Hillary Clinton's Gun Control Proposals
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
zincwarrior
New member
Indeed, is there any precedent for this form of 3rd party intervening becomes irrelevant standard? Even strict liability is limited and third party bad acts aren't covered IIRC.
We should remember though, is that, historically, a good portion of Democratic deep pockets came from Trial Lawyers. They might be just fine with that, just fine.
zincwarrior
New member
I should be clear, this is what I am supporting, not some extremely invasive check like a security check the government would run for certain sensitive positions.
9x18_walther said:
zincwarrior said:
It shows the amount of research that people put into a subject when even regular posters on a gun forum don't know the difference between "NCIC" and "NICS".
Are you people proposing to disband the NICS system and include that information into the NCIC system?
zincwarrior
New member
The mass shootings aren't a concern to me in relation to this. Multiple persons have been caught in our area buying guns illegally for trade South (I assume also for the street). Its a minor method that helps limit some of that, without material cost.
OK Folks, looks like we need to get our acronyms straight here.
NCIC = National Crime Information Center
NICS = National Instant Criminal Background Check System
NCIS = Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Now that we have the program, which check are we actually referring to?
And a background check would stop the legally-eligible buyer from purchasing a gun for such purposes?
Or are you really looking to limit the number of weapons an individual may buy, writ large ?
As to buying for the street... would you really expect such a buyer to still get those weapons through
legitimate source? I think not. He'd simple go to another illegal source and turn them for profit
(like is already done now in most every case)
What really concerns me is the willingness to put big gov't right in the middle of the Constitutional provision
that keeps that very gov't in final check -- to simply "...limit some of that."
That worries me a lot.
zincwarrior
New member
Sorry I am limiting my posting on this. I've stated my position in response to the initial question. I respect your opinions so don't take it personally that I am not responding to your reasonable questions. I am just worried that further discussion will get heated, and frankly I don't need that on one of my favorite boards.
Side note but thanks for the acronym clarification Cowtowner. You forgot NCI =Really bad TV show having almost no bearing on reality.
Side note but thanks for the acronym clarification Cowtowner. You forgot NCI =Really bad TV show having almost no bearing on reality.
ZINC... I come to these boards (and listen to Tom Leykis) for the same reason: to get all sides.
And dialectic discussion is the best possible way to stay abreast of both the factual issues and the
ebb & flow of emotional tides. With it we have debate. Without it we have dictum.
In short: Not-to-Worry.
for the same reason: to get all sides. And dialectic discussion is the best possible way to stay abreast of both the factual issues and the
ebb & flow of emotional tides. With it we have debate. Without it we have dictum.
In short: Not-to-Worry.
zincwarrior
New member
I hear you. I've just been called names one too many times on gun boards when political topics come up, and I'm a fragile flower. More poor little ego can't take it.
* No I am not trying to limit the number of firearms per person. I figure wives seeing the bill, handle that just fine.
*Legally eligible gunbuyers are not limited.
*Illegally in-eligible gunbuyers are limited. It also provides the seller with a secure base to rely on the sale: aka I did the legally required due diligence before I sold this firearm to Joe Schmo.
*Effectiveness. I'd say purely a "meh" on the 1 to 5 scale and it won't stop bad guys acquiring firearms illegally.
*Frankly, if you can't change the 2nd Amendment, to really lower gun crime you have to look to legalizing a host of illegal drugs, fortifying the border to stop nondrug over the border criminal activities (like people smuggling), make mental checks/reporting a real workable thing. That would impact the innercity drug related crime and help with the mass murdering wackjob. But you're not going to stop everything.
* No I am not trying to limit the number of firearms per person. I figure wives seeing the bill, handle that just fine.
*Legally eligible gunbuyers are not limited.
*Illegally in-eligible gunbuyers are limited. It also provides the seller with a secure base to rely on the sale: aka I did the legally required due diligence before I sold this firearm to Joe Schmo.
*Effectiveness. I'd say purely a "meh" on the 1 to 5 scale and it won't stop bad guys acquiring firearms illegally.
