BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)
-   -   More info.. not looking good... (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/157185-more-info-not-looking-good.html)

John H[_2_] June 22nd 13 01:05 PM

More info.. not looking good...
 
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:28:20 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article , says...

"John H" wrote in message
...


I wonder, which of the massacres would have been prevented by
universal background checks?

John H.


---------------------------------------

Probably none. But it's just common sense that anyone who wants to
assume the responsibility of gun ownership should be given a basic
background check to make sure they are not a felon or person with
mental disabilities or problems, don't you think? Plus, John, you
were discussing earlier the private transfer of a gun to another
person. Don't you think that as a responsible gun owner you should
have a means to ensure you are not selling your handgun to a criminal
or mental deficient? You mentioned that the seller of a handgun to
you didn't know you from Adam. I think having the ability to ensure
you are not selling to a nut it's part of the responsibility of owning
a firearm.


I can go along with the only people allowed to vote, have firearms, receive welfare, and
other taxpayer provided monies and support being US citizens who are not felons.


I saw you slip voting and welfare in there!

I think that might be a good trade-off. Background checks for voting and welfare (with appropriate
ID of course) and background checks for gun buyers.

That could even up the score somewhat.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

John H[_2_] June 22nd 13 01:08 PM

More info.. not looking good...
 
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:33:50 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



wrote in message ...

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


You are talking about universal registration, not background checks.
Otherwise there is no "paper trail".

----------------------------------

Nope. I am talking about universal background checks, "universal"
meaning it is required in all states in a uniform way.
Not talking about having to register all the guns you purchase.

The background check simply verifies that you are not a felon, crazy
or otherwise not permitted to own a gun. In MA, it's done at the
time
you apply for a permit and the reason it takes so long is because
they
actually *do* an FBI background check on you. Once it's done and
the
permit is issued, the only other "check" is done whenever you
purchase a firearm. It's to verify that your permit is valid and in
good standing, you are who you claim you are and there are no
warrants etc., since getting the permit. Only takes a few minutes.


The only way you can enforce a universal background check for private
transfers is to have universal registration. That is what they are not
telling you.

------------------------------------------------

What I was told is that the defeated background check legislation
contained a provision for a 15 year prison sentence for anyone
involved in creating a gun registry. But you know what? I am far
from being considered a liberal or progressive in my overall political
persuasion but I don't see any problem with a gun registry, even
though it was never proposed. It's not a violation of anyone's
constitutional rights to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment doesn't
contain any such language. I think having guns registered to their
owners is an excellent idea. And now I'll hear from all those tin
hat wearers claiming the government is coming to take all the guns
away. Won't happen unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed. What's the
chances of that happening? Zero.




How big a bureaucracy will we need to manage the registration process, the registration change
process, the background check process. the records keeping process, the office cleaning process, and
the all expense paid vacation (I mean 'team building') process?

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

Hank©[_3_] June 22nd 13 01:38 PM

More info.. not looking good...
 
On 6/21/2013 11:31 PM, BAR wrote:
In article , says...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

In article ,
says...

If a clean bill were
introduced without a list of amendments by some members of Congress
with personal agendas, it is likely that the NRA's opposition and
lobbying strength could be overcome.



The problem with universail background checkds for everyone is that it
turns into a gun
registration program. With the government's appitite for any and all
informaiton it can get
its hands on you should be wary of giving them more data.

-------------------------------------------------

That's the standard, Wayne LaPierre led NRA answer to the question of
background checks. The proposed bill that was defeated in Congress
specifically outlawed the creation of any gun registration program
with a 15 year prison sentence for anyone who tried to create one.
But nobody talked much about that.



With president, I decide what is constitutional and what is not constitutional, he will just
chose to ignore that law just like all of the other laws that he has chosen not to enforce.

We are getting to the point where the law doesn't matter. The government will just say that
they are the legal authority and they decide what the law is.

Sooner or later the emperor's reign will be over and we will return to
to SNAFU status when all the changes are unchanged.

