I told the NRA today I agree with background checks

[boneman]

The anti's feel that gun owners should make concessions. One thing I have found in life is you can't make Concessions with fringe or any do-gooder. One concession leads to two then in a blink of an eye it isn't asking any more its taking. I've had many back ground checks in Ohio and it doesn't bother me at all but if I want to sell my collection to friends or family I do not feel I should have to jump through hoops to do it. I think making concessions to give away any hard earned gun rights is a really really bad idea. Thanks Larry

 

[125JHP]

Beware of unintended consequences...

A lot of people will agree that there are some people that shouldn't have guns... seems like a reasonable proposal, doesn't it. So then they might also agree a background check system would be a good way to implement it. This is where you get sucked into the system with each step down that path supported in the name of the original premise.

I tend to agree that certain people like mental defectives, chronic drug addicts and violent criminals shouldn't have guns but there has to be other ways to prevent that than instituting a carte blanc BCS to jump thru. However I disagree that a 100% gun registration and BCS is the way to do it. Perhaps more education of the general population thru school programs (just after sex ed class) would instill some common gun-sense in people.

So, after the check system becomes law, guess who get to decide "who is not fit" to own guns? Guess who gets to make up the rules and fees and regulations and enforcement penalties? Guess who gets to expand the system once its in place... Not you, that's for sure. Also try to guess what it would be like to get your name off the "prohibited to own" list, just like today's 'no-fly" list. You watch, if this becomes law the PTB will find all kinds of reasons to put as many on the list as possible, to prohibit otherwise OK people from buying guns.

Remember the seat belt law? at first it was just for the driver and only enforced if in an accident, then later only if stopped for another reason, then later it became required for passengers and then after a while all occupants. Now some areas throw up "safety check" road blocks, where they use it as an excuse to check you out in several ways (DUI, Illegals, Contraband, tobacco, whiskey, unpasteurized milk, home garden vegetables, License check, guns). It is just one more expansion of the police state.

You better hope you never made any mistake in your life that is on record somewhere, as it will be a witch hunt.

 

[bettis1]

Sure wish the OP had set this thread up as a POLL. Results would be interesting.

 

[wbraswell]

Remember that "they" don't want just to register sales. They want to ban guns, period. They have a utopian ideal of "no violence, no racism, no wars, no anger attitude. John Lennon would add "no religion too." They abhor hunting, so don't fall for their lies. They have tried to outlaw most every gun at some time. Saturday night specials were once the main target, that's every decent CC gun there is. Big guns, litle guns, short guns, long guns, they want them all, and every single one they get just feeds their fire. NO QUARTER! Not now, not ever!

 

[MTS Cop]

This is the problem I have with face to face, no background check sales. Every response on here has been "I don't want the government putting red tape in front of me selling my property to my law abiding friend/neighbor/relative". And I agree with that. I believe most of the people who participate here are good people with sound judgement. Unfortunately this world is full of even more degenerate, greedy, gulible or just plain stupid people. I have made a career out of handling their lives for them everyday. The fact that these people can turn around and sell a gun to whom ever they want, i.e. criminals or mental cases, bothers me. A lot actually. The only safe guard in the whole private sale system is the sellers conscience and quite frankly I have little to no faith that. I also have no idea what a good solution is. Maybe it is background checks on all sales. Maybe it is making sure all current records are up to date so the current system works better. If I had answers to questions like this I probably wouldn't be a lowly patrolman.

 

[cmort666]

Remember that "they" don't want just to register sales. They want to ban guns, period. They have a utopian ideal of "no violence, no racism, no wars, no anger attitude. John Lennon would add "no religion too." They abhor hunting, so don't fall for their lies. They have tried to outlaw most every gun at some time. Saturday night specials were once the main target, that's every decent CC gun there is. Big guns, litle guns, short guns, long guns, they want them all, and every single one they get just feeds their fire. NO QUARTER! Not now, not ever!

After decades of observation and actually LISTENING to these people, I'm convinced that much of this is rooted in an irrational hatred of people who forcibly RESIST aggression.

The aggressor they can always find an excuse or even a justification for. Hence their defenses of Sadaam Hussein, the Japanese militarists, and even to an extent the Nazis.

Those who resist violence with violence on the other hand are hated and reviled. Hence the condemnations not just of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the CONVENTIONAL bombing of Japan and now even Germany. I doubt I'm the only person who remembers the criticisms of the movie "The Great Raid" as "too one sided", as if there was some silver lining to Japan's campaign of murder, rape, slavery and human vivisection from Manchuria to Manila.

Even more to the point, violent Jewish resistance to the Holocaust is either ignored or even condemned. I've actually been told by gun control fanatics that more violent resistance to the Holocaust would have made things WORSE. None of them can coherently... or even sanely, tell me HOW.