*Frankly, if you can't change the 2nd Amendment, to really lower gun crime you have to look to legalizing a host of illegal drugs, fortifying the border to stop nondrug over the border criminal activities (like people smuggling), make mental checks/reporting a real workable thing. That would impact the innercity drug related crime and help with the mass murdering wackjob. But you're not going to stop everything.
We already have a system for that. If a seller wants a verifiable paper trail and a background check, he can go to an FFL and have them handle the transfer.
Those aren't the only possible solutions. For starters, we can start prosecuting and jailing people who commit crimes with guns. We have a real problem of not doing that right now.
zincwarrior
New member
I think we’re agreeing to the same thing. In my family we tend to keep things until they are completely irreparably broken, so I’ve never sold one, but if I did I’d go through an FFL for just that reason.
Agreed completely. There is a whole range of things that can be done and should be done. We've come to accept inner city violence related to the drug trade and in general, and we're becoming immune to these mass shootings, when it can be stopped or at least majorly reduced if we employ a panapoly of ideas.
22-rimfire
New member
Who would actually enforce these changes? BATF? Federal crime... Let's see.... the feds are reportedly releasing about 6,000 non-violent felons this month. So, if they are doing that, why fill the jails up with mostly regular people who might sell a gun via face to face transaction? It would not be enforceable, plain and simple.... It would also harden a lot of people to further government control of their lives and choices.
The problem is criminals or would be criminals reportedly get their guns from other criminals and family members. Make the family member liable.... throw them in jail... ridiculous.
Gun manufacture liability..... guns can kill and unless there is a defect, there should be no more liability associated with a firearm than any other consumer product. Gun manufacturers make no bones about it. A gun used by a person can inflict "hurt".
What Hillary wants is UBCs and then eventually a registry. Then they will start telling you what you're allowed to own.... oops. 4 guns... too many, afterall, you only live in a one bedroom apartment.
The gunshow loophole (aka private sales) is all about making changes to allow for tracking sales which eventually could become a registry if it isn't already Again, criminals and felons would be a bit stupid to go to a gun shop to buy a firearm when they know they will not pass the background check. Form 4473 is an affidavit affirming your legal status and lying is illegal now.
The problem is criminals or would be criminals reportedly get their guns from other criminals and family members. Make the family member liable.... throw them in jail... ridiculous.
Gun manufacture liability..... guns can kill and unless there is a defect, there should be no more liability associated with a firearm than any other consumer product. Gun manufacturers make no bones about it. A gun used by a person can inflict "hurt".
What Hillary wants is UBCs and then eventually a registry. Then they will start telling you what you're allowed to own.... oops. 4 guns... too many, afterall, you only live in a one bedroom apartment.
The gunshow loophole (aka private sales) is all about making changes to allow for tracking sales which eventually could become a registry if it isn't already Again, criminals and felons would be a bit stupid to go to a gun shop to buy a firearm when they know they will not pass the background check. Form 4473 is an affidavit affirming your legal status and lying is illegal now.
carguychris
New member
Plenty of criminals already try it and many are not prosecuted.22-rimfire said:
BTW I believe that the fundamental reason many people turn to crime is that they're lazy, a bit (or VERY) dull, and prone to optimistic delusions that they won't get caught. This is backed up by the real-life crooks I've met, and I think this is why there's a reliable stream of "Dumb Crook" stories in the media. If these people were capable or willing to plan things carefully, they would probably realize that holding up the 7-Eleven or selling dope on the corner is not a good long-term life plan.
Going to a gun dealer and lying on a federal form may seem asinine to you or me, but if I imagine a mindset characterized by laziness, wishful thinking, and a general lack of understanding about the way society functions, I find it easy to understand why some people do it.
It's a felony to lie on the form. It's a felony for a felon to be in possession of a gun at all, even just holding it at a gun shop counter.
When I was in the business, I called law enforcement several times on that matter. Local law enforcement told me to call the ATF. The ATF told me it was a problem for local law enforcement. Nobody gets so much as a talking to.
That's a big part of the problem.
zincwarrior
New member
Wow. One would think the PoPo would be all over that.