Jump to content

Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry


Recommended Posts

 

 

You have to love a group of lawmakers / politicians supported by many in the state that passes something they think is great and yet some do not want to comply.

F'em. They got what they voted for so live with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to love a group of lawmakers / politicians supported by many in the state that passes something they think is great and yet some do not want to comply.

F'em. They got what they voted for so live with it.

I would just like to see what happens if enough people do it. How are they going to enforce it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to see what happens if enough people do it. How are they going to enforce it?

 

 

The same way they do now. If you commit a crime with an illegal firearm that charge gets pleaded down or tossed out if you are a criminal.

If you have no record, not using the firearm in a crime but just get caught with it they will fine you an maybe give you some county jail time.

 

Laws never affect the criminal, just them masses of the law abiding that could become a criminal for doing nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are number of reasons why the National Guard and Reserves are NOT the militia. Key among these is the fact that the National Guard and Reserve can be called up and deployed overseas to foriegn conflicts and that one fact alone makes them a part of the regular standing army and not militia. The militia is every able bodied citizien, regardless of gender. Furthermore the second amendment makes it clear with regards to how the people will keep and bear arms. The words are "shall not be infringed." Locking up firearms in an armory where only certain individuals can gain access and when access can be granted is in the hands of a few would in fact be an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers were very clear on this and they were also right, the primary reason for American citizens to have firearms is to protect themselves from tyranny within their own government.. It's not about hunting.

Please President Caligula, may I have access to my firearms today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a member of the NRA, however they seem to be in favor of restrictions on criminals and (diagnosed) crazy people.

 

"Restrictions on guns" is a straw man. Guns are inanimate objects incapable of doing anything by themselves.

 

The NRA's issue is "restrictions on users" of guns, and as far as I can tell, the NRA has only uniformly opposed restrictions on law-abiding users of guns, including their rightful (ie. lawful) purchase of so-called "assault" weapons and "high-capacity" magazines.

Apparently the NRA isn't in favor of any restrictions on gun purchases by criminals or crazy people as long as they don't buy from licensed gun dealers.

 

LaPierre stammered some and then argued that weak enforcement of current background checks means it's a waste of time to expand them. "I do not believe the way the law is working now, unfortunately, that it does do any good to extend the to private sales between hobbyists and collectors," LaPierre finally admitted.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/wayne-lapierre-background-checks_n_2582148.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the NRA isn't in favor of any restrictions on gun purchases by criminals or crazy people as long as they don't buy from licensed gun dealers.

 

LaPierre stammered some and then argued that weak enforcement of current background checks means it's a waste of time to expand them. "I do not believe the way the law is working now, unfortunately, that it does do any good to extend the to private sales between hobbyists and collectors," LaPierre finally admitted.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/wayne-lapierre-background-checks_n_2582148.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently what been in effect has been working for years.....imagine if even more of the EXISTING laws were enforced.

 

 

Paste-

 

 

Last week, the FBI released its Crime in the United States report for 2011. For the 18th time in the last 20 years, the nation’s violent crime rate has gone down. In 2011, as compared to 2010, the total violent crime rate decreased 4.3 percent, to a 41-year low, down 49 percent since the all-time high in 1991. The murder rate decreased 2.1 percent, to a 48-year low, down 52 percent since 1991.

Meanwhile during the last 20 years, the number of privately owned guns has risen by about 130 million, including several million “assault weapons,” about 60 million handguns, and countless millions of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Perhaps we missed something, but we couldn’t find anything mentioning the FBI’s recent report on the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center websites. It’s not hard to imagine why.

 

 

 

Edited by cal50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the NRA isn't in favor of any restrictions on gun purchases by criminals or crazy people as long as they don't buy from licensed gun dealers.

 

LaPierre stammered some and then argued that weak enforcement of current background checks means it's a waste of time to expand them. "I do not believe the way the law is working now, unfortunately, that it does do any good to extend the to private sales between hobbyists and collectors," LaPierre finally admitted.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/wayne-lapierre-background-checks_n_2582148.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

My biggest question about private background checks would be how you would enforce it. The only way would be to track the weapon, but the serial number method has severe weaknesses.

 

The Federal government can regulate interstate commerce, but how about within a state?

 

And even if you had such a system in place (assuming you had some sort of safeguard against identity theft), under what Constitutional provision does the Federal government have to jail anyone who violates it by failing to perform the check (for a private sale within a state)? Obamacare was struck down on this basis (but upheld by way of taxation).

