Gun Control Supporters Launch Frenzied Campaign

Way back in the day, Dalek said "Not in CO, " Referring to a ban on face to face sales at gunshows. This law was a reaction to the method used by the Columbine shooters to gain access to weapons illegally. It wasn't the end of the world.
That didn't help us with the Aurora situation too much. The move to UBC here in Colorado as a reaction to Aurora/Sandy hook is completely non-logical and not a solution to either.
 
All of the polls are on gun control are complete garbage. The only poll that matters are the election polls. And, I can assure your trusted Congressmen do not rely on the Anti's polls (or NRA polls) to figure out which way the tide is turning on gun control.
 
I've been going on and on with whomever would listen that we need to do the same things the Democrats have been doing so successfully. Form organizations, raise money, work for candidates on all levels.

Today I'm listening to the stories of people who were doing just that but who were shut down by the I.R.S.. Demands for unreasonable information coupled with threats of prosecution for perjury if said information wasn't 100% accurate. Who would continue to pursue formation of a political action group under that threat?

This won't be fast - but I'm furious.
 
.....because people actually do support background checks being used to prevent criminals from getting guns.
Click to expand...


Not for me. I am not fooled into thinking that a background check will prevent one criminal from getting a gun. Not even remotely and I think it is foolish to think otherwise. We have a background check system in place and plenty of crimes to show otherwise.

I the simplest terms, unless we abandon the 2A and give up individual ownership of firearms they will always be there to steal and sell.

I am convinced that the current background check system does help officers trace a gun back to it's original, or perhaps a subsequent, point of sale and may help solve a crime, may. I also feel that they are not an unreasonable intrusion on the 2A and that they may, if monitored properly, act as a barrier between what might otherwise become in effect a National Firearms Registry.
 
Yeah, while we're at it, we should make murder legal because there's no way we can prevent it 100% of the time.
 
I the simplest terms, unless we abandon the 2A and give up individual ownership of firearms they will always be there to steal and sell.
Click to expand...
Many other countries have surrendered individual ownership, and the guns are still there to steal and sell. Banning them doesn't make them all go away; it just turns them into a valuable and destructive black-market commodity.

I am convinced that the current background check system does help officers trace a gun back to it's original
Click to expand...
The background check system doesn't really have anything to do with the tracing system. They're administered by two separate agencies. Furthermore, traces are made possible by records kept by manufacturers, distributors, and dealers. Even if the entire NICS system was abolished tomorrow, there would still be a means of tracing guns.
 
Having done dozens of polls and surveys these number are far from real or scientific. In fact fee of these polls have the scientific relevance noted on them which leaves them in question. Again I will go to a post I made earlier on this subject. It is about the question that was asked but also who was being asked and how they "random sampled". Additionally how they determined the knowledge base of the recipients. Having looked over many of these polls none have proven any relevancy in the answering. I can ask any question once but if I cannot determine what the answers mean the number is bogus.
These polls are so infuriating because they ask blanker overly broad questions with no clarifiers.
You ask if someone supports expanded background checks and simply leave it at that provides nothing. What does EBC actually means to the recipients? The media, including FOX news is using these results to drive traffic not prove anything.
If there are no follow up question or per clarifying questions, which none if these polls have the data is useless and it is an absolute crying shame that academia sits back and allows this to go forth unchallenged. They do a complete disservice to all research and researchers.
 
Most academia would not be interested in finding support for gun rights.

Such issues are discussed in the arcane criminological journals. As I said before, it's well known that folks:

1. Want to keep guns from criminals.
2. Strong majority support the right of law abiding citizens to own firearms.

Then there are nuances after that.
 
EMH said:
Yeah, while we're at it, we should make murder legal because there's no way we can prevent it 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

If only 50 out of every 70,000 or so murders were prosecuted despite them signing an official statement saying they murdered someone, it might actually be more just to make murder legal since you are selectively enforcing the laws only against certain people.

Right now that is exactly how our enforcement of background checks works. I can try to buy a gun at an FFL and lie on the 4473. Maybe I'll get lucky. Chances of it being prosecuted are minimal.
 
Right now that is exactly how our enforcement of background checks works. I can try to buy a gun at an FFL and lie on the 4473. Maybe I'll get lucky. Chances of it being prosecuted are minimal.
Click to expand...

Background checks really have noting to do with the information on a 4473 (excluding purchaser identifying information). The NICS is a huge national database where arrests and criminal convictions are compiled - "people registration". BATFE just keeps those dumb questions on the 4473 to appease some political hacks who have nothing better to do other than pretending to be important by dreaming up dumb questions to ask gun buyers. Oh, and without the dumb questions, the 4473 would look too much like gun registration (which it is).
 
Last edited:
They should do away with the 4473 in general.
Click to expand...

HOW DARE YOU!!! If they did that, thousands of government bureaucrats would loose their jobs....go homeless.....starve in the streets.....become meth addicts. The world as we know it would come to an end!:eek:
 
Polls like the %90 poll are geared towards getting the answer they wish. Then used to make a claim of the people.

The gears of the political agenda machine never cease to turn;)
 
Anyone that voluntarily joins or pursues employment by BATFE has no sympathy from me.
Click to expand...
Most of them are folks who just want to do some good. Their job could entail that the wrong folks don't get explosives, or shutting down tobacco smuggling. Being a BATFE agent doesn't automatically equate to being the long arm of the gun control lobby.
 
Most of them are folks who just want to do some good. Their job could entail that the wrong folks don't get explosives, or shutting down tobacco smuggling. Being a BATFE agent doesn't automatically equate to being the long arm of the gun control lobby.
Click to expand...

While I am sure that is true, I've often wondered how someone comes to the decision that they really want to work for BATFE. I could see seasoned law enforcement officers who just want to do something else or FBI agents who see a better opportunity pursuing a career with BATFE. Just can't see anyone thinking to themselves: "I really want to work for BATFE examining Form 4's and confiscating illegal silencer parts".
 
I imagine it's likely just a form of opportunity perhaps for a better paying job. Not sure how much they make, or perhaps it's a shoe in the door to other positions, last I knew, government jobs pay pretty decently, depending on what you're doing.
 
Federal jobs, generally, pay well and have a good (if complicated) benefits package. I'm sure that there are plenty of decent folks working at BATFE.

As a practical matter, it wouldn't hurt us (the gun community) to have more gun rights supporters working "on the inside."
 
As a practical matter, it wouldn't hurt us (the gun community) to have more gun rights supporters working "on the inside."
Click to expand...

Maybe I'll send in my resume. If I get the job, just write the first letter of your political affiliation on your Form 4. If I like the one you picked, your Form 4 will get approved in 2 months, otherwise, it might take up to 14 months. The president said this was legal to do today.
 
Most of them are folks who just want to do some good. Their job could entail that the wrong folks don't get explosives, or shutting down tobacco smuggling. Being a BATFE agent doesn't automatically equate to being the long arm of the gun control lobby.
Click to expand...
It is in the nature of any bureaucracy to grow, or for any regulation to magnify in scope. The expansion of BATFE's power is a natural inclination of business. I am entirely against its current form and the premise it was founded on.

In my opinion, anyone that seeks employment by the government has more interest in "controlling" rather than "creating."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top