Universal Background Checks... A better way? What do you think?

[Aguila Blanca]

I'm not saying they don't help. But what are your dues to be a member really paying? To keep the lights on? To pay the secretary's paycheck? unless you donate directly to the NRA-ILA, it's not going towards any legislative action. None of the NRA's dues are sent towards the ILA.

Of course not. The NRA is a non-profit organization. By law, it cannot engage in politics or lobbying. That's why it has a related organization (the NRA-ILA) that can engage in politics and lobbying.

 

[Mosin-Marauder]

Did I tell you about the time I got after school detention for drawing a gun in the margin of my notebook in school?

 

[44 AMP]

We have to do something. But I want that something to WORK, while not having to sacrifice our liberties.

How about we do what we used to do, when it comes to convicted killers? Hang them, gas them, shoot them, lethal injection, or life without parole? Yes, I believe in capital punishment.

No, I don't accept arguments about how it is NOT a deterrent, frankly, I don't care about the deterrence factor. The simple fact that crimes are committed seems pretty conclusive to me that no law is a reliable deterrent.

Other than a rare handful of truly deranged people, no one commits a crime with the expectation of being caught and punished.

What I'm concerned about is the effect on the repeat offenders. Say what you want about capital punishment, no one can argue that it allows for repeat offenders.

Look at the majority of street crime today, can anyone seriously argue that the majority is NOT done by people who are repeat offenders?

If you want to focus on something that might have a chance, how about seeing that the people we hire (elect) to run things actually do their jobs?!

When the Vice President himself publically states that they are "too busy to bother with that" when it comes to people illegally trying to buy a gun, how are any calls for additional requirements a sane option?

If it doesn't work, do more of it, just isn't my idea of rational thought.

here's another thing to consider, a convicted felon (prohibited person) cannot be required to go through a background check, as it's a violation of his rights.

So, if you catch him with a gun, you can charge him with possession, but you cannot charge him with failing to have a check done, or failing to register the gun! Its that pesky 5th Amendment thing...

another thing that irks me, since the whole proclaimed point of having the checks is so that "people who shouldn't have a gun can't get one" WHAT IS THE POINT of having people who already OWN GUNS go through the check system, each and EVERY time they buy a gun?

That check is not only an affront to the gun owner, its a waste of our resources, and cannot, in any way ever "prevent a gun crime", since no matter what the check approves or disapproves, the person in question ALREADY has (at least one) a gun!!??

and yet another point to consider, FFL dealers are required to run the check, right? Because it is a requirement for them as a licensed dealer. They run checks, and they collect taxes on sales and fees, etc., they are acting as agents of the state. They are licensed to do so.

When you push the requirement to do the background check down to the private seller, you are forcing them to act as agents of the state, something for which they are not licensed. (legal can of worms here)

My primary objection to the most recent proposed background check laws is the language in ALL of them concerning "transfers". Some of them don't make exceptions for some categories of transfers, and some do, so that any transfer outside of narrow specific exceptions would be a crime.

They would criminalize (without a background check) common practices that are fundamental to the "gun culture". Imagine if you wanted to borrow a friend's car. Maybe just to run to the store for snacks. Your friend tosses you the keys...happens all the time, right? No big deal. Now imagine that at the store, the local cop happens by, and you wind up in jail (while he also goes to arrest your friend, the car's owner) because you BOTH didn't go to the Dept of License and get the car's title changed to your name (after they background check your license to drive), before you got in the car and drove it to the store.

THAT is what some of these proposed background checks bills include, only for guns, not cars.

The propents of these measures don't point out that kind of thing could happen, but its in there, and so, could be enforced. The language they use covers more than you would think.

I don't think the solution to crime and violence is in more laws that only apply to the law abiding, and simply don't live up to their stated reasons for existence. I think the only solution that could work is to remove the people who commit violent crimes from society, either on an extremely long term or permanent basis.

The problem with this approach is that it costs. There is no free lunch. Revolving Door justice has brought us to where we are today. Perhaps a justice system that worked more like an airlock would bring us to a better place, eventually?

Until we, as a society, aren't "too busy for that" pre-emptive laws and bans are nothing but smoke and mirrors, and costly useless infringement of our rights is their only practical effect.

If we aren't going to prosecute, convict, and punish those already prohibited people who are caught by the system trying to buy a gun (and the majority of criminals avoid the system), what's the point of even considering how to "improve" the background check system?

 

[GunXpatriot]

Aguila Blanca

Well the idea of "We have to do SOMETHING" from a coherently thinking human being, would be... As I said earlier, "Do something that will actually help the situation, without taking our rights away."

In contrast to "LETS DO THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN! YES, EVEN THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROVEN TO HAVE NO STATISTICAL BENEFIT FOR EVEN EXISTING!!" (arguments for AWB's, etc)

Don't think the statement "We have to do something" is coming from someone who doesn't know their stuff. I've been in this for a while now, and I know when I'm hearing crap.

But you know, as Tom? said earlier, once you lose you're rights, it's not so easy to get them back. As a New Yorker, I know that more than a lot of people here.

