Is the sellout starting to form?

[L1A1Rocker]

Behind the histrionics, a consensus is forming on universal background checks


Behind the histrionics, a consensus is forming on universal background checks

Members of the group, which includes Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. . .

So in addition to these two GOP Senators (Coburn and Kirk), we have Chuck Grassley and GOP Rep. Phil Gingrey, both of whom have expressed support for expanding the background check system. GOP Rep. Paul Ryan has also expressed support, which means it could very well get a vote in the House of Representatives. And what about other red and purple state Dems up for reelection in 2014, all of whom were supposed to run for their lives from any gun reform measure? Well, senators Mark Warner of Virginia and Tim Johnson of South Dakota both support background checks. And as noted above, Joe Manchin of West Virginia is working with this emerging bipartisan group reported on by USA Today.

[Richard Simmons]

USA Today is not a credible source, IMHO

[L1A1Rocker]

USA Today is not a credible source, IMHO

Hopefully not. I'm really apposed to this on a 10A basis. The Feds cannot mandate laws regulating inTRAstate commerce. SCOTUS has been very consistent on this in the past. What I choose to do with my lawful, personal, PRIVATE property is none of the Feds business.

[Punk]

My unscientific data gathering, which consists of watching the Democrat talking heads on the news programs, shows that at this point they realize an "assault weapons" ban is not going to happen, and that a "hi-capacity" mag ban is unlikely but still possible. But they talk about "universal background checks" and "closing the gun show loophole" like it will happen.

[Schuetzenman]

If it would stop further encrochement on our 2A rights I'd say OK. But you know and I know that there will be another insane person do another massacre and then they'll want more rules and restrictions. In no case would any of these proposed bits of legislation have stopped any of the recent shooters. Passing laws just to say you passed something is bullshit.

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

If it would stop further encrochement on our 2A rights I'd say OK. But you know and I know that there will be another insane person do another massacre and then they'll want more rules and restrictions. In no case would any of these proposed bits of legislation have stopped any of the recent shooters. Passing laws just to say you passed something is bullshit.
Of course, passing laws that won't stop any violence will only creat an excuse to pass even more innefectual laws when the current batch inevitably fails to stop the next crazy violent act.

Thus the banners betray their true goals. They are not interested in saving anyones life. They simply want a monopoly on the possession of arms.

[Dafapa]

You need to keep in mind the real reason they want universal background checks. There are already 300 million firearms in private hands. If people exchange them illegally, how will it be known? The answer is, it won't. However, it will allow them to complete that illegal gun registry they've been working on since clinton's time in office. Do you think they ATF agents were hand copying and even xeroxing yellow forms on store visits for the fun of it?

This registry will only capture those who follow the letter of the law, but that's all they care about. Criminals with guns help them by driving the push for gun control (which they ignore). The point of the registry is so that they can launch a confiscation based on a knee jerk reaction. Remember, confiscation was PUBLICLY discussed as an option in NY (and I think other places) by people like gov. cuomo and others. The democrats in NY had confiscation on a proposed list of gun control measures (http://investmentwatchblog.com/ny-democrat-pleads-with-republican-not-to-share-document-proposing-confiscation-of-guns/), and they tried to keep it quite. Look what happened during Katrina. It was a reflexive reaction on the part of the local communist in charge, and the police just went ahead and did it.

With that in place they will have what they always wanted. The complete list of all gun owners so they can have the solution when the right "crisis" comes along.

[old Grump]

I keep reading this from the liberals saying X% of NRA members approve it but I haven't heard it from a gun group. Sounds like 'make up a lie, repeat a lie, repeat a lie again', and then one day some NRA people will believe the lie. Personally I think it's BS.

[5.56NATO]

If you give in you will get the same treatment as Neville Chamberlain.

[N/A]

Out of couriosity, how does anyone propose we keep guns out of the hands of felons and mentally ill people?