John H[_2_] June 22nd 13 01:56 PM

More info.. not looking good...
 
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 07:58:23 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ...

On 6/22/13 1:45 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

Yeah, but they promise to properly fund the fence, and enforce the
laws
as soon as we let the 15 million new democrat voters register...
Then of
course they won't follow through, just like 1984 and 2006. These
people
hate America and are doing what ever they can to destroy the two
party
system...



"These people" don't hate America. They simply don't buy into your
concept of what America should be. And, specifically, if anyone is
"destroying" the two party system we have here, it is the Republicans,
who seem to be doing whatever they can to alienate as many voter
groups
as they can...women, students, Latinos, the elderly, the middle class,
everyone, basically, who doesn't fall into the demographic and thought
patterns of Southern white males.

The demographics in this nation are changing rapidly. Even a bastion
of
Southern white conservatism, Texas, has a chance of becoming a "blue"
state within the next decade.

Adapt to the new realities...or die.

---------------------------------

Harry, don't let this go to your head, but I agree with you 100
percent. It shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone and it
certainly isn't the result of the election of one President. The
changing demographics of this nation that we are witnessing was
forecast 20 - 30 years ago.

I think the problem is that the "rules" we play by ... which include
things like older cultural influences, tax codes and the general
subscription to a smaller government role in our lives hasn't kept
pace with the demographic changes. It's still a very fluid process.
Some who were more influenced by how things were back in the 50's,
60's and 70's find it hard to accept and understand a larger
government role that includes expanded entitlement programs and other
benefits, mostly paid for by those who didn't rely on those programs.
Meanwhile much of the population growth that has led to the
demographic changes have not benefited yet from the expanded
government programs in terms of becoming self sufficient. So it
seems to many that a shrinking class is being expected to contribute
more in terms of taxes and adjustments to their lives and
expectations. That's understandable to a degree.

In my limited exposure to people's attitudes today I've seen a big
change in the expectations of the younger generation. They are far
more comfortable with having the government play a larger role in
their lives than many of us old farts did when we were their age.
Many expect things that I would have never even considered or thought
of. Those who still adhere to the "old ways" are usually in their
late 50's or older.

You're right though. Change is inevitable and corresponding changes
to how our entire system run and financed is needed. Priorities have
to change. It will become easier as us "old farts" die off and ride
off into the sunset.



John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

John H[_2_] June 22nd 13 01:58 PM

More info.. not looking good...
 
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 07:58:23 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ...

On 6/22/13 1:45 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

Yeah, but they promise to properly fund the fence, and enforce the
laws
as soon as we let the 15 million new democrat voters register...
Then of
course they won't follow through, just like 1984 and 2006. These
people
hate America and are doing what ever they can to destroy the two
party
system...



"These people" don't hate America. They simply don't buy into your
concept of what America should be. And, specifically, if anyone is
"destroying" the two party system we have here, it is the Republicans,
who seem to be doing whatever they can to alienate as many voter
groups
as they can...women, students, Latinos, the elderly, the middle class,
everyone, basically, who doesn't fall into the demographic and thought
patterns of Southern white males.

The demographics in this nation are changing rapidly. Even a bastion
of
Southern white conservatism, Texas, has a chance of becoming a "blue"
state within the next decade.

Adapt to the new realities...or die.

---------------------------------

Harry, don't let this go to your head, but I agree with you 100
percent. It shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone and it
certainly isn't the result of the election of one President. The
changing demographics of this nation that we are witnessing was
forecast 20 - 30 years ago.

I think the problem is that the "rules" we play by ... which include
things like older cultural influences, tax codes and the general
subscription to a smaller government role in our lives hasn't kept
pace with the demographic changes. It's still a very fluid process.
Some who were more influenced by how things were back in the 50's,
60's and 70's find it hard to accept and understand a larger
government role that includes expanded entitlement programs and other
benefits, mostly paid for by those who didn't rely on those programs.
Meanwhile much of the population growth that has led to the
demographic changes have not benefited yet from the expanded
government programs in terms of becoming self sufficient. So it
seems to many that a shrinking class is being expected to contribute
more in terms of taxes and adjustments to their lives and
expectations. That's understandable to a degree.