So on your issue of the NICS system being unconstitutional ALREADY... Since it's never going away (like most other BS laws...), why not just do what they're already supposed to be doing, the way they're supposed to be doing it? Because as I said in the OP, we're more than likely already in "The Beast". Might as well use what we've already got to an advantage, rather than continue to let it have absolutely NO effect on anything...

Again, I'm talking felons, mentally ill, etc not being able to be approved for guns. I know, there's probably millions on the black market, but more don't need to get there, know what I mean?

I don't know what to say on straw purchases, though. I'll admit defeat on that one...

But like I said, if our privacy is already being invaded anyway... If that's the price we pay (and I don't doubt it) at least make these jackasses do their jobs properly.

LMAO at Biden. "Too busy"...

"You hear someone outside, shoot your double barrel shotgun at the door and kill them!!" more or less...

Or um... "Shoot into the air!!"

 

[HiBC]

I'll add this:As we have way too many laws,it should be requisite that any law unenforced or selectively enforced should be repealed.
If lawmakers deem a law ineffective,and want an additional law,clean the redundant clutter!


To do otherwise leads to selective adherence to the law,and folks who are living in a socially accepted manner being surprised by prosecution.

Here in Colorado,a lot of gun owners are using state legal pot in violation of federal law.Hands down,no argument they are prosecutable as felons(no need to argue here , thoroughly discussed in two threads,Frank Ettin has spoken!!)

 

[GunXpatriot]

I totally 100% agree with that, HiBC.

 

[manta49]

How about we do what we used to do, when it comes to convicted killers? Hang them, gas them, shoot them, lethal injection, or life without parole? Yes, I believe in capital punishment.

So you are willing to have people executed even though some are innocent. I wonder if people would feel the same if it was them or a member of their family was executed, and was later found not to have committed the crime. I find it strange all I read on this forum is complaints about big government and how incompetent they can be they can't even organise firearms background checks, but they are happy for the state to have the right to life and death over them.

Reuters) - Two North Carolina men were declared innocent and ordered freed on Tuesday after spending more than 30 years in prison for the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl that recent DNA tests linked to another man

There are numerous other examples, for me one is to many. If it could be proved 100% that someone was guilty I might have a different view but the justice system doesn't work like that. There always has being miscarriages of justice and always will be.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

No, I don't accept arguments about how it is NOT a deterrent, frankly, I don't care about the deterrence factor. The simple fact that crimes are committed seems pretty conclusive to me that no law is a reliable deterrent.

You have a good point. If serious crimes are punished by death or REAL lifetime imprisonment -- recidivism drops to zero. That alone would reduce the crime rate substantially. Read the news rags -- how many people do you see arrested who have rap sheets longer than my driveway (I live in the country)?

 

[mehavey]

Re Church Shooting mentioned above:

> "We're up to at least 473 confirmed violent deaths on church and faith-
> based property since 1999," Meeks told CBN News. "That number is
> equal to or maybe slightly ahead of the number of violent deaths
> that occur at schools that we hear about what seems like weekly."
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2014/september/protect-the-sheep-arming-the-church-against-violence/

THAT surprised me... to say the least.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to our subject though:

Winter-before-last while wearing my NRA-emblemed leather jacket in my local Whole Foods store, I was stopped by a polite older gentleman who asked me why I didn't support the gun legislation that was sweeping the Mainstream Media after Sandy Hook. Wasn't it both reasonable and obvious that it was needed ?

We chatted next to the Jambalaya soup section for a bit while I listed the proposed legislative points that were being proposed. After that, I recounted the run-up to the actual Adam Lanza shooting. He agreed with everything that I had laid out.

But then I asked him, "...would anything the legislation proposed have stopped the shooting?" He thought for a moment, and then sadly shook his head "No." I then asked if he had considered that every single civilian semiautomatic pistol since the beginning of the 20th century could & would have done the same damage. He though again and sadly shook his head "No." I then asked if he would support banning ownership of ALL modern firearms since the beginning of the century.... He thought a long time about that one.

But then said "no," again. "There are too many bad people would still be out there," he said quietly.

We left the soup section agreeing that we had a People problem, and that neither one of us had a good solution to that one..., short of draconian measures.

At the check-out stand, the young pink-haired multiply-pierced (but very pretty) check-out girl kept looking at the jacket as she rang things up.

"Nice jacket" she said. "Where do you normally go to shoot?"

As I opene the trunk to put the jambalaya in the car, all I could think about was William Saroyan -- whose book has stayed with me for a lifetime.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Human-Com...d=1411309004&sr=8-2&keywords=the+human+comedy

 

[44 AMP]

So you are willing to have people executed even though some are innocent.

yes, I am. I believe that, for society, the tragic imprisonment or even execution of an innocent man is the rare but necessary cost of removing truly evil men from society. Certainly we should do everything to see it doesn't happen, but no matter what you do, it is going to happen, to someone, somewhere, sometime.

In earlier times we often had the philosophy that hung an innocent man, that was the cost of doing business.

