Somewhat new to ccw; fully supportive of 2nd amendment. But I have a question that I'd really like some intelligent dialogue on. So here's the question. If the gun grabbers left is wanting universal background checks, is there harm in that? Yes, I know, criminals will NOT comply. And "neighbor to neighbor & friend to friend" sales cannot be enforced to do checks, so, sure, no background check. But why not at gun shows? If you buy from an FFL, you're required a background check. Is it much of a stretch to do them at gun shows? The way I see it, if you want to sell at a gun show, you have to comply to do a background check (maybe a seperate booth?). If you don't want to do that, go sell your guns on the internet or some other way. I've heard some say it will create a national gun registry. That's dumb! If you've bought from an FFL, they know it anyway (don't they?) To keep them from trying to pass all-out bans (which I honestly don't think they'll ever do,) why not say, "Fine, the gun community will close the 'gun show loophole.' Now, get off our backs." It MIGHT keep some from conveniently being able to purchase a firearm is they really have no business owning one. (for those who are SO 2A that you think crazy people and felons should have the right to own one, too, just please don't even answer.) Would like to get some input from those in the community who can help me settle this in my own mind.
universal background check question
- Thread starter revdej
- Start date
ok hate to be blunt here but in case you are not trolling? Here Goes Shall not be infringed. The problem is when you start to negotiate your rights away little by little they will eventually erode period. Now you say whats the harm in a unviersal back ground check it is the first step in the gun grabbers agenda. Registration leads for confinscation. If you doubt this I would invite you to do a little reasearch on Socialism and Communism. No one disputes that Guns should not be in the hands of deranged animals however you can not punish society for crimes of others.
routereyes
Independent Conservative
The ONLY way to enforce that private sales go through a background check is to register all firearms. As history has proven time and time again, all it takes is the next tragedy (UK, Australia) to then use that registration scheme and confiscate all guns. We are already seeing an attempt to ban all semi-auto rifles that look scary. The progressives want to take away your guns. Once you start doubting that, there is no hope for you. Our second amendment right has been infringed ever since 1934 when we had had 150 years of no issues. Guns have always been around. What has changed is the violent nature of our society which several factors have contributed to. Starting with the breakdown of the family (through many, many reasons) to the hyper violent games and movies now accepted in our society. I know I am ranting but people need to wise up on this subject. It sounds GREAT, who wouldn't want background checks on everyone but NOT to the detriment and infringing of our second amendment. It is the one that protects ALL others.
Sauer
New member
Well, this is likely to be an active thread... There is no gun show loop hole. There are FFL sales and private sales. What the grabbers want is to track every sale of every firearm. Ya know, for the safety of the children. There is no way to do that without first registering all weapons so the Gubment can track those sales. How else would they track the sale between farmers or neighbors? Here's the rub. Criminals, illegally in possession of firearms would not submit them for registration for obvious reasons. Additionally they are constitutionally protected from doing so under the 5th amendment. They only people who would submit to registration of their firearms are people least likely to commit crime, all while having no effect on those least likely to obey laws. The very group of people for which the law was written.
Keep in mind, there are millions of law abiding gun owners and the problem with gun violence has 2 faces: Criminals and crazies. Crime is pretty easy to fix, enforce the laws currently on the books. Stop allowing criminals who use guns in crime to plea bargain down to lesser offenses. When the U.S. cracked down on DUI's, we didn't ban cars or alcohol (that worked out great in the 20's) nor did we hold every driver responsible for the actions of a few...we stiffened the penalties and enforced the laws.
Not sure how to fix crazy but eliminating "gun free zones" would be a great start. They provide a false blanket of security and safety and occasionally provide horrific results. They are a microcosm of gun control.
Keep in mind, there are millions of law abiding gun owners and the problem with gun violence has 2 faces: Criminals and crazies. Crime is pretty easy to fix, enforce the laws currently on the books. Stop allowing criminals who use guns in crime to plea bargain down to lesser offenses. When the U.S. cracked down on DUI's, we didn't ban cars or alcohol (that worked out great in the 20's) nor did we hold every driver responsible for the actions of a few...we stiffened the penalties and enforced the laws.
Not sure how to fix crazy but eliminating "gun free zones" would be a great start. They provide a false blanket of security and safety and occasionally provide horrific results. They are a microcosm of gun control.