[Schuetzenman]

Out of couriosity, how does anyone propose we keep guns out of the hands of felons and mentally ill people?

Kill all people convicted of felonies, no wearhousing them and then releasing them to do mayhem. On mentally ill people, wearhouse them and never let them out. They can stay where the felons use to be wearhoused.

[mushroom]

WHAT SCHUETZ SAID!!!!! THIS IS THE ANSWER!!!

[N/A]

Kill all people convicted of felonies, no wearhousing them and then releasing them to do mayhem. On mentally ill people, wearhouse them and never let them out. They can stay where the felons use to be wearhoused.

Are you aware of just what a felony is? And didn't Stalin warehouse "mentally ill" people?

[Sherman]

Out of couriosity, how does anyone propose we keep guns out of the hands of felons and mentally ill people?

You don't. You arm society and allow society to sort the crazies and rule breakers out. The same process works in the animal kingdom. Crazies and rule breakers become food

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

Are you aware of just what a felony is? And didn't Stalin warehouse "mentally ill" people?
My druthers would be "violent felonies" and even then I would like to see this held to a very high standard of evidence. As in, the guy is busted red handed, his crime unforgivable.

Execution for being pulled over whith your wife's perscription pill bottle in the center console of the family car is a tad draconian for my tastes...

[davepool]

Out of couriosity, how does anyone propose we keep guns out of the hands of felons and mentally ill people?

I don't, because you can't. It's a risk you take if you want to live in a relatively free society. Arm yourself,learn how to use your gun and use it wisely to save your life when you have to, it is my responsibility and my right.

You can't stop a deranged fuck from living out his video game fantasies or harming people because his mommy didn't love him. Guns aren't the only way to kill lots of people.


You could make folks fill out a federal form and refuse to sell them a gun if they don't answer the questions right, and if that doesn't stop gun killers you could create a database and require all gun purchasers to be checked against it, and if that doesn't work you could make private sales illegal, and if that doesn't work you could make guns illegal and if that doesn't work you could fill a swimming pool with pre-cogs and catch the bad guys before they kill.

OR get a tool to defend yourself from the inevitable crazy fucks in the world , practice a little situational awareness ( pay attention to what the fuck is going on around you) and try to enjoy the short time you have on this planet, and stop worrying about shit that will most likely never happen to you and if it does, put your head down and move through it like people have for thousands of years. Were are a violent race of beings, deal with it.

[L1A1Rocker]

Kill all people convicted of felonies, no wearhousing them and then releasing them to do mayhem. On mentally ill people, wearhouse them and never let them out. They can stay where the felons use to be wearhoused.

I was actually considering a more P.C. way to say that. But yes, THIS!

[N/A]

Kill all people convicted of felonies, no wearhousing them and then releasing them to do mayhem. On mentally ill people, wearhouse them and never let them out. They can stay where the felons use to be wearhoused.


Sounds like felons are to be the new Jews. Will liberals or conservatives be the new Nazis that execute them?

[L1A1Rocker]

Sounds like felons are to be the new Jews. Will liberals or conservatives be the new Nazis that execute them?

Wow, this is the second thread tonight you've taken it upon yourself to admonish members on. I since someone needs a hug.

[N/A]

Wow, this is the second thread tonight you've taken it upon yourself to admonish members on. I since someone needs a hug.


Well, you know how it is when people say stupid shit....just can't help saying, "Hey, that's stupid shit!" :D

[Solidus-snake]

Kill all people convicted of felonies, no wearhousing them and then releasing them to do mayhem. On mentally ill people, wearhouse them and never let them out. They can stay where the felons use to be wearhoused.

I have to disagree. Saying "death to all felons" is way too vague. You'd be surprised how easy it is to get a felony charge these days.

[Schuetzenman]

Are you aware of just what a felony is? And didn't Stalin warehouse "mentally ill" people?

