order to execute incremental gun control. I hope they are loud and squelch any such discussion. I'm tired of trying to selectively limit rights. I'd rather see some "journalists" be prohibited from "practicing" (not really, said for hyperbole)!

All rights are our rights.

__________________
Really? U saw it in Wikipedia?

Wow, this thread sure has morphed along the way. I'm even kind of shocked its still open, given the tendency in the past to close anything that anyone thinks might be controversial.

There was an author and lawyer, James Jeffries. He wrote a series of articles, the most interesting being "What to do when the ATF comes a knocking." It might still be out on the internet and was a good read. But the same advice should be given to all gun owners, and even thugs. When the polices ask you a question, you need to answer. But only with name, rank and serial number. OH, wait. We're citizens and don't have the last two. So give the good officer your name. As it appeared on your birth certificate. We may have lost or given up the 2nd but we still have the 4th, kind of. Don't incriminate yourself. The less you say, the better it will be for you.

Everyone wants to try to talk himself out of being arrested. In practice, it probably doesn't work 1 in 1000 times. So ****, short for shut up. If you filled out your federal form, let it stand for itself. Make them prove everything they allege. Don't lift a finger to help put yourself in the slammer. If they ask why, see if they still carry the little card they use to read you your rights. Most criminals are dumb, don't be one of them. As much as we like LEOs here, there is no reason to help them put you in jail. Yes, make their job difficult. Especially if they ask if that's your signature on the form. No reason to answer. If they want you that badly, let them hire a writing expert and get him to court.

Many of us have been delayed for no good reason. To some, that might have been reason to arrest you. So I kind of agree with the idea that if they deny you your rights, someone needs to get arrested. Maybe the nice lady at NICS, or you. But they need to have just a little respect for what's left of our rights.

__________________
Dick Burg

^

"When the polices ask you a question, you need to answer. But only with name, rank and serial number. OH, wait. We're citizens and don't have the last two. So give the good officer your name."


In Texas, you're under no obligation to give your name or show ID to law enforcement, even if detained. Only if you're arrested.

__________________
Smith & Wesson beat four aces