In my limited exposure to people's attitudes today I've seen a big
change in the expectations of the younger generation. They are far
more comfortable with having the government play a larger role in
their lives than many of us old farts did when we were their age.
Many expect things that I would have never even considered or thought
of. Those who still adhere to the "old ways" are usually in their
late 50's or older.

You're right though. Change is inevitable and corresponding changes
to how our entire system run and financed is needed. Priorities have
to change. It will become easier as us "old farts" die off and ride
off into the sunset.



Why should your agreeing with Harry give him a big head? You both voted for the same guy!

You post seems to say the more like Greece we become, the better.

I disagree.

John H.
--

Hope you're having a great day!

Hank©[_3_] June 22nd 13 02:13 PM

More info.. not looking good...
 
On 6/22/2013 7:58 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ...

On 6/22/13 1:45 AM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:

Yeah, but they promise to properly fund the fence, and enforce the laws
as soon as we let the 15 million new democrat voters register... Then of
course they won't follow through, just like 1984 and 2006. These people
hate America and are doing what ever they can to destroy the two party
system...



"These people" don't hate America. They simply don't buy into your
concept of what America should be. And, specifically, if anyone is
"destroying" the two party system we have here, it is the Republicans,
who seem to be doing whatever they can to alienate as many voter groups
as they can...women, students, Latinos, the elderly, the middle class,
everyone, basically, who doesn't fall into the demographic and thought
patterns of Southern white males.

The demographics in this nation are changing rapidly. Even a bastion of
Southern white conservatism, Texas, has a chance of becoming a "blue"
state within the next decade.

Adapt to the new realities...or die.

---------------------------------

Harry, don't let this go to your head, but I agree with you 100
percent. It shouldn't come as a big surprise to anyone and it
certainly isn't the result of the election of one President. The
changing demographics of this nation that we are witnessing was
forecast 20 - 30 years ago.

I think the problem is that the "rules" we play by ... which include
things like older cultural influences, tax codes and the general
subscription to a smaller government role in our lives hasn't kept pace
with the demographic changes. It's still a very fluid process. Some who
were more influenced by how things were back in the 50's, 60's and 70's
find it hard to accept and understand a larger government role that
includes expanded entitlement programs and other benefits, mostly paid
for by those who didn't rely on those programs. Meanwhile much of the
population growth that has led to the demographic changes have not
benefited yet from the expanded government programs in terms of becoming
self sufficient. So it seems to many that a shrinking class is being
expected to contribute more in terms of taxes and adjustments to their
lives and expectations. That's understandable to a degree.

In my limited exposure to people's attitudes today I've seen a big
change in the expectations of the younger generation. They are far
more comfortable with having the government play a larger role in their
lives than many of us old farts did when we were their age. Many expect
things that I would have never even considered or thought of. Those who
still adhere to the "old ways" are usually in their late 50's or older.

You're right though. Change is inevitable and corresponding changes to
how our entire system run and financed is needed. Priorities have to
change. It will become easier as us "old farts" die off and ride off
into the sunset.



We will have our memories of better times. ;-)

iBoaterer[_3_] June 22nd 13 02:13 PM

More info.. not looking good...
 
In article ,
says...

On 6/21/2013 10:01 PM, Boating All Out wrote:


gfretwell is a pure gun nut. He opposes any law designed
to restrict him from selling his guns to terrorists,
criminals, and psychopaths.


I would think in the spirit of the group lately, this type of rant
should pretty much disqualify you from further consideration...


But it's okay to post inaccurate insane rants about the "current
administration" eh?

iBoaterer[_3_] June 22nd 13 02:14 PM

More info.. not looking good...
 
In article ,
says...

On 6/22/2013 1:27 AM,
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


You are talking about universal registration, not background checks.
Otherwise there is no "paper trail".

