|
More info.. not looking good...
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 Won't happen unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed.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. |
More info.. not looking good...
|
More info.. not looking good...
wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:01:24 -0500, 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. Bull**** I just oppose laws that are ineffective in preventing the sale of guns to people who are not supposed to have them and only affect law abiding citizens. ----------------------------- Questions for you: 1. How are law abiding citizens negatively affected? 2. If you sold one of your guns to an unknown person, wouldn't you like to know that person is going to be as responsible as were? 3. Don't you think that ensuring that the gun you sell or transfer isn't to a felon or otherwise not authorized to receive the gun is a responsible act of law abiding citizen gun owner? And I think "boater" is a little overzealous in his accusations. I doubt very much that you want to be able to sell your guns to terrorists, criminals and psychopaths. So why not have universal background checks to give you a least some peace of mind that you acted responsibly as a gun owner and also acted responsibly as a gun seller or transferer? |
More info.. not looking good...
wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 22:11:29 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 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. There is already a defacto registry, the 4473s. You notice when we have a high profile crime, worth looking it up, they trace the gun all the way back to the manufacturer and all FFL transfers in between. ------------------------------------------- Good. |
More info.. not looking good...
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. |
More info.. not looking good...
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:02:37 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 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. Who pays whom? John H. ------------------------------------ Not sure what you are asking. If I go purchase a handgun or rifle tomorrow, I'll fill out a form, the dealer will either call or connect via Internet to the MA Criminal Bureau, give them my permit number and other info, have me put my index finger on a digital fingerprint pad and it transmits it to the Bureau. Within seconds the digital fingerprint image confirms that indeed, it's me (matches the original fingerprints taken when I applied for a permit), I pay for the gun and go home. I don't pay for any of the instant background check verification. If you sell a gun to your wife, who pays for the background check (s), and who gets paid? See, the impetus for all the background checking paperwork and bureaucracy isn't the safety of the citizens, it's bigger government and more taxes. Which of the atrocities over the years would have been prevented with a background check? Would the murder rate in Chicago or Detroit go down with more background checks? I am not convinced. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
More info.. not looking good...
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:21:35 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message ... In article , says... "John H" wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:25:49 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 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. Who pays whom? John H. ------------------------------------ Not sure what you are asking. If I go purchase a handgun or rifle tomorrow, I'll fill out a form, the dealer will either call or connect via Internet to the MA Criminal Bureau, give them my permit number and other info, have me put my index finger on a digital fingerprint pad and it transmits it to the Bureau. Within seconds the digital fingerprint image confirms that indeed, it's me (matches the original fingerprints taken when I applied for a permit), I pay for the gun and go home. I don't pay for any of the instant background check verification. Why should citizens have to be fingerprinted in order to exercise their constitutional rights. Next you will want the police to scan the fingers of those who are speaking in public. -------------------------------------------- Why should any law abiding citizen care? My fingerprints have been on file with the FBI for over 40 years. So have yours if you were ever in the military or held a security clearance. Look, there's a serious problem related to having guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them. We have laws that prohibit some from gun ownership that are not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights. Nobody disagrees with that. Having fingerprints on file along with a cursory background check as a requirement for legal gun ownership does not violate anyone's constitutional rights. All they do is confirm the identity of the person and checks that there is no lawful reason for the person not to have a gun. Why should any law abiding citizen care if his telephone calls are monitored and his mail read? The law abiding citizens aren't the problem children. It's those darn criminals that are the problem children. Oh yes, there are some pretty stupid law-abiders out there, but unless the background check looks at high school grades, stupidity won't be discovered. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
More info.. not looking good...
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:46:24 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:01:24 -0500, 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. Bull**** I just oppose laws that are ineffective in preventing the sale of guns to people who are not supposed to have them and only affect law abiding citizens. ----------------------------- Questions for you: 1. How are law abiding citizens negatively affected? 2. If you sold one of your guns to an unknown person, wouldn't you like to know that person is going to be as responsible as were? 3. Don't you think that ensuring that the gun you sell or transfer isn't to a felon or otherwise not authorized to receive the gun is a responsible act of law abiding citizen gun owner? And I think "boater" is a little overzealous in his accusations. I doubt very much that you want to be able to sell your guns to terrorists, criminals and psychopaths. So why not have universal background checks to give you a least some peace of mind that you acted responsibly as a gun owner and also acted responsibly as a gun seller or transferer? 1. Higher taxes, bigger government, more liberals in power to further restrict gun ownership. 2. A background check doesn't determine responsibility. 3. That would be nice. A bill of sale completed with the check of a driver's license will show a paper trail. Just because a person passed a background check, there is no assurance he won't become a felon tomorrow. If I were worried about the buyer's background, because I didn't know him, I'd take the gun to a dealer and pay the FFL fee. If I'm selling it to my next door neighbor, whom I've known for 20 years, a bill of sale should be sufficient. John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
More info.. not looking good...
"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. |
More info.. not looking good...
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 22:21:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"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. If I had doubts about the buyer, like Harry did with his recent sale through a web site, then I'd go the FFL route. They're easy to find, just look at Bud's Guns web site. I don't recall saying that the seller to me didn't know me from Adam - except when I bought through a dealer. I think you are convincing me that the universal background check idea presented by the Democrats is more and more an invasion of privacy, and a means to grow the government (and liberal voting base). John H. -- Hope you're having a great day! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com