Thanks. I'm sure I'll get a lot more feedback. (And, folks, I don't visit the site too much; you'll just have to believe I'm no troll - just seeking information.) So what does the gun community suggest? I know - there is not a SINGLE LAW that would have stopped Sandy Hook or any other shooting. In fact, that is my main line when others engage me in conversation about guns and gun rights. Laws will not stop criminals. But, what can our community do as a "good faith effort" that will do no harm to the 2A? I'd like to be known as someone working together for solutions withouth eroding our freedom.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Does anybody know of a gun show that doesn't require background checks?
This is the 2nd thread about the "gun show loophole." In the northwest, I have never been to a gun show that did not require a background check because all the merchants were FFL dealers. The only people that didn't require a background check were the private sellers OUTSIDE the gun show.
If the latter part of my experience is what the OP is referring too, then that is NOT A GUN SHOW LOOP HOLE. Just a private exchange which should absolutely not require background checks.
Just for giggles, what would you call all those private sellers setting up booths right outside "gun buy back programs" giving $200 cash for guns that would only get $100 gift cards from the police? Capitalism loophole?
This is the 2nd thread about the "gun show loophole." In the northwest, I have never been to a gun show that did not require a background check because all the merchants were FFL dealers. The only people that didn't require a background check were the private sellers OUTSIDE the gun show.
If the latter part of my experience is what the OP is referring too, then that is NOT A GUN SHOW LOOP HOLE. Just a private exchange which should absolutely not require background checks.
Just for giggles, what would you call all those private sellers setting up booths right outside "gun buy back programs" giving $200 cash for guns that would only get $100 gift cards from the police? Capitalism loophole?
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
There is no working together with anti-gun people. They will ask for a little bit, and you give in, then they ask for a little more, and you give in, then they ask for a little more...eventually there will be nothing. They will never give us anything, any inch we take back they scream and cry about children and minorities. Any infringement that's "in good faith" is doing MUCH more harm than an outright infringement hell bent on abolishing the constitution. I say that, because one is easy to spot before it's completely eroded away.
What our community can do to help each other, is ACTUALLY help each other instead of looking the other way.
The_Outlaw
~The Dude Abides~
Read and hopefully learn something from the attached link...
If we don't learn from our history, we are all destined to repeat it.
Gun Control Hall of Fame
AndeyHall
Active member
Research has shown that the most effective method of preventing massacres like Sandy Hook is to limit media sensationalization. Most mass murderers have been proven, either in diaries or their suicide letters to have studied previous mass killings and wanted to set a new "record". It's already being reported that Adam Lanza did the same. See it angers me that I even know his name. What research suggests is that the killers' names, background info, death toll...things like that...never be reported to the media. This would eliminate the "fame" that goes along with being someone like them. And this would in no way infringe on the 2nd amendment
Listen to "Dirty Laundry" by Don Henley. He explains it perfectly.
vernsimpson
New member
The only and best way to stop mass shootings is for the media to stop with the wall to wall reporting on it AND to stop plastering the shooters name everywhere. The nutcases who do the shootings want their 15 Min. of fame. The media does reward the nutcase by constantly showing their pictures and spreading their name everywhere. We should insist that a law be passed to stop the media from doing that. When we do that then it would show the media for what they are. They would scream that we are infringing on their 1st Amendment Rights. The media are nothing but a bunch of ambulance chasers!!!!!
A good faith effort really? How about this where is the outage over that Child that was shot and killed in Georgia as the mother tryed t shield the child. Where is Barry on that one? Where is Jessie Jackson? Really again hate to be blunt here but Really the stupidity of trying to negoitiate with people that are hell bent on disarming society will not work period there is no need to show a good faith effort. My good faith effort is exercising my 2nd amendment right! Oh by the way there is a single law that may have stopped the atrocity at Sandy Hook it would be called having authorized person there with a firearm willing and ablle to stop a threat! Here in Indiana we have such a law and some districts are actually looking at implementation.
Gallstones
New member
Close your eyes? :biggrin:
mappow
New member
I really don't care if your a troll or not, especially on this question. To further impede a law abiding citizen from the purchase of a lawful commodity is in its self a travesty by a gov't that was established to be "For the People, by the people". "Shall not be infringed" was made by an earlier post and quotes the Constitution of the United Sates. NOT really sure what part of the statement you don't understand. BUT not trying to be rude, crude, indigent or belligerent I'll try to explain further.