Yes I am aware of what a felony is. If you'd feel better, 3 felony convictions then pull their plug out. Ok, now let me say my first post was 50% tongue in cheek, but the other half was serious. The part about repeat felons that get out, rob and rape then get paroled only to eventually commit murder. That's the serious side of it.
Keeping all these criminals alive behind bars is expensive to society in many ways finances is but one of them, victimization of the citizenry when they get out is another. This constant revolving door pushes the need for more Police and results in Legislators that shit all over our rights trying to insulate us from criminals that are never resolved.
On warehousing the mentally unstable they use to call it being “Committed” as in put in an Insane Asylum. Only they stopped doing that as it was ruled a “violation” of their civil rights. So these people are hard to put away now and they wander amongst us doing things like we’ve seen recently. Adam Lanza’s Mother was trying to get legal control over him to get him committed, only Adam ran the clock out on her, he shot her then … well you know the rest.
Every person either the Crazies or Felons attack and or kill is a FAILURE …. a FAILURE to protect the Law Abiding from the Lawless! A Failure of our Legislators, a Failure of our Courts and Failure of our Mental Health System. Lawyers love this; it keeps them employed with big fat bank accounts. Is it any wonder they are the ones that craft these laws these laws that are so purposefully ineffective in resolving anything?
This is totally Hegelian, set up a crisis, then offer a solution that you have prearranged. Our Politicians have created the current problem just so that the people can be duped to accept their answer. (Like ban so called assault weapons and limit magazine capacity or how many rounds a person can own).

[N/A]

Well, a felony, as you know then, is any crime that the government can put you in jail for longer than one year....be it one year and one day or five thousand years. Many nonviolent crimes are concidered felonies...in fact I'd hazard a guess there are more nonviolent felonies than violent felony laws. So, let's execute all felons, no matter how nonviolent their crimes were....like maybe those who own unregistered weapons in the future.

I'm well aware that the courts emptied out the mental institutions and put mentally ill people out on the streets on their own with no help. Back then, in Nebraska I believe, a litlle 9 year old boy, in blue pajamas, was frown frozen in the snow on a lonely road. He was dubbed "Little Boy Blue" as no one knew who he was. It was many, many years later that it was discovered that his father had been let out of one of these institutions and while driving somewhere with his son, got aggravated at him, and put him out of the car in the middle of the night and drove off and left him. I try not to imagine the fear and pain that boy suffered that freezing cold nigh in the dark all alone. I need nobody reminding me what the problem is with out mental health and what needs to be done.

[Schuetzenman]

Yeah, felony is a very lose term, very large and encompasing. No I'm talking armed robber, rapists, killers, and I'd say fat cat bankers that rip off millions in Ponzi schemes like a Bernie Madoff. I'm not talking about grass smokers, but might be talking about Cocain, Heroin or Meth dealers. What do you think of a habitual drunk driver, especially one that finally kills somebody. Would it of been better to resolve them permanently after the 3rd offense or wait until they finally killed somebody becuase they get behind the wheel drunk?

What IFs can be argued all day long and that's exactly what Lawyers and Politicians love to do, it keeps them employed.

[Cypher]

IMO, I can handle criminal background checks. I don't know if much can be done to prevent truly mentally unstable people from getting a gun without raping the rights of a lot of other people or making cookie cutter laws to deem anyone you want mentally unstable.

The best way to with criminals with guns is to have more law abiding people with guns and tech then how to use it to stop the criminal. You cannot regulate sinful humanity out of mankind so there will always be some people that try to hurt other people.

