Which side do you come down on?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200608/CUL20060830b.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200608/CUL20060830b.html
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Pro-gun groups at odds over federal bill improving background checks
- Thread starter MoW
- Start date
I have mixed feelings about it. From an ideological point of view, I still don't see where the fed goverment (or any other) has any right saying who does and does not have the right to exercise a "natural right" like RKBA, like any other right in the BOR (yes, I know they stomp all over the rest of the BOR, but that's beside the point). OTOH, I'm not all that wild about known dangerous folks being able to easily get guns, even though I also know that they'll get them anyway on the black market. On the face of it, it doesn't appear that there is going to be any real change as far as your average law abiding gun owner is concerned, what is intended is for some of the flaws of the existing system be repaired. Consider it maintainence of the status quo.
What worries me is who is backing the bill, and what the political ramifications of it are. While the bill itself isn't earth-shattering on the face of it, I can't help but wonder if:
A> The passage of it will be viewed as a victory for the antis who will use it as a rallying point for their troops leading to efforts that alter the status quo in a negative direction, and
B> There isn't something hidden in the bowels of the bill that is truly repugnant, that I am not aware of. Where's the gotcha?
With those 2 points in mind, I have to stand opposed.
What worries me is who is backing the bill, and what the political ramifications of it are. While the bill itself isn't earth-shattering on the face of it, I can't help but wonder if:
A> The passage of it will be viewed as a victory for the antis who will use it as a rallying point for their troops leading to efforts that alter the status quo in a negative direction, and
B> There isn't something hidden in the bowels of the bill that is truly repugnant, that I am not aware of. Where's the gotcha?
With those 2 points in mind, I have to stand opposed.
invention_45
New member
Given my recent meeting with the FBI, I have changed my viewpoint on several fronts. One of them is this one.
Gun ownership should be like Jimmy Carter's MX missile concept. Nobody, but nobody should know which citizens have and don't have guns. Period.
My old POV was I didn't care.
Gun ownership should be like Jimmy Carter's MX missile concept. Nobody, but nobody should know which citizens have and don't have guns. Period.
My old POV was I didn't care.
Wildalaska
Moderator
If it improves the system, I am for it.
Evidently the NRA thinks its OK
WildsothatsthatAlaska
Evidently the NRA thinks its OK
WildsothatsthatAlaska
The NRA thinks lots of things that aren't true.
I recognize that certain violent criminals (who should be locked up) and crazies (whose relatives and neighbors should intervene) need to be prohibited from obtaining a gun, but I don't think that laws preventing them from buying guns work.
I'm against it, but this is not something that would make me get a pitchfork and march on Washington.
I recognize that certain violent criminals (who should be locked up) and crazies (whose relatives and neighbors should intervene) need to be prohibited from obtaining a gun, but I don't think that laws preventing them from buying guns work.
I'm against it, but this is not something that would make me get a pitchfork and march on Washington.
I would do away with all gun laws if it were my choice. They are doing background checks at the moment so I think the GOA is on mighty weak ground in its arguments at the present time in my opinion. I buy into thier belief that it should be unconstitutional. You dont always get everything you want in life.
Is the GOA taking this opportunity to build a straw man argument against the NRA to make points with gun owners?
If the new law an improvement over the old one? If it allows more folks to regain thier rights to purchase firearms that would be a plus in my view. Sometimes you have to break a big stone into little stones before you make it go away.
Is the GOA taking this opportunity to build a straw man argument against the NRA to make points with gun owners?
If the new law an improvement over the old one? If it allows more folks to regain thier rights to purchase firearms that would be a plus in my view. Sometimes you have to break a big stone into little stones before you make it go away.
"If it improves the system, I am for it.
Evidently the NRA thinks its OK
WildsothatsthatAlaska"
Superbly thought out..."If they say it's good, it must be good. If the NRA says it's good, it must be good. Good is good and bad is bad, and this is good."