What we have on the other side is a cult of nihilism and schadenfruede. For them, the only truly "decent" people are those who meekly amble to slaughter like sheep. Refuse to get on the boxcars to be "resettled to the east" and you become evil incarnate.

 

[cmort666]

This is the problem I have with face to face, no background check sales. Every response on here has been "I don't want the government putting red tape in front of me selling my property to my law abiding friend/neighbor/relative".

If you THINK that's been "every response", then you have a reading comprehension problem.

The VAST majority of responses have instead been, "We won't countenance this because the ONLY way to enforce it is with registration and registration is the gateway to CONFISCATION."

As a cop in New York, you're part of a privileged class. As a retired cop, you'll still be part of a privileged class. You will always (or THINK you will always) be allowed to own a gun without the restrictions imposed on everyone else. Everybody ELSE (at least those without money and political influence) are TOTALLY at the mercy of the WHIM of police officials and politicians who INVARIABLY exempt THEMSELVES from those same regulations.

Perhaps you've lived your whole adult life as a New York cop and simply have no experience of life anywhere else. Some of us on the other hand have experienced life under both oppression and corruption (Chicago, NY, NJ, etc.) and liberty (OH, PA, IN, etc). We have neither special privileges nor misplaced trust in those like Daley, Bloomberg and the like. Our rights haven't been reduced to plums of patronage. We won't have them so in the future.

 

[PALADIN85020]

Let's blow the foam off the beer with some facts...

Let's blow the foam off the beer, so to speak, and examine the gun-banner's mantra: Gun Control helps to prevent violent crime, and no one "needs" (insert the name of your favorite evil gun here) ____. Here are some facts.

Number one: No gun control law, ever, has reduced violent crime. The "Assault Weapons ban" of 1994 was proof positive of that. The antis want us to repeat a policy that failed. Isn't that the definition of stupidity?

Number two: Look at the gun crime rates in Chicago, Detroit, New York City, and Washington D.C. Extremely tight gun control laws, yet their incidence of murders committed with guns is extremely high compared to the averages.

Number three: Nearly total gun bans don't work either. Both Great Britain and Australia took that path. Problem solved, right? Wrong. Their violent gun-related crimes skyrocketed after the bans.

Number four: Registration, either overt or back door (via apparently innocent "record checks") leads ultimately to gun confiscation. History is full of examples - Germany, Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia. Once the confiscation had been accomplished, state-sponsored mass murders followed.

Number five: The Second Amendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or collecting. It was placed in the Bill of Rights as a final guarantee (note the operative word here is "final") against tyranny in government. If the people are armed with basically the same individual weapons as the military ("well regulated" meaning "equipped to standard"), then the government can never effectively subdue the people with the military.

Number six: The right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Constitution. It goes back in common law and tradition for centuries. All the Second Amendment does is to proscribe the government from messing with the right. Any infringement (look up the word) on that right is illegal under the highest law in the land - the Constitution.

Number six: "Tyrannical government? That will never happen here!" I've got news for you. I suggest you do your homework. It already has. I've posted examples already on this forum. Go ahead - Google:

Battle of Athens

Veterans Bonus March

Kent State Massacre

Number seven: Do you realize that millions of firearms, and many of them quite effective, have been manufactured before 1968 with no serial numbers at all? Are you serious that I would have to go through a dealer to give my grandson a Winchester 69A .22 rifle, and record the serial number as "None"? This is not only intrusive into my private life, it's just another example of out-of-control government insanity.

Number eight: More murders in this country, every year, are committed with hammers and bare hands than with guns. If a crazy person wishes to inflict mayhem on others, it can be done in other ways, and if a criminal wishes to obtain a firearm, one can be stolen (there are guns out there, and you cannot un-ring a bell), bought on the black market (like drugs), or even made from common materials.

Number nine: Bans simply don't work. The prime example was America's "noble experiment" with Prohibition. All that did was create a new class of criminals, profitable black marketing by crime syndicates, and the public almost universally thumbing its collective nose at the law.

Number ten: "No one NEEDS 'assault rifles', 30-round magazines, etc. etc." Tell that to the Korean merchants who protected their lives and businesses during the L.A. riots. Tell that to the cops who protect their lives and those of others daily with such weapons and equipment. If these things are effective for them, why not for US? And by the way, no one NEEDS a Ferrari that can go 200 miles per hour! But if you WANT one, if you have the dough or can borrow it, you can buy one. It's still a free country, the last time I checked.

In the face of this overwhelming evidence, why can anyone with an ounce of common sense support ANY sort of gun control? And if you are not involved in helping to derail it, why not? Once more, join the NRA and get your shoulder behind the wheel. The time to do it is NOW.

John

 

[Stephanie B]

The anti's feel that gun owners should make concessions.