 

And how would you prove he did, if he claims the gun stolen? To whom would he report it, the State or the Federal?

 

We really need to back up from our emotions, and look at the problem rationally. If the problem is with criminals and crazy people, why not start there?

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My biggest question about private background checks would be how you would enforce it. The only way would be to track the weapon, but the serial number method has severe weaknesses.

 

The Federal government can regulate interstate commerce, but how about within a state?

 

And even if you had such a system in place (assuming you had some sort of safeguard against identity theft), under what Constitutional provision does the Federal government have to jail anyone who violates it by failing to perform the check (for a private sale within a state)? Obamacare was struck down on this basis (but upheld by way of taxation).

 

And how would you prove he did, if he claims the gun stolen? To whom would he report it, the State or the Federal?

 

We really need to back up from our emotions, and look at the problem rationally. If the problem is with criminals and crazy people, why not start there?

Because dealing with the core of the problem (crime and mental illness) is difficult and rife with all kinds of deep rooted social issues the politicians are afraid to tackle. Banning guns, while proven ineffective, is a "feel good" action. Feinstein and the gun grabber crowd can dance around farting unicorns and rainbows yelling "Huzzah! We solved the problem!".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with mandatory background checks on all gun transactions.

I have no problem with all gun transactions mandated to go through a F.F.L. dealer.

I have no problem with all serial numbers on guns being tracked through a natoin wide database.

 

The problem is criminals will not obey the laws, there is now and will continue to be a black market for guns.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an NRA member and I fully support universal background checks, even in the case of private sales. It wouldn't be that hard to implement either. Lets say, for instance, I want to sell one of my firearms to Ron W. Ron and I simply go to a local FFL dealer where we pay the store a fee (say 10 bucks) to run a background check on Ron. (sorry Ron, you were the last post so I just picked you) Anyway, the store runs the check and they come back and either say "Yes Ron can legally buy a gun" or "No he can't" It's very simple and I don't see it to be an infringment on our 2nd Amendment rights. I wouldn't want to private sell a gun to someone who turned out to be a convicted felon or a lunatic psychopath. I would want to at least make the effort to be sure that the person is ok to own a firearm first. A background check would also be fairly easy to implement at gun shows. Many vendors at gun shows already run a background check. If you are going to sponsor or put on a gun show there should be a requirement that the sponsor provides a booth where background checks can be run. The person who wants to buy a weapon pays a fee to have the check run before being allowed to buy a weapon at the show. Pretty simple and easy to do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dad tried to leave a Japanese army rifle to my brother and I. He had brought it home from China where he was stationed waiting for the invasion of the Japanese mainland.As it turned out he was unable to do so because it was supposed to have been "de-militarized" but it wasn't. He turned it in to the "authorities" we later found out it was just a scam they used to get an elderly man to give up a valuable weapon, and to make him feel like a criminal. My concern is that there should be some other way to obtain the background check with out getting some one (fire arms dealer) with different self interest involved in the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dad tried to leave a Japanese army rifle to my brother and I. He had brought it home from China where he was stationed waiting for the invasion of the Japanese mainland.As it turned out he was unable to do so because it was supposed to have been "de-militarized" but it wasn't. He turned it in to the "authorities" we later found out it was just a scam they used to get an elderly man to give up a valuable weapon, and to make him feel like a criminal. My concern is that there should be some other way to obtain the background check with out getting some one (fire arms dealer) with different self interest involved in the deal.

 

 

I can't see how you could run a background check and not involve federal law enforcement at this point.

 

What I adamantly oppose is the notion that banning guns and retricting magazines is in any way going to have a positive outcome. It's a stupid idea and proven failure given the stated goal it is "supposed" to achieve. The truth of the matter is that anti-gun propoents know that banning guns and limiting magazines is not going to reduce violence or make anyone safer. That's not their real agenda anyway. Their real agenda is simply to take guns away from Americans even if they have to do it little by little over time. It's not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A background check is fine but putting a nominal fee on it is debatable.

 

The trouble with fees is they never go down once started. If the feds mandate it then they should also figure out a way to pay for it. I heard all the voter registration BS that is penalizes the people that can not afford legal ID.

The same argument applies to a background check fee. If the federal government wants to tag my felon / non-felon status to my DL it can be done easily and checked easily with a card swipe and a web based access point for little to no fee. Since most people have a DL or state issued ID the data base is already there to query from.

