Is anyone else fed up with the extremism on both sides of the gun/gun control debate?

Lets start with enforcing existing laws and start arresting criminals who get flagged at gun shops while trying to buy a gun. That's one heck of a start.
Click to expand...

This is one of the issues that the NRA has been touting for years. The NRA wants this enforced. The problem with this is what Ben Towe pointed out.

For example, shortly after the Lautenburg amendment was passed there was a cop in NY, 20 year veteran, who was denied purchase. He had been in a fight with his dad at 19, and was charged with assault. It was listed as domestic violence, but he had no idea. Imagine if they added injury to insult and slapped him with a felony for trying to buy the gun.

The bigger problem with this is that it will discourage gun ownership altogether. I know several people who have had issues in the past, and aren't sure if they would pass the background check. The threat of a felony arrest would scare them away from gun shops altogether.
 
The point I'm trying to make is that the whole system is pretty much a joke. Has anyone ever even been arrested after a NICS denial? Has it ever prevented a crime? If not, what is it besides an annoyance and a drain on public funds?
Click to expand...

What it IS is:

A feel-good measure so the reps that passed it could say they had done something.

A hindrance to gun owners- If you want less of a thing, you make it less convenient, more hazardous and more expensive.

A veiled threat-
he bigger problem with this is that it will discourage gun ownership altogether. I know several people who have had issues in the past, and aren't sure if they would pass the background check. The threat of a felony arrest would scare them away from gun shops altogether
Click to expand...


A sinecure. People in government love ANYTHING that increases the size, scope, and power of that government..... if nothing else, it gives them places to put more people on the pay roll ......
 
Guys, without a doubt the current laws are very far from perfect. Truth be told, they kinda suck in their current incarnation.

Nevertheless, those criminals getting flagged on background checks law is what we've got and on the surface it is well intentioned. With a bit of tweaking it could even become a decent or "acceptable" law.

What we DON'T need is more laws. Why pass more laws that either aren't going to be enforced or will encumber law abiding gun owners.

We ABSOLUTELY DON'T need any sort of bans on firearms as they aren't the problem. The problem lies with the criminally insane and the criminal element. We've already established that the background check law has many flaws but even in it's current state, if it were enforced, it could stop quite a number of crimes and killings because the criminal who tried to buy the gun is sitting behind bars.

I could be mistaken but I think they did make changes to that law to where "Drug related crimes that were aimed towards drug dealers" and some other aspects of criminals would be the ones that would be flagged on the background check instead of folks with a domestic disturbance 20 years ago. Like I said, I could be mistaken about that but I seem to remember reading that somewhere in the not so distant past.
 
I could be mistaken but I think they did make changes to that law to where "Drug related crimes that were aimed towards drug dealers" and some other aspects of criminals would be the ones that would be flagged on the background check instead of folks with a domestic disturbance 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't. Misdemeanor domestic violence is still a dis-qualifier. It's on the 4473 form.

Now, it's probably easier to get it expunged than a felony conviction for drugs, writing bad checks, reckless driving, trespassing on a construction site, grafitti, or contracting without a license.

But you'd have to be very careful to ensure that it's valid according to federal as well as state law, (or international if it happened somewhere else), because you'd still be breaking the law by trying to buy a gun even though you thought you were in the clear.
 
As far as I know, there's nothing stopping you from getting an FFL to do the transfer for you. That said, I'll stand by what I've said in other threads: There is no gun show loophole. It's a fiction.

I stand corrected and now have become enlightened. This is absolutely correct and I take a different and stronger position in this. I also will utilize the info and do what was suggested. In light of posing a thought, I was given an education.

I've got to tell you, these forums are chock full of good information and opinions. Glad I found it.
 
Howard Stern...

Was listening to Howard Stern today, and part of the news was about a paper in Nyack printing all of the CCW holders in the area and how it caused such an uproar they had to get ARMED guards for their PROTECTION.

Two solid notes by Howard

1. A laugh that they had to hire ARMED guards to protect themselves.

2. That the people who really should worry about that list being printed is the Non CCW owners. His reasoning, if a criminal reads the list, he knows what house may not have a gun.

Wow, imagine that, free advertising to stay away from my house because I am a legal and trained owner of a firearm. That's how to create a criminal free zone, let them know you're armed and won't tolerate it.

Lastly, a head's up from the State of Virginia, schools in the Richmond, Hanover, Caroline County areas have police assigned to the schools. Television reports show parents relieved that there is protection and in one case, on a College Campus, declared that it was good to feel that level of safety.
 
Go ahead and support the "middle ground" if your ultimate goal is complete gun prohibition. Today's extremism is tomorrow's middle ground, i.e. today only extremists want "assault weapons" and the "gun show loophole," tomorrow the extremists are those who support legal handguns and concealed carry. Eventually only extremists will even want to own a gun period, and the "middle ground" will be complete gun prohibition. But by all means, if that's what you want, lobby for it.
 
There are always people considered extremists.
Are pro-gun people extreme if they want the opportunity for one/two or more qualified school staff to be able to volunteer to defend children?

Should movie complexes etc allow nobody with a CCW to offer a deterrence to lunatics looking for easy targets?
The Aurora nut picked the nearby theater complex which prohibits legal carry.