All the "violent" people you all are talking about never should have gotten out of prison to begin with! Fix that problem, and exactly whom do we need to keep from purchasing firearms?
Our legislators create one problem, and that "necessitates" a new law which will create a plethora of new problems making exponentially more laws necessary. It's the nature of Leviathan. Unfortunately, most Americans are either too dumb to realize it or too complacent to care.
Evidently the NRA thinks its OK
WildsothatsthatAlaska"
Superbly thought out..."If they say it's good, it must be good. If the NRA says it's good, it must be good. Good is good and bad is bad, and this is good."
All the "violent" people you all are talking about never should have gotten out of prison to begin with! Fix that problem, and exactly whom do we need to keep from purchasing firearms?
Our legislators create one problem, and that "necessitates" a new law which will create a plethora of new problems making exponentially more laws necessary. It's the nature of Leviathan. Unfortunately, most Americans are either too dumb to realize it or too complacent to care.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Bad guys get guns all the time. Agreed?
Nuts get guns all the time. Agreed?
Government cannot eliminate the black market in guns. Agreed?
Therefore, since this new "law" cannot accomplish its goal there must be another reason for passing it - and I doubt it's "for the children".
Considering the record our government has when passing laws such as this, I think I'd rather see each and every convict issued a new gun upon his release from prison than deny - through administrative error - one lawful citizen the right to defend himself and his family. An armed citizenry is the best solution to crime, not ex post facto laws.
Nuts get guns all the time. Agreed?
Government cannot eliminate the black market in guns. Agreed?
Therefore, since this new "law" cannot accomplish its goal there must be another reason for passing it - and I doubt it's "for the children".
Considering the record our government has when passing laws such as this, I think I'd rather see each and every convict issued a new gun upon his release from prison than deny - through administrative error - one lawful citizen the right to defend himself and his family. An armed citizenry is the best solution to crime, not ex post facto laws.
TexanAmerican
New member
It's really neither here nor there because the so called "background check" is fundamentally flawed as so aptly put by gun control advocate Rep. Carolyn McCarthy in her own words. It's not merely a lack of technology but the fact that our blessed courts encourage plea bargains which ultimately reduce or completely erase the original offense and reduce it to something that wouldn't impair a "check". I'm brand new to the TFL forum but from what I've read most of the people here seem pretty saavy and well rooted in common sense. As has been touted over and over again if a nut case or "bad guy" wants a gun all the background checks in the world are worthless anyway. If they want someone dead they'll get a gun if that's what they want. Like everything else this is just one more effort by antis to prove that if we rid the world of guns there will be no more murder, death or destruction. Personally I don't give a damn who has a gun because they probably already have it anyway.
I am against it.Knowing full well how mr schumer thinks, there has got to be a catch.It might just open up a whole new way to further restrict legal gun buying and open up the black market for worse problems.
What do they want?To know absolutly everything about an individual.Its no improvement.Id trust them with my data as much as Id trust a con in prison for fraud and embezzelment.Id surly not trust them to not pass any other feel good nonsense based off this,like changing the definitions.
Sometimes, I wish these morons would just move away.
What do they want?To know absolutly everything about an individual.Its no improvement.Id trust them with my data as much as Id trust a con in prison for fraud and embezzelment.Id surly not trust them to not pass any other feel good nonsense based off this,like changing the definitions.
Sometimes, I wish these morons would just move away.
The effect will be a drastic increase in the number of people that have to wait because of NICS hits. They'll enter millions of names from old arrest records and mental health records, which will cause a hit when the name is run. Then someone will have to physically go through the records and figure out the ultimate disposition of the case and decide whether or not to approve the gun transfer.
v8fbird said:All the "violent" people you all are talking about never should have gotten out of prison to begin with! Fix that problem, and exactly whom do we need to keep from purchasing firearms?
Our legislators create one problem, and that "necessitates" a new law which will create a plethora of new problems making exponentially more laws necessary. It's the nature of Leviathan. Unfortunately, most Americans are either too dumb to realize it or too complacent to care.