 

The BATF has an online FFL verify web page to instantly check the validity of a received FFL,

 

https://www.atfonline.gov/fflezcheck/fflSearch.do

 

Its free and instant.

 

The problem lies with a private transaction and using a "dealer" or FFL holder to run it through. Right now a firearm would have to be transferred to the dealers books then a 4473 filled out transferring the firearm to the individual from the dealer, not person to person. All FFL holders will have a charge added for this. It usually ranges from $25~$50 locally (I dropped my FFL but did it for free). Some states already require ALL firearm transactions be done through a dealer and the person needs a state issued firearm purchase card, which is another fee.

 

Again, I have no problem with background checks but how long it takes or costs IS of interest.

Edited by cal50
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see how you could run a background check and not involve federal law enforcement at this point.

 

 

You can run background checks all you want now. In my State, there's a website called 123nc.com. The question (to me) regards Federal enforcement of such a requirement; and the Constitutional ramifications.

 

As I asked in Post #59, even if you had such a system in place (assuming you had some sort of safeguard against identity theft), under what Constitutional provision does the Federal government have to jail (read: punish) anyone who violates it by failing to perform the check (for a private sale within a state)?

 

The Federal government has limitations on what commerce it can regulate. Commerce within a State, is supposed to be beyond its authority. Thankfully, the recent SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare put the kibosh on the expansion of the commerce clause. I'd like to keep it that way.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey fmccap,

 

Not to sidetrack the thread except for this answer.

What's your take on Dr. Ron Paul's comment, "Live by the sword. Die by the sword." in reference to the American Sniper who was murdered by a fellow vet he was trying to help.

To tell you the truth I just briefly heard about it and still have not looked into it. Sometimes he says things though that unless you know where he is coming from you wouldn't understand.

Quickly found the next sentence that came after that:

 

Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn't make sense.

 

Just seen this to:

 

As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend's violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To tell you the truth I just briefly heard about it and still have not looked into it. Sometimes he says things though that unless you know where he is coming from you wouldn't understand.

Quickly found the next sentence that came after that:

 

 

Just seen this to:

Just a little clarification on the timeline of events.

 

 

After a public backlash, former presidential candidate Ron Paul used his Facebook page to clarify controversial comments he made Monday about the Navy SEAL who was killed at a Texas gun range over the weekend.

 

On Monday, Paul, 77, took cyber heat for a tweet he sent out following the news of the veteran's death.

 

Paul wrote: “Chris Kyle’s death seems to confirm that ‘he who lives by the sword dies by the sword.’ Treating PTSD at a firing range doesn’t make sense.”

 

His comments were re-tweeted more than 800 times and most of the responses he received were negative.

 

Paul backtracked some and offered a clarification on his Facebook page.

 

He wrote: "As a veteran, I certainly recognize that this weekend's violence and killing of Chris Kyle were a tragic and sad event. My condolences and prayers go out to Mr. Kyle’s family. Unconstitutional and unnecessary wars have endless unintended consequences. A policy of non-violence, as Christ preached, would have prevented this and similar tragedies. -REP"

 

When taken in the context of the timeline, the statements made come across a little different.

Edited by RangerM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dad tried to leave a Japanese army rifle to my brother and I. He had brought it home from China where he was stationed waiting for the invasion of the Japanese mainland.As it turned out he was unable to do so because it was supposed to have been "de-militarized" but it wasn't. He turned it in to the "authorities" we later found out it was just a scam they used to get an elderly man to give up a valuable weapon, and to make him feel like a criminal. My concern is that there should be some other way to obtain the background check with out getting some one (fire arms dealer) with different self interest involved in the deal.

If it was a type 99 it may as well have been considered demilitarized... what a horrible action that rifle had- no wonder the japanese seemed to prefer their bayonets...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does common sense enter into this? Why should a mentally ill person be allowed to go to gun show and buy a semi automatic assault rifle with extended clip with no background check? And then go to crowded mall and start firing lethal lead into crowd? And why should cop be put on line where many times he or she is going to be up against superior firepower that puts innocent citizens at even greater risk? So then we need to send SWAT teams into many more situations so that America resembles some kind of third world violent country that it is becoming. No wonder so many retirees are heading to other countries to live out the rest of their lives. In the name of freedon, this country is turning into armed camp. Not that it hasns't been, but it's getting worse, not better. Hard to relax going into bank, movie theater, mall, or wherever without looking for escape routes and noticing suspicious characters in American life. These tragic incidences happen far too often. Too many suicidal people want to take innocents with them. And American society makes it too easy for them to accomplish their evil, monsterous acts. There are many reasons why police departments throughout America want stricter gun control laws. The average citizen shouldn't have to worry about some errant bullet striking them, especially fiendish bullets that do maximum damage if they hit you. It's getting where the only out we have is to leave this country for a more civilized one without all this mayhem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where does common sense enter into this? Why should a mentally ill person be allowed to go to gun show and buy a semi automatic assault rifle with extended clip with no background check?