Concessions, no. Negotiations, yes. Negotiations are "give and take". If we have to give on some things, I want to see what we can get out of it. For example, can we get suppressors removed from the NFA?

A discussion about concessions without anything in return is basically a discussion about the terms of a surrender. And if the gun control side thought that they had the votes, they wouldn't be asking for "concessions".

 

[cmort666]

Number one: No gun control law, ever, has reduced violent crime. The "Assault Weapons ban" of 1994 was proof positive of that. The antis want us to repeat a policy that failed. Isn't that the definition of stupidity?

Insanity, actually, but I suppose neither completely excludes the other.

Number ten: "No one NEEDS 'assault rifles', 30-round magazines, etc. etc." Tell that to the Korean merchants who protected their lives and businesses during the L.A. riots.

They SAY "No one NEEDS 'assault rifles' , 30-round magazines, etc., etc." What they MEAN is:

1. nobody needs to DEFEND themselves because the police will "protect" them as individuals.
2. it's WRONG to protect yourself.

1 is simply a lie. 2 is purest evil.

Never forget that AFTER initially defending themselves, the Koran shopkeepers of L.A. were FORCIBLY DISARMED, whereupon they were unable to stop the criminals who subsequently burned their businesses.

Actual consequences are utterly irrelevant to anti-gunners. The advancement of their decadent ideology of enforced victimization trumps all.

 

[bettis1]

John,

I have one of those Winchester M69 .22's without a serial number that you mention in your Number Seven above. It was my first gun and it was given to me by my uncle back in 1943 as he left for the Army. That was the last time that I saw him. He was killed in the invasion of Leyte in the Pacific.

It has been many years since I last fired that gun because there are many more modern and prettier ones now beside it in my safe. I don't have anyone to pass it on to but I would hate to think that the last time that I pull its trigger may be in the defense of the liberty that he protected with his life.

Bob

 

[cmort666]

Concessions, no. Negotiations, yes. Negotiations are "give and take".

Can you name a single instance of anti-gunners giving up any existing anti-gun measure in return for concessions from gun owners?

Can you explain on what conceivable basis I might place one iota of trust in the word of Charles Schumer, Michael Bloomberg or Dianne Feinstein?

 

[M3Stuart]

I do not agree with universal background checks.

I think that, in private sales, it puts the burden on me to enforce the law (that crazies, felons, other 4473 questions, etc can not buy guns).

I'll follow the laws that I'm supposed to follow and people who cannot legally own guns can follow the laws that they're supposed to follow.

Edit: I would, of course, never knowingly sell a gun in a private sale to someone I knew, or strongly suspected, of not being legally able to purchase a gun.

 

[PALADIN85020]

This is the problem I have with face to face, no background check sales. Every response on here has been "I don't want the government putting red tape in front of me selling my property to my law abiding friend/neighbor/relative". And I agree with that. I believe most of the people who participate here are good people with sound judgement. Unfortunately this world is full of even more degenerate, greedy, gulible or just plain stupid people. I have made a career out of handling their lives for them everyday. The fact that these people can turn around and sell a gun to whom ever they want, i.e. criminals or mental cases, bothers me. A lot actually. The only safe guard in the whole private sale system is the sellers conscience and quite frankly I have little to no faith that. I also have no idea what a good solution is. Maybe it is background checks on all sales. Maybe it is making sure all current records are up to date so the current system works better. If I had answers to questions like this I probably wouldn't be a lowly patrolman.

First, let me commend you for being a police officer in New York. I know that you are exposed on a daily basis with some of the dregs of society, and you are brave and dedicated to keep doing it.

But consider that the whole of the United States does not reflect the same conditions as exist in the big cities such as New York. Imposing "one size fits all" restrictions on the whole population of our country is not the answer. Think about the people living in small towns in remote areas of the country where their police may take hours to respond to an emergency. These are by and large honest, God-fearing people who keep effective firearms for self-protection against criminals, vandals and varmints, no matter how infrequent such need might arise. If they want to sell old grand-dad's .30-30 to a neighbor, chances are they know that person, and probably grew up with him. Having the government get involved in such transactions is not wanted and not needed. That's the way things are in their areas. They are very protective of their rights and their way of life; it's not the same as in the high-density metropolitan areas.

When you juxtapose a whole lot of people with different backgrounds and beliefs into a small physical space, conflicts are bound to happen, and frequently. Please do not mentally transfer the circumstances found in the big cities to more rural America. Things are quite different (and way nicer, in my opinion) in these areas.

Again, thanks for your service as a police officer. My hat's off to you, and please do keep a positive outlook on things in spite of all you have to go through.

Best,
John

 

[cmort666]

But consider that the whole of the United States does not reflect the same conditions as exist in the big cities such as New York. Imposing "one size fits all" restrictions on the whole population of our country is not the answer.