Criminals will always get what they want, no exceptions. The crazy have always been around since the dawn of man. Sometimes by their actions against society, sometimes gathering a following then acting crazy and killing. (The list is exhaustible). The only defense, at least in this Country, is to take responsibility for your personal protection and arm yourself with the tools that will allow you to protect and defend. WHY impede this ability? Why subject the legal law abiding citizens to further checks of a Constitutional Right. What other Right guaranteed by the Constitution is this kind of background check subjected to?
In closing a quote seems to be applicable "An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein. Although a fictional writer, and one of the best IMHO, his inference cannot be denied. If more people were armed there would be less criminals committing personal assaults and killings. Had that mother been armed while taking a walk in Brunswick, Ga last week... Had the principal been armed in Sandy Hook...Had the one of the patrons in the movie theater in Colorado been armed.....I truly believe the out come would have been different. HOW DARE Society dictate to the principal that she has to protect her school with only her bare hands. REALLY, and this is civil to you?
Gallstones
New member
That would be an infringment of the First Amendment.
As distastful as it might be to accept the consequences of allowing the First to be exercised, we just can't infringe it either. We have to come up with other solutions.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
A good faith effort is wasted when you are working with people who's best advice is to urinate on your attacker.
AndeyHall
Active member
It wouldn't be an infringement on the 1st amendment if they had no information to broadcast. I wasn't suggesting telling them they can't report their information, I was suggesting law enforcement not give them any info to report.
We must first get some definitions. Good faith effort, liberal definition, agree with liberals. Compromise, liberal definition, agree with liberals. Common sense, liberals definition, agree with liberals. See a pattern here. Liberal socialist can't achieve their goals without total control. In a free society personal responsibility must reign. Socialist liberals can't deal with freedom.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Yes. The harm would be the same if you had to have a background check before you could buy a baseball bat, or a knife, or a car, or a step-ladder, or any other piece of private property that has the potential to be dangerous, most of which of those listed, cause more deaths per year than guns do. Would it be harmful to your liberties to have to submit to warrantless questioning just because you needed/wanted one of those items?
Get your head in the game.
The so-called gun-show-loophole is a neighbor to neighbor transaction. Private parties living in the same general vicinity are neighbors, and promotion companies putting on gun shows are simply giving them a venue to meet, network, buy and sell, eat some lousy hot dogs etc. etc. The requirement to run NICS checks is on the FFL, not the private citizen, so if a private citizen is required to bring an FFL into a deal by virtue of a new law mandating such, that's "why not at gun shows." Leave me and my neighbors alone. We've been doing just fine without more government intrusion into our "unalienable" rights.
You just called a bunch of us dumb. I thought you just wanted some intelligent dialogue. Your "fully supportive of the 2nd Amendment" stated stance is getting weak in the knees the more you type.
You mean you don't know?
Been done before. NFA '34, GCA '68, FOPA '86, AWB '94, plus about 20,000 lesser-known laws that are currently on the books that gun owners have either acquiesced to their demand for compromise, or they have imposed said "compromises" on us involuntarily. And what have we gotten in return? A compromise is a two-way street. On the one hand, we have our God-given, fundamental, unalienable rights. What does government have to give us in return for allowing them to take little bits and pieces of them here and there? Not a damned thing except power-hungry tyranny, and you "don't think" gun bans will ever happen ain't all that comforting to those of us who have been paying attention to the events of the last 150 years or so.
Again, get your head in the game.
Now there's an interesting concept - being "SO 2A" that you don't qualify to answer a 2A question. Oh, but you are "fully supportive of the 2nd Amendment," right? Riiiight.
Sorry pal, you don't get to call people dumb, ask a bunch of common gun-grabber questions, and then try to stifle some of the members of this forum from answering. It is quite obviously you who hasn't thought your questions through to any semblance of logical conclusions, so I'm going to help you suss out those couple of issues....