[L1A1Rocker]

Yes I am aware of what a felony is. If you'd feel better, 3 felony convictions then pull their plug out. Ok, now let me say my first post was 50% tongue in cheek, but the other half was serious. The part about repeat felons that get out, rob and rape then get paroled only to eventually commit murder. That's the serious side of it.
Keeping all these criminals alive behind bars is expensive to society in many ways finances is but one of them, victimization of the citizenry when they get out is another. This constant revolving door pushes the need for more Police and results in Legislators that shit all over our rights trying to insulate us from criminals that are never resolved.
On warehousing the mentally unstable they use to call it being “Committed” as in put in an Insane Asylum. Only they stopped doing that as it was ruled a “violation” of their civil rights. So these people are hard to put away now and they wander amongst us doing things like we’ve seen recently. Adam Lanza’s Mother was trying to get legal control over him to get him committed, only Adam ran the clock out on her, he shot her then … well you know the rest.
Every person either the Crazies or Felons attack and or kill is a FAILURE …. a FAILURE to protect the Law Abiding from the Lawless! A Failure of our Legislators, a Failure of our Courts and Failure of our Mental Health System. Lawyers love this; it keeps them employed with big fat bank accounts. Is it any wonder they are the ones that craft these laws these laws that are so purposefully ineffective in resolving anything?
This is totally Hegelian, set up a crisis, then offer a solution that you have prearranged. Our Politicians have created the current problem just so that the people can be duped to accept their answer. (Like ban so called assault weapons and limit magazine capacity or how many rounds a person can own).

Shutz, It's not worth your effort. I'm sure everyone knew what your intention was. I suspect "that person" knew it as well. He was on two separate threads yesterday trying to "stir the pot", as it were.

Thanks for participating in my thread, just ignore those that want to start something and save your efforts for real interactions.

[L1A1Rocker]

IMO, I can handle criminal background checks. I don't know if much can be done to prevent truly mentally unstable people from getting a gun without raping the rights of a lot of other people or making cookie cutter laws to deem anyone you want mentally unstable.

The best way to with criminals with guns is to have more law abiding people with guns and tech then how to use it to stop the criminal. You cannot regulate sinful humanity out of mankind so there will always be some people that try to hurt other people.


If the states decide to mandate checks for private sales that's there business, not the Feds.

I really think we need to go back to how we dealt with the truly criminally insane. Our society has had very bad problems with trying to mainstream criminally insane. Society would be much better served for these few people to be institutionalized. Treat them well, but they need to be removed where they can cause harm to others. But as you say, there is the potential for abuse of the system and putting people away that don't need to be. Safegards would need to be in place.

The baddies? I've read that 90% of crime is committed by only 12%. That means there is a real problem with recidivism. Again, if a person shows that they cannot live within a civilized society; they need to be removed from it. How is up for debate, but they cannot be allowed to run free causing problems for the rest.

[1 Patriot-of-many]

Kill all people convicted of felonies, no wearhousing them and then releasing them to do mayhem. On mentally ill people, wearhouse them and never let them out. They can stay where the felons use to be wearhoused.

VIOLENT FELONIES. You can get yourself a felony just by looking at the wrong kind of land the wrong way.

[Viking350]

Yeah, felony is a very lose term, very large and encompasing. No I'm talking armed robber, rapists, killers, and I'd say fat cat bankers that rip off millions in Ponzi schemes like a Bernie Madoff. I'm not talking about grass smokers, but might be talking about Cocain, Heroin or Meth dealers. What do you think of a habitual drunk driver, especially one that finally kills somebody. Would it of been better to resolve them permanently after the 3rd offense or wait until they finally killed somebody becuase they get behind the wheel drunk?

What IFs can be argued all day long and that's exactly what Lawyers and Politicians love to do, it keeps them employed.

Personally I feel that if someone dies as a direct result of your actions, you should forfeit your life. No dealing down.

[ltorlo64]

I posted something similar to what I am about to write in another thread.

I have been giving universal background checks alot of thought. There is no real evidence that universal background checks would stop any crime. The people that we are concerned with not going to a store to buy a gun are still going to go to people that would not submit them to a background check, no matter what the law is. So, why the push for the universal background checks. I think it goes to money. If the government doesn't know who is buying and selling they cannot tax them. If I purchase a gun from a private party on GunBroker I end up paying tax on it in Washington when I go to the FFL for the transfer. The government looks at this as lost revenue. Now, I understand that it is probably not alot of revenue, but when government loses out on tax revenue it irritates them.