----------------------------------

Nope. I am talking about universal background checks, "universal"
meaning it is required in all states in a uniform way.
Not talking about having to register all the guns you purchase.

The background check simply verifies that you are not a felon, crazy
or otherwise not permitted to own a gun. In MA, it's done at the time
you apply for a permit and the reason it takes so long is because they
actually *do* an FBI background check on you. Once it's done and the
permit is issued, the only other "check" is done whenever you
purchase a firearm. It's to verify that your permit is valid and in
good standing, you are who you claim you are and there are no
warrants etc., since getting the permit. Only takes a few minutes.


The only way you can enforce a universal background check for private
transfers is to have universal registration. That is what they are not
telling you.


Yeah, but they promise to properly fund the fence, and enforce the laws
as soon as we let the 15 million new democrat voters register... Then of
course they won't follow through, just like 1984 and 2006. These people
hate America and are doing what ever they can to destroy the two party
system...


Straight out of O'Reilly's notebook......

iBoaterer[_3_] June 22nd 13 02:14 PM

More info.. not looking good...
 
In article ,
says...

"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message
...

On 6/22/2013 1:27 AM,
wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


You are talking about universal registration, not background
checks.
Otherwise there is no "paper trail".

----------------------------------

Nope. I am talking about universal background checks, "universal"
meaning it is required in all states in a uniform way.
Not talking about having to register all the guns you purchase.

The background check simply verifies that you are not a felon,
crazy
or otherwise not permitted to own a gun. In MA, it's done at the
time
you apply for a permit and the reason it takes so long is because
they
actually *do* an FBI background check on you. Once it's done and
the
permit is issued, the only other "check" is done whenever you
purchase a firearm. It's to verify that your permit is valid and
in
good standing, you are who you claim you are and there are no
warrants etc., since getting the permit. Only takes a few
minutes.


The only way you can enforce a universal background check for
private
transfers is to have universal registration. That is what they are
not
telling you.


Yeah, but they promise to properly fund the fence, and enforce the
laws
as soon as we let the 15 million new democrat voters register... Then
of
course they won't follow through, just like 1984 and 2006. These
people
hate America and are doing what ever they can to destroy the two party
system...

------------------------------------

What group of people hate America? Also what group hated America in
1984 and in 2006?


Bet you don't get an answer...... it was just another insane rant.

BAR[_2_] June 22nd 13 02:23 PM

More info.. not looking good...
 
In article , says...

wrote in message ...

On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 14:27:36 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:

As I explained in a reply to John H., it's not that big of a deal in
MA. There are other regulations in this state that I think are
unreasonable, but a background check to initially get one of the
various permits is the biggest obstacle and may take 8 weeks or more.
But once you have the permit, buying a gun is no big deal. A 5
min.
telephone call and taking a digital finger print to ensure you are
who
you claim to be is all that is required. Once approved, (again ...
only takes about 5 minutes) you pay for your purchase and walk out
the door with your new gun. I don't see why that shouldn't apply to
everyone. Private transactions and transfers could easily be
accomplished at a licensed firearm dealer for a small fee. The
goal
is to keep the guns out of the hands of nut cases.


That is the way it works in Florida for CCW license holders but then,
if a person who wanted to do a private sale and the buyer had a valid
CCW, could they just do the deal?

----------------------------------------------------------

In MA, yes but the transaction must be reported to the "Department of
Criminal Justice Information Services Firearms Records Bureau ".
I'd be in favor of changing that because the actual transfer of the
firearm can take place by simply filling out a form on-line. But, if
I didn't know the person I was selling the gun to, it's up to me to
verify that he has a permit and he is who he says he is. That's the
hole in the system. Permits and ID's can be counterfeited.

I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. In most states
you must have a background check to obtain a permit. What's the big
deal about verifying that the permit is valid for both seller and
buyer in a private transfer? Again, it only takes a few minutes.
It's *verifying* the permit, not doing a new background check each
time.


The fuss is that exercising most of your civil rights doesn't require prior government
approval. Why should selling a firearm require government approval?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com