Now we seem to operate on "better ten guilty men go free than an innocent man go to jail".

That is a high, and noble sentiment, BUT it does not address the additional harm those 10 guilty men will do when they are set free.

Its a value judgment, and I'm only making it for me. IF the cops, the DA, AND the JURY ALL get it wrong, its a tragedy. The appeals process exists for a good and valid reason.

But I think we have gone too far in our zeal to protect rights of the accused. I'm not in the "kill them all let God sort them out" camp, I recognize that a balance is needed, BUT our current balance is not working well, and I think a different approach might do better.

The trouble is that any different approach will be expensive, and unproven (at first, at least), and there is a huge economic and power structure in place that will actively resist any change that threatens their entrenched positions.

 

[GunXpatriot]

I dunno about that, 44 AMP. Not sure I think that's a great solution.

I mean, capital punishment is fine, if it's used on the right people. Those who have viciously murdered people, or um... An example that my Criminal Justice teacher talked about... A guy who had raped like 20 small children... *cringe*

Sorry to get graphic, but I needed more examples than just murder... These are people who you can say should be executed IMO. They're serving WELL past a life sentence and are a drain on the taxpayer to pay for their food and shelter. Yeah, I'd rather support capital punishment for the taxpayer than anyone else, to be completely honest with you.

But to execute innocent people? I mean, why not tone that down and execute people that we know, with undeniable proof (like the aforementioned offenses) that the individual committed a crime. Being at the wrong place at the wrong time, or whatever puts the (truly) innocent in jail, is not an excuse to execute them. Nor is it an excuse to waste their precious life with a 30 year sentence they shouldn't have served.

The system isn't always perfect. But the fact of the matter is, on a personal level, we know who is (potentially) innocent and who is truly guilty.

 

[manta49]

I ask the question would people have the same view, its ok for a few innocent people to be executed if it helps cut crime. If it was them a son or daughter that was sentenced to be executed and they knew they were innocent. Its easy to say its OK to execute some anonymous person, they should ask themselves the question I asked above before deciding.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Ehh...the NRA....I dont know. "Let's give blind people guns!"

There are certainly better organizations out there.

Edit, I know I'm going to catch a lot of flak for that, I can have my opinions too.

You can own all the ignorant opinions you want to own and all the more credit to you for being open about your ignorance; but you don't have he first clue what you are talking about.

 

[Mosin-Marauder]

And while you falsely accuse people of being ignorant and just saying I haven't a clue what I'm talking about, I'll just leave this here.
http://gawker.com/the-nra-tried-to-get-rid-of-this-video-advocating-guns-1617727951

Alas, "None are so blind as those who cannot see."

Here's an idea, I'll donate to the organization's I approve of (that don't make public and political gaffes every other week it seems, and don't go silent for nearly a month after one of of our worst school shootings), and you can too! Boy! Isn't it great we live in a free nation!

 

[Aguila Blanca]

And while you falsely accuse people of being ignorant and just saying I haven't a clue what I'm talking about, I'll just leave this here.
http://gawker.com/the-nra-tried-to-g...uns-1617727951

Okay, share your clue. Exactly what part or parts of this quotation do you not agree with?

"Do you think you need to see where you're shooting if someone's on top of you, trying to kill or rape you, while their hands are slowly squeezing your neck and they're yelling 'I'm gonna kill you'?"

 

[Mosin-Marauder]

Do you think, that, by the time they're on top of said blind person, said blind person will be able to grab his gun? And what if he isn't on top of him? What if he's coming at him and a kid walks by and the kid gets caught in the crossfire? What if a car or van full of people drives by and the blind person misjudged his sense of direction and the driver is shot and the vehicle is wrecked and the people injured or dead?

Do we let blind people drive cars? Do we let blind people fly planes? Do we let blind people operate trains? No. We don't. Because they are dangerous in the hands of someone who is blind, and it creates a a far worse outcome than what the outcome is if we don't let them do that certain thing.

 

[ronl]

You can have all the background checks, registration, confiscation that you want and it will never get guns out of the hands of criminals that want them. Look at Prohibition, and the "War on Drugs", both dismal failures. History should teach us, but there are always some idiots who think they can do the same thing again and it will turn out just fine because they are the ones doing it. I think in some circles that is the definition of stupidity. Where there is a void someone will fill it, and guns are no different than drugs or alcohol. If the profit margin is great enough many will certainly attempt and succeed. Remember in the Clinton era when the Feds intercepted 2500 FA AK's from China that were evidently headed for the streets of Cali? As I said, someone will fill the void. Let us not be distracted by such gibberish as universal background checks and registration. They mean to separate us from our guns, period. That is the end game, and if they succeed, it will be a sad day for certain, for there will be nothing left of what used to be a great country.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Mosin, if some other law-abiding citizen can't have a gun because you think he's a danger to others, tell us why 14-year olds who argue about safe backstops should have centerfire rifles.

 

[Tom Servo]

I warned before that we were drifting off topic, and we still are. The OP's question has been addressed.