I believe there is a secondary motive in the taxation angle. Just like with cigarettes being taxed to the point of reducing smoking, I would bet that the government is thinking that if they could levy taxes on private sales, they could raise the taxes to the point where it would be unfeasible for the common person to puchase a gun. This finishes what they have not been able to do because of the Constitution, it gets guns our of the hands of law abiding citizens.

[mrkalashnikov]

I don't, because you can't. It's a risk you take if you want to live in a relatively free society. Arm yourself,learn how to use your gun and use it wisely to save your life when you have to, it is my responsibility and my right.

You can't stop a deranged fuck from living out his video game fantasies or harming people because his mommy didn't love him. Guns aren't the only way to kill lots of people.


You could make folks fill out a federal form and refuse to sell them a gun if they don't answer the questions right, and if that doesn't stop gun killers you could create a database and require all gun purchasers to be checked against it, and if that doesn't work you could make private sales illegal, and if that doesn't work you could make guns illegal and if that doesn't work you could fill a swimming pool with pre-cogs and catch the bad guys before they kill.

OR get a tool to defend yourself from the inevitable crazy fucks in the world , practice a little situational awareness ( pay attention to what the fuck is going on around you) and try to enjoy the short time you have on this planet, and stop worrying about shit that will most likely never happen to you and if it does, put your head down and move through it like people have for thousands of years. Were are a violent race of beings, deal with it.

Good post, DP.

+1

[5.56NATO]

All this debate is cute and all, but deep down inside you know that "background checks" are nothing more than registration by another name.

[N/A]

Shutz, It's not worth your effort. I'm sure everyone knew what your intention was. I suspect "that person" knew it as well. He was on two separate threads yesterday trying to "stir the pot", as it were.

Thanks for participating in my thread, just ignore those that want to start something and save your efforts for real interactions.


It's ok, you can mention my name....

As for starting something...I voice my opinion and call spades when I see them. You're free to disagree, as you have done, and I will listen to any facts or arguements you want to present. But as far as giving a fuck.....not really.

[N/A]

If the states decide to mandate checks for private sales that's there business, not the Feds.

I really think we need to go back to how we dealt with the truly criminally insane. Our society has had very bad problems with trying to mainstream criminally insane. Society would be much better served for these few people to be institutionalized. Treat them well, but they need to be removed where they can cause harm to others. But as you say, there is the potential for abuse of the system and putting people away that don't need to be. Safegards would need to be in place.

The baddies? I've read that 90% of crime is committed by only 12%. That means there is a real problem with recidivism. Again, if a person shows that they cannot live within a civilized society; they need to be removed from it. How is up for debate, but they cannot be allowed to run free causing problems for the rest.


Yep, kill them all and save the prison space for the mentally ill.....which you agreed with.

Or, do you now put forward a rational arguement.


Stiring......

[Cypher]

If the states decide to mandate checks for private sales that's there business, not the Feds.

I really think we need to go back to how we dealt with the truly criminally insane. Our society has had very bad problems with trying to mainstream criminally insane. Society would be much better served for these few people to be institutionalized. Treat them well, but they need to be removed where they can cause harm to others. But as you say, there is the potential for abuse of the system and putting people away that don't need to be. Safegards would need to be in place.

The baddies? I've read that 90% of crime is committed by only 12%. That means there is a real problem with recidivism. Again, if a person shows that they cannot live within a civilized society; they need to be removed from it. How is up for debate, but they cannot be allowed to run free causing problems for the rest.

I agree, it's more a state issue. The main thing that bothers me is when the info is kept and stored for later. The gun store should do the check and that should be it, no FBI databases, no records going to Washington. When a landlord or business does a background check they aren't required to keep records for uncle nazi when he calls for them.

Imagine if every single street thug was met with two to the chest and one to the head every time they tried armed robbery, lethal assault or home invasion. Crime would drop overnight, criminals want a free ride not to have their brains splattered across someones couch.