Why should the terrible impulses of a few nutjobs make sport utility rifles with (or without detachable) mags illegal for the many millions of law-abiding citizens who never tried to harm anybody?

Forcing all gun show sellers to do background checks would not have prevented the UK Dunblane, Tucson, Aurora or CT massacres, nor the McDonalds in San Ysidro CA etc.

The anti-gun politicians are simply exploiting the publics' ignorance, in their eternal quest to Control and randomly prohibit anything they want, to further even more their insatiable Quest For Power.

Right now it is a clever Emotional Distraction to make the public less aware of the monstrous US federal deficits, the growing, hidden costs of Obamacare, and recent vast growth of regulations which help prevent job growth. etc.
About 400 such regulations were quietly passed right before the Christmas break.
 
Last edited:
Is it really extreme to expect your right to be useable as written... Too much to expect that the Bill of Rights means what it says? Anybody not understand the words "shall not be infringed"? :eek:

People seem to forever miss one of the big intents of the founding fathers... In a technical sense I would argue that you could remove all of the spelled out rights in the Bill of Rights and technically it would change nothing.... The reason being is that the founders believed these rights were inherent... The were rights that simply exist... So the act of removing the amendments would not in theory change anything because you cannot remove things that are inherent. It would simply remove the line of writing, not the right itself...

Maybe a better illustration would be the "Right to Privacy"... No where in the "Bill of Rights" is the right to privacy spelled out and yet over and over the courts have ruled the right exist... That is because the right is inherent...

So is it extreme to expect to use a right that has always existed?

But lets take this one step father and although I'm borrowing this method to argue the point I think its really effective: In our current legal system you are supposedly "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"... Well these anti gun laws are exactly the opposite theory, you are guilty so you must be stripped of these things before you can do them... I could elaborate but I think this drives home the point...

To expect our rights is not extreme, to deny our rights is...
 
Children should not have access to them without supervision and safety training, and thieves should not be able to access them without AT LEAST some trouble, locks, safes, etc.
Click to expand...

There are already generally laws in place requiring parents to keep guns out of the hands of minor children except under supervision. We don't need a special federal "anti-parental-firearm-negligence" act. And my home already has locks on it. Personally, I keep most of my firearms in a safe, but I have some that are "in-service". Why should I be made a criminal because someone broke into my home and stole a gun? To adequately protect myself and family, I need to have firearms that are readily accessible.
 
The anti side also tends to forget that a useable but crude gun isn't very hard to fashion... (Anyone with a metal lathe could almost certainly create something) My point being for all intents and purposes there is no viable way to stop guns... Its all smoke and mirrors and emotional pleas... The facts however are very different...
 
Below are some of my suggestions or compromises.:confused:

1. Enforce current laws on the books. Increase severe penalties for gun related crime.

2. Make all firearm purchasers go through a background check, including private sales. The background check services should be a free service.
(If I'm involved in a private sale of firearm, the most important thing to me is making sure the purchaser is a sane individual and not a felon instead of how much $$$$$$ I can make.) At least it should be a moral obligation.

3. Keep the entire standard so called "high capacity magazines” but we should regulate for example the AR 15 100 round “drum”

4. All people interested in obtaining a conceal and carry permit should take firearm classes. The fee should be reasonable to allow low income lawful citizens to afford these services. If the fee is high it should be allowed to be written off as deduction.

5. All STATES should make their mental health database available to the federal government so we can prevent the mentally challenged individuals from acquiring firearms legitimately.

6. Increase funding for mental health by reducing the amount of foreign aids given all over the world.

7. Finally involve the education of both the risk and benefits of firearms into educational system.
 
People talk about being reasonable and compromising. People want to try and do something to try and avert another tradgedy. I'm all for that too if, its truly reasonable and will truly help.

None of Doublea A's ideas sound too bad to me. I can't see how any honest, concerned citizens can be against making it harder for the mentally ill, or criminals to acquire firearms.

I well understand the fear of regiestration and confiscation. I well understand not wanting to surrender more of our rights. If legeslation on tougher background checks was carefully crafted, in a way that would actually be effective, I wouldn't oppose it.

I wouldn't ever, knowingly sell a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. If there was an easy, inexpensive way to check, I certainly wouldn't feel overburdened doing it.
 
Unfortunately, you nailed the problem in one try, nate45.

Mandatory checks for every purchase would set a very solid foundation for a nationwide registry.
 
Wow!!! What a read! Awful lot of patriotic souls out there. I am sure it has been said at least 100 or so times, but anyone that believes in compromise in this arena is a fool. The Brits tried to compromise. The Aussies tried to compromise too. Compromise is another word for a sellout when it comes down to firearms laws. The other side preaches compromise, but wants ultimate total ban of all, not some, ALL firearms. They will not rest till they get what they want. Look at your history both here and abroad. The answers you seek have already been played out. Wake up for God's Sake!!!!

Rick
 
Make all firearm purchasers go through a background check, including private sales.
Click to expand...

That is de-facto registation ...everyone who has bought a gun is on a list as having done so..... and don't give me any BS about the .gov not being allowed to keep those records..... if they can do something, legal or not, they will.

I'm pretty sure that any decent data mining program already has a list of all the firearms I own, of could get it by sifting my TFL posts...... such a program is not covered in the Constitution as a function of the Fed.Gov, but I know such things are done....... that don't make it right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top