Excellent points, once again, v8fbird! +1!
It's not just the legislatures, though, it's the courts as well. Permissive judges handing out light sentences; permissive legislators writing laws that don't call for enough of a punishment. It all goes together to create a system where very bad people are not kept where they belong, or executed as they should be, like rabid dogs.
-azurefly
"I agree.The prisons are overcrowded though.I think that if someone kills another person intentionally, they should be executed within 1 week."
I like the way you think, but much as we hate how it allows people time they don't deserve, the appeals process is one of the best and most valuable things in our criminal justice system.
You would be surprised how many people get framed by bad police, corrupt lab workers and through prosecutorial "misconduct." People plant evidence all the time, and other evidence is ignored, covered up or destroyed. Just look at the Duke "rape" case. The one kid even has a VIDEO alibi of him at a ATM at the time, but that isn't stopping the gungho prosecutor.
Even though they tell us that fingerprint results are foolproof, you would be surprised how innacurate and unreliable they are. We're never told about the times that results come back a "100% match" for people that are dead. Not to mention the "experts" who get coached by prosecutors to get up and act "100% sure" when they were maybe 50% sure looking at the prints. There have been thousands of people exonerated by DNA evidence even after having been convicted through fingerprints.
Surprisingly, you can't trust DNA evidence either. There was one guy in DC who, hours before his execution, was exonerated by contradicting DNA tests performed independently of the prosecution.
These things may be tools, but there is no such thing as a one hit wonder.
None of this stops prosecutors from pressing forward full speed ahead, judges from telling juries that the tests are foolproof and media from parroting the same.
There are so many dishonest, evil people in our justice system that if you didn't get years to investigate and appeal, Bush could have you snatched off the street on Monday, have planted hairs from your hairbrush on a homeless guy who died of natural causes by tuesday, have a jury convict you by friday and have you executed on Sunday morning.
Thanks, but no thanks. It may mean some evil people live longer, but the alternative would put innocent people at the mercy of tyrants and politically bent DA's.
You want to uncrowd the prisons? Release all of the nonviolent drug offenders. Then initiate a program, which could be Biblically-based, of restitution, for smaller crimes. People don't learn from getting locked up; maybe if they had to pay "seven times over" for something they stole, defrauded or embezzled, they'd think twice about it.
I like the way you think, but much as we hate how it allows people time they don't deserve, the appeals process is one of the best and most valuable things in our criminal justice system.
You would be surprised how many people get framed by bad police, corrupt lab workers and through prosecutorial "misconduct." People plant evidence all the time, and other evidence is ignored, covered up or destroyed. Just look at the Duke "rape" case. The one kid even has a VIDEO alibi of him at a ATM at the time, but that isn't stopping the gungho prosecutor.
Even though they tell us that fingerprint results are foolproof, you would be surprised how innacurate and unreliable they are. We're never told about the times that results come back a "100% match" for people that are dead. Not to mention the "experts" who get coached by prosecutors to get up and act "100% sure" when they were maybe 50% sure looking at the prints. There have been thousands of people exonerated by DNA evidence even after having been convicted through fingerprints.
Surprisingly, you can't trust DNA evidence either. There was one guy in DC who, hours before his execution, was exonerated by contradicting DNA tests performed independently of the prosecution.
These things may be tools, but there is no such thing as a one hit wonder.
None of this stops prosecutors from pressing forward full speed ahead, judges from telling juries that the tests are foolproof and media from parroting the same.
There are so many dishonest, evil people in our justice system that if you didn't get years to investigate and appeal, Bush could have you snatched off the street on Monday, have planted hairs from your hairbrush on a homeless guy who died of natural causes by tuesday, have a jury convict you by friday and have you executed on Sunday morning.
Thanks, but no thanks. It may mean some evil people live longer, but the alternative would put innocent people at the mercy of tyrants and politically bent DA's.