(Mentally ill is a heavy-handed label. All persons are eligible to have access to firearms. It is the legal system that adjudicates penalties upto and including "restrictions" on firearm ownership. As a convicted criminal, such a person would have been found guilty of a crime punishable with such a restriction. Barring that, if a person is too mentally ill to know right from wrong, society has to act in the name of protecting the person and the public. Just because someone has mental retardation or learning disabilities does not justify denying the person their god-given rights. How is mental illness defined? Could momentary rage, i.e., road rage, or heated argument, relieve someone of the responsibility for their actions? It should not. That is part of being a responsible adult and citizen.)

 

 

And then go to crowded mall and start firing lethal lead into crowd?

(The law addresses the consequences of such criminal behavior. If the shoppers are lawfully armed they stand a much higher chance to respond or defend themselves than if they are lawfully required to disarm.)

 

And why should cop be put on line where many times he or she is going to be up against superior firepower that puts innocent citizens at even greater risk? So then we need to send SWAT teams into many more situations so that America resembles some kind of third world violent country that it is becoming.

(SWAT teams must respond to situations where the citizen is unable or unwilling to take action to defend themselves. We have become accustomed to passing responsibility for "public safety" to a third party. Therefore, cops must step in. If I have my high-power AR or high capacity magazine firearm I can act to defend myself-sooner than a SWAT team can assemble-and possible resolve the problem of a criminal on the street and keep those officers from having to face "superior firepower.)

 

No wonder so many retirees are heading to other countries to live out the rest of their lives. In the name of freedon, this country is turning into armed camp. Not that it hasns't been, but it's getting worse, not better.

(Taxation, healthcare costs, cost-of-living, burdensome laws and a deteriorating political system represents a significant portion of motivations. The current administration has a great deal of responsibility for making some retirees more likely to move internationally for relief.)

 

Hard to relax going into bank, movie theater, mall, or wherever without looking for escape routes and noticing suspicious characters in American life.

(You are naive if you do not do that anyway. I remember 45 years ago when I could ride my bike to the store without a care in the world. Young and oblivious, I did not recognize there were any risks. But, as the population has exploded, cities grown and more people are packed into the same area in the name of "centralized community", aka urbanization, people are exposed to more risks because the percentage of criminals has likely stayed the same but their numbers has grown with the population. Additionally, the internet, 24 hour news and 500 channels of tv are bombarding us 24/7 with news of crimes. Kittens in trees don't stand a chance against the rape, murder, child abuse, arson or robbery story. So we never hear anything but the bad news.)

 

These tragic incidences happen far too often. Too many suicidal people want to take innocents with them. And American society makes it too easy for them to accomplish their evil, monsterous acts.

(And the liberals-? are the ones trying to ensure criminals face limited resistance. They stand for "a woman's choice" and "legalized pot", unrestricted voter registration, hope, change, and kum-by-yah, but complain when a criminal massacres scores of people. Insanely, they then push to ensure MORE victims are available for the next massacre. How stupid is that?)

 

 

There are many reasons why police departments throughout America want stricter gun control laws.

(Actually, the officers don't. If the citizen drops a criminal, DRT, then they don't have to take him on. It's the politicians and elected officials, sitting behind their desks, who want to play the "Daddy figure" and promise their safety and welfare by putting the officers in the line of fire.)

 

The average citizen shouldn't have to worry about some errant bullet striking them, especially fiendish bullets that do maximum damage if they hit you.

(Can you not see that the disarmed citizen invites higher crime? That armed citizens, willing and able to resist and stop a crime, are our best chance to make criminals think twice before attempting their crimes. If criminals know no one is armed, a 911 call is their only deterrent. If the criminals are not so sure they will not face armed resistance, they will take the path of least resistance. As most of all natural forces do.)

 

It's getting where the only out we have is to leave this country for a more civilized one without all this mayhem.

(Don't let the screen door hit you on your way out. Were trying to accomplish what you have failed to do. Make this country as great a country as it once was and should be.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...