Beware of this line of reasoning because it can lead you in some very unanticipated and dangerous directions.

To whit, Giuliani's penchant for claiming that the 2nd Amendment means something different in New York City than it does in Natchez, MS.

If there are geographical (and or demographic) qualifications on the Second Amendment, does that mean that the Thirteenth Amendment means something different in Charleston, SC than it does in Columbus, OH?

The Bill of Rights means what it says, EVERYWHERE in the fifty states.

 

[DeathGrip]

Beware of this line of reasoning because it can lead you in some very unanticipated and dangerous directions.

To whit, Giuliani's penchant for claiming that the 2nd Amendment means something different in New York City than it does in Natchez, MS.

If there are geographical (and or demographic) qualifications on the Second Amendment, does that mean that the Thirteenth Amendment means something different in Charleston, SC than it does in Columbus, OH?

The Bill of Rights means what it says, EVERYWHERE in the fifty states.

If I may add: I sure doesn't work well in the "Big Cities" why would anyone think it would work in rural America?

At the least that's what I got out of palidins post.

 

[PALADIN85020]

Beware of this line of reasoning because it can lead you in some very unanticipated and dangerous directions.

To whit, Giuliani's penchant for claiming that the 2nd Amendment means something different in New York City than it does in Natchez, MS.

If there are geographical (and or demographic) qualifications on the Second Amendment, does that mean that the Thirteenth Amendment means something different in Charleston, SC than it does in Columbus, OH?

The Bill of Rights means what it says, EVERYWHERE in the fifty states.

Good point. Basically, what I was trying to say, and perhaps I didn't say it as well as I should have is this: Imposing Draconian gun control on the whole country just because some officials in certain areas have (so far) been successful in doing it, is bad policy. Most of us who do not live in big restrictive urban areas aren't buying it. Local gun control is bad enough, but national gun control is even worse.

John

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Sure wish the OP had set this thread up as a POLL. Results would be interesting.

Speaking of polling.... while watching Fox News Sunday this morning they put up a Fox News Poll indicating 91% support for a universal background check. Once again I find myself in the minority on these things.

The President of the NRA was on CBS a couple days ago and was confronted with a similar number-- 85% of NRA households support background checks on all gun buyers. He didn't object to the number other than saying the NRA was doing it's own polling.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record.... If the NRA and our friends in Congress are going to discuss background checks, I would like them to make repeal of Class 3 Tax Stamp requirements and onerous delays part of the discussion. Over the years I have heard little from them on this and don't hear anything now. Apparently, there is little interest in protecting the rights of the few. With numbers like 85% and 91%, I welcome those here who object to background checks to the land of the few.

 

[cmort666]

Speaking of polling.... while watching Fox News Sunday this morning they put up a Fox News Poll indicating 91% support for a universal background check. Once again I find myself in the minority on these things.

I would NEVER trust such a claim without knowing WHAT was asked and HOW.

I'm sure that you could get a LOT of people to be in favor of extermination of the human race from North America if you asked them whether they favored the "complete eradication of invasive, non-native species" without telling them that THEY are an "invasive, non-native species."

Gun control advocacy, like Holocaust denial, rests almost exclusively on the twin pillars of:

1. ignrance
2. exploitation of that ignorance through deceit

NEVER, EVER take what anti-gunners... or somebody whose "knowledge" has been informed by them, have to say at face value. There is ALWAYS a hidden agenda.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I would NEVER trust such a claim without knowing WHAT was asked and HOW.

I'm sure that you could get a LOT of people to be in favor of extermination of the human race from North America if you asked them whether they favored the "complete eradication of invasive, non-native species" without telling them that THEY are an "invasive, non-native species."

Gun control advocacy, like Holocaust denial, rests almost exclusively on the twin pillars of:

1. ignrance
2. exploitation of that ignorance through deceit

NEVER, EVER take what anti-gunners... or somebody whose "knowledge" has been informed by them, have to say at face value. There is ALWAYS a hidden agenda.

I agree that it is wise to be suspicious of polling, and I don't like polling in general because it's often used to beat others over the head with as being wrongheaded... After all, if you are in the minority of thinking you must be wrong!

That said, I purposely included the NRA President not objecting to the 85% of NRA household number. In the same interview, the President of the NRA bragged about their long support of NICS and their past suggestions to the ATF that they set up shop at gun shows to ensure all purchasers are checked. He says he thinks it would be difficult to enforce background checks on neighbors selling guns to one another. Nowhere did I hear a resounding NO. Ya reckon that was a calculated response to a nation and his membership that he thinks overwhelmingly rejects background checks? Please....

There's no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming majority of Americans support some type of universal background check in some shape or fashion. I disagree with them, but I'm not going to pretend otherwise.