There is really only one way to determine that someone who has never presented as "crazy" before is, indeed, crazy, and that is when they finally go off the rails. What would you have "the community" give up in the way of God-given, fundamental, unalienable rights to prevent them going off the rails unexpectedly? If a pre-off-the-rails buyer buys from an FFL or a private party, what law, short of banning all sales, is going to keep that undiagnosed crazy person from making a legal purchase? What background check is going to catch an undiagnosed mental deficient in a NICS check? And if we're so busy checking the mental health of everyone who deigns to exercise their rights by buying and owning guns, where did the HIPPA rights of privacy suddenly go? My doctor can't even inform my wife of quarterly blood-tests I have to have done, unless I consent to release that info. So now you're not only putting the government between the buyer and seller of guns, you're putting the government between doctors and patients, and many of those patients, myself included, interview doctors to make sure they will protect my privacy before patronizing their practice.
As far as felons having guns go, I am likely in a small minority on this forum, but I think it is a horrendous law. Mostly because there are so many felons who never hurt a soul (except maybe themselves), and never used a gun in the commission of whatever crime(s) they were involved in. A guy sitting behind a computer hacking into corporate accounts to steal money is obviously not the kind of guy who is going face-to-face to rob someone at gun-point. A kid who gets caught experimenting with a little blow when he's 18 should not be prevented from having the same ability to defend himself as all the rest of us have after he's served his time. And if this country is going to focus on life-long penalties for gun ownership for non-violent crime, then why don't they take away their 1st Amendment rights too? Why don't they say, "Mr. Lawbreaker, you may not speak your mind at the public square from this day forward. You may not attend the church of your choice. In fact, we, the all-knowing and all-powerful government, now hand down the edict that you may not attend any church at all. You may not engage in assemblies where your fellow "free" citizens are demanding redress of their grievances, and you may not make handbills stating your opinions on any matter. Oh, and you can't work for a newspaper or TV or radio news agency either. So decreed!"
If government can decree one right to be null and void due to criminal activity that had nothing whatsoever to do with the property or actions protected by that right, they can make null and void any right for any reason they deem necessary.
Man, get your head in the game.
First, quit referring to gun owners as "the gun community." We are not monolithic. As you can see, I feel stronger about some issues, others feel stronger about others, and we celebrate whatever we find we have in common, and debate whatever we have differences on. But there is no "gun community," and the sooner you address us as thinking, intelligent individuals, the sooner you will go from treating us as thoughtless, brainless lemmings to treating us with respect.
Otherwise, I guess the question is what should be done about crazies like Adam Lanza, Jarrod Loughner and James Holmes? As a gun owner, there's not a whole lot I can do, unless I'm there and can find a reasonable chance to intervene and take the guy out before he gets his body-count up where he'd like it to be before he (usually) takes himself out.
But if you're asking what more bits and pieces of my God-given, fundamental, unalienable rights am I willing to give up because (SURPRISE!!) there are crazies in this world, listen very carefully......NOT ONE MORE DAMNED INCH am I willing to give. In fact, the government owes me a refund on everything they've already stolen from my rights. I want them back. I have no interest, nor any intention, of willingly letting them go any further.
"Good faith effort?" We have to make a good faith effort? Where does this lunacy come from? Read the Bill of Rights. Read the Link Removed. Read the hundreds of available quotes from our Founding Fathers and other liberty-loving thinkers throughout American history. Read about the Link Removed that have been used to steal our 2nd Amendment rights out from under our noses because we lacked either the will or the brains to not allow it. Seek the undeniable truth that our government has not acted in good faith where our rights are concerned. Condition your mind so that your default position is always individual liberty, because that is what all of those links will prove is what's at stake when The People allow government to rule instead of govern them.
I personally, and I know quite a few others on this forum, have all given as much good faith effort as we have to give to this country. It's time this country gave it back. Not in the form of entitlement payments or food stamps or any kind of economic "giving," but in the form of the freedom it has stolen from us.
Man, get your head in the game.
It is so simple......Then work for freedom, and quit shilling for more government theft of freedom. Freedom is the game. Get your head in it.
Blues
Warrior1256
New member
Absolutely correct. We are now at the point where we can comprimise on NOTHING! As soon as you give into the antis they immediately come back for more. If you fight them tooth and nail on everything, and even if they win, they leave us alone for awhile while they resupply and regroup. Say again, COMPROMISE ON NOTHING, FIGHT AGAINST ALL INFRINGMENTS!!!!
The_Outlaw
~The Dude Abides~
New Threads
-
-
-
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
Members online
No members online now.