You want to uncrowd the prisons? Release all of the nonviolent drug offenders. Then initiate a program, which could be Biblically-based, of restitution, for smaller crimes. People don't learn from getting locked up; maybe if they had to pay "seven times over" for something they stole, defrauded or embezzled, they'd think twice about it.
MeekAndMild
New member
I tend to side with the GOA on this one.
At my work through the years I've had the chance to observe a lot of mistaken civil committments for mental illnesses which turned out to be something else, a lot of divorces where one or the other party falsely alleged marital abuse and a lot of cases where people were given felony convictions for trivial matters which should have been classed as misdemeanors if they had competent counsel. If you have trouble reading that sentence it can be summed in the words 'the law often makes mistakes'.
The percentage of mistakes in all 3 areas is relatively low but 3 percent or 5 percent of a hundred thousand is a whole bunch of errors. This is especially true in one jurisdiction I knew of where the probate judge had the habit of committing his old girl friends and political enemies, another jurisdiction where the judge commits any indigent person who ends up on the psychiatric unit, a city where the biggest divorce-mill lawyer always files abuse charges on the spouse, et cetera. Plus the whole concept of felony possession of wild bird feathers and felony backyard-pothole-filling.
My difficulty with the whole matter is that the government is too efficient in labeling people, too efficient in making mistakes and not efficient enough in correcting its mistakes. gb_in_ga is right on the 'natural rights' angle.
At my work through the years I've had the chance to observe a lot of mistaken civil committments for mental illnesses which turned out to be something else, a lot of divorces where one or the other party falsely alleged marital abuse and a lot of cases where people were given felony convictions for trivial matters which should have been classed as misdemeanors if they had competent counsel. If you have trouble reading that sentence it can be summed in the words 'the law often makes mistakes'.
The percentage of mistakes in all 3 areas is relatively low but 3 percent or 5 percent of a hundred thousand is a whole bunch of errors. This is especially true in one jurisdiction I knew of where the probate judge had the habit of committing his old girl friends and political enemies, another jurisdiction where the judge commits any indigent person who ends up on the psychiatric unit, a city where the biggest divorce-mill lawyer always files abuse charges on the spouse, et cetera. Plus the whole concept of felony possession of wild bird feathers and felony backyard-pothole-filling.
My difficulty with the whole matter is that the government is too efficient in labeling people, too efficient in making mistakes and not efficient enough in correcting its mistakes. gb_in_ga is right on the 'natural rights' angle.
Despite the fact that I oppose the NICS check on general principle (prior restraint), the Bill as it is published presents no major revisions. But... It has went through 2 markup sessions and may no longer be the same Bill as originally presented. We won't know what was done in committee until the Bill is passed and engrossed by the House... It will then be perhaps too late to do anything about it.
"You want to uncrowd the prisons? Release all of the nonviolent drug offenders. Then initiate a program, which could be Biblically-based, of restitution, for smaller crimes. People don't learn from getting locked up; maybe if they had to pay "seven times over" for something they stole, defrauded or embezzled, they'd think twice about it."
I completely agree.I agree with your other assessment of the system as well,after reading your reply.
Adjucated by a judge as mentally ill is fine,and they already know who these people are,just like they know who the domestic violence batterers are, its in the court records.Changing this definition to include anyone seeking treatments on any form of grief could open up a big can of worms for not just civil servents but soldiers returning home and others.The numbers are staggering.Somehow, I think chuckie has this in mind.Removing guns is his agenda.
I completely agree.I agree with your other assessment of the system as well,after reading your reply.
Adjucated by a judge as mentally ill is fine,and they already know who these people are,just like they know who the domestic violence batterers are, its in the court records.Changing this definition to include anyone seeking treatments on any form of grief could open up a big can of worms for not just civil servents but soldiers returning home and others.The numbers are staggering.Somehow, I think chuckie has this in mind.Removing guns is his agenda.