Maybe for lesser crimes severe caning at the beginning and end of their jail sentence. Might make them think twice about going back to the slammer.

[L1A1Rocker]

N/A

Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011
This message is hidden because N/A is on your ignore list.
View Post

Remove user from ignore list



I ask as a courtesy to please not quote this person on this thread I started. Thank you.

[L1A1Rocker]

I agree, it's more a state issue. The main thing that bothers me is when the info is kept and stored for later. The gun store should do the check and that should be it, no FBI databases, no records going to Washington. When a landlord or business does a background check they aren't required to keep records for uncle nazi when he calls for them.

Yep, that's what bothers me. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Finswine's bill call for the reporting of the guns information when doing a private transfer? That's a major No NO for me.

[N/A]

I ask as a courtesy to please not quote this person on this thread I started. Thank you.

Nothing, just so he will see that I posted on his thread....and will everytime I see him on a thread.

[Schuetzenman]

All this debate is cute and all, but deep down inside you know that "background checks" are nothing more than registration by another name.

Of course they are, that's the real point of it. They want to create a paper trail on every weapon so they can eventually track them all down.

[Krupski]

Yep, that's what bothers me. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Finswine's bill call for the reporting of the guns information when doing a private transfer? That's a major No NO for me.

I think "requiring" a background check for a FTF transaction is hilarious. Who would know?

[Krupski]

Of course they are, that's the real point of it. They want to create a paper trail on every weapon so they can eventually track them all down.

I'm sure EVERY SINGLE 4473 transaction is (illegally) recorded in a government database somewhere. Who's to know? And since when do "they" care about the law anyway?

[MAYNI-AK]

The crazy little bastard at Newtown didn't even own a gun. So how would registration have affected the outcome? If your freaking nuts and you want to kill someone, you will find a way!

[L1A1Rocker]

I think "requiring" a background check for a FTF transaction is hilarious. Who would know?

The only time it would come up is if the police were to get posession of the gun and "run it". If it came up not registered, or not registered to the person it was taken from only then could a prosecution take place. I'm sure prosecution rates for real criminal would be about the same as they are now. The "gun charges" always seem to be the first ones to be pleaded down.

[Warthogg]

I think "requiring" a background check for a FTF transaction is hilarious. Who would know?

Confidential Informants would become a growth industry.



Wart

[jet3534]

I'm sure EVERY SINGLE 4473 transaction is (illegally) recorded in a government database somewhere. Who's to know? And since when do "they" care about the law anyway?

Many years ago I came home from work and found a business card under my front door from an FBI agent and a note that he wanted to talk to me. I made arrangements to see him the following evening. Well he came over the next day and asked me if I owned a .44 Charter Arms Bulldog. When I said yes, he asked if he could see the gun. I said yes and got it out of my gun safe. The agent then pulled out a computer listing of everyone in the state of Maryland that owned a Bulldog. He looked at the serial number on my gun and then with a pen crossed it off the list. He told me there had been a mob hit in Baltimore (victim shot with a .44) and anyone who had bought a Bulldog and no longer had it was a suspect. The list of Bulldogs appeared to be around two thousand or more. That was the day I learned that the Feds do have some sort of defacto gun registration data base and this was over 20 years ago.

[Schuetzenman]

Nothing, just so he will see that I posted on his thread....and will everytime I see him on a thread.

Careful you don't turn into a Cyber Stalker. We might have to relegate you to the Road House under such circumstances.

[N/A]

Careful you don't turn into a Cyber Stalker. We might have to relegate you to the Road House under such circumstances.

Can you make that the Lounge....the view is better.


BTW...a stalker would be one who replies to every post that another member makes. Just because I might post in the same thread he does would not make me a stalker.

[Krupski]

Confidential Informants would become a growth industry.



Wart

Hell, most Fudds would sell us out for FREE. :thumbsdown: