SPEMack618
New member
Glenn was referencing a remark, well several, by our illustrios Vice President where he discussed how a double barrel shotgun, with bird shot so as to be less deadly, was all one "needed" for home defense.
US gun law reforms
- Thread starter shooterdownunder
- Start date
Skadoosh,
Read the last sentence of Glenns post......says only thing left will be shotguns and birdshot.
Well you cant hunt deer with birdshot and if nothing else is available you wouldn't be able to hunt deer.
Thats what conclusion I come to when I read that last sentence of that post
Read the last sentence of Glenns post......says only thing left will be shotguns and birdshot.
Well you cant hunt deer with birdshot and if nothing else is available you wouldn't be able to hunt deer.
Thats what conclusion I come to when I read that last sentence of that post
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The premise of background checks, even as they exist today, is flawed. I have a carry permit from my home state, which required a background check. I also have non-resident permits from three other states, at least two of which did their own background checks on me despite my having a home state permit. So I've already been background checked up the wazoo. What constructive purpose is served by requiring that an FFL run yet ANOTHER background check on me each and every time I buy a firearm? And what constructive purpose would be served by extending that requirement such that even a member of my own family couldn't sell OR GIVE me a firearm without running a background check on me?
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
The "constructive purpose" (and instructive as well I might add) would be to create a record of what firearms a background checked person like yourself might own.
The actual case is actually worse than what you described. Schumer-Toomey-Manchin exempted qualifying CHL holders from the NICS check; but it still required they do all transfers through an FFL. So you would not undergo another background check, the law already recognizes that you have been background checked and are exempt - it just insists you go to an FFL anyway and fill out a Form 4473 despite the fact that everyone knows you are not a prohibited person.
Ironic that a guy from Australia wouldn't understand why Americans don't like registration.
The actual case is actually worse than what you described. Schumer-Toomey-Manchin exempted qualifying CHL holders from the NICS check; but it still required they do all transfers through an FFL. So you would not undergo another background check, the law already recognizes that you have been background checked and are exempt - it just insists you go to an FFL anyway and fill out a Form 4473 despite the fact that everyone knows you are not a prohibited person.
Ironic that a guy from Australia wouldn't understand why Americans don't like registration.
I think most people are missing the real intent of background checks. They are not to reduce crimes or keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and nobody believes they have ever been effective at doing either. Most licenses and permits issued by government are for one purpose only. The purpose is to charge a fee, and take in revenue. In the case of guns, its also one more incremental step in making them unaffordable to all but the elite. Today is $20, tomorrow its $50, and next week your background check is $200.
The antigunners have failed from every angle, and the one angle they are still driving at is making them too costly for the average citizen. Look at all the proposals about gun taxes, ammo taxes, etc. If a background check is mandated, they can charge whatever the government want for one, and if its based on costs for the program, no one is more talented than the government for making costs ridiculous.
Does anyone truly believe skyrocketing ammo prices and shortages are not orchestrated by govt purchases? Watch for the demonization of "big ammo" profits as they are also masters of blaming others for what they purposely do, to an ignorant public willing to trust them.
The antigunners have failed from every angle, and the one angle they are still driving at is making them too costly for the average citizen. Look at all the proposals about gun taxes, ammo taxes, etc. If a background check is mandated, they can charge whatever the government want for one, and if its based on costs for the program, no one is more talented than the government for making costs ridiculous.
Does anyone truly believe skyrocketing ammo prices and shortages are not orchestrated by govt purchases? Watch for the demonization of "big ammo" profits as they are also masters of blaming others for what they purposely do, to an ignorant public willing to trust them.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Hogdogs forgot to put this in quotes: "government hoarding conspiracy." The point is that there isn't one... 
Aguila Blanca
I try to take this argument over UBC into the 4th Amendment analogy department. Sure, it seems to make sense to check every single private transfer of firearms because there might be a crazy/criminal person on the receiving end, even in my family. Yep.
Ok,
How about we check every single email and email attachment that you send to or receive from family/friends because, hey, there are child pornographers out there who send this stuff? We need to catch them. Every child is precious; we need to do our best.
Registration? How about we register your home computer and Ipad and tablets and all their saved data with the gov't because child pornographers use this sort of equipment everyday.
No one seems to think that these are good ideas to solving the other crimes against children. Until someone can explain to me in yet smaller words how one right is more absolute than another, I will resist 2nd amendment infringement.
Then there is the somewhat simpler question of "why would anyone support passage of a UBC law when the writers of that law admit that having that law on the books wouldn't have stopped the crime that everyone is worked up about (sandy hook)". That cognitive dissonance deserves either a treatise the size of "War and Peace" or a simple no vote. That's just bad governance.
edit: actually my examples involve the 4th more than the 1st Amendment. New rule: no more posting after 11pm at night.
I try to take this argument over UBC into the 4th Amendment analogy department. Sure, it seems to make sense to check every single private transfer of firearms because there might be a crazy/criminal person on the receiving end, even in my family. Yep.
Ok,
How about we check every single email and email attachment that you send to or receive from family/friends because, hey, there are child pornographers out there who send this stuff? We need to catch them. Every child is precious; we need to do our best.
Registration? How about we register your home computer and Ipad and tablets and all their saved data with the gov't because child pornographers use this sort of equipment everyday.
No one seems to think that these are good ideas to solving the other crimes against children. Until someone can explain to me in yet smaller words how one right is more absolute than another, I will resist 2nd amendment infringement.
Then there is the somewhat simpler question of "why would anyone support passage of a UBC law when the writers of that law admit that having that law on the books wouldn't have stopped the crime that everyone is worked up about (sandy hook)". That cognitive dissonance deserves either a treatise the size of "War and Peace" or a simple no vote. That's just bad governance.
edit: actually my examples involve the 4th more than the 1st Amendment. New rule: no more posting after 11pm at night.
Last edited:
Like I said, its easy for the governmnet to throw the blame on "big ammo", and people are far more likley to believe known habitual serial liars than their local "greedy" business man.
Yes, most of the shortages are caused by panic buying. What caused the panic? "Conspiracy"? A bit strong. "Political tactic" to purposely cause a panic? In case you didn't notice, there was a huge hurry to get gan restrictions passed right after Sandyhook, and a conscious effort to keep public panic ginned up. "Conspiracy"? I don't know. Political tactic? Is is still not obvious?
Yes, most of the shortages are caused by panic buying. What caused the panic? "Conspiracy"? A bit strong. "Political tactic" to purposely cause a panic? In case you didn't notice, there was a huge hurry to get gan restrictions passed right after Sandyhook, and a conscious effort to keep public panic ginned up. "Conspiracy"? I don't know. Political tactic? Is is still not obvious?
So, you're saying that the political response to Sandy Hook was a tactic to cause an ammo shortage? I'd call that a conspiracy theory.
I work with the general public. I can tell you, the shortage was driven by consumer greed and ignorance. If one wants to attribute it to anything intentional, he should provide some proof.
Glen's sarcastic comment about the gun grabbers wanting to leave us with nothing more than shotguns and birdshot is spot on. Just look at other countries who kept "compromising" with ever more "reasonable" gun laws. If they are left with any firearms it us exactly that. Don't blame Glenn for the idiocy of gun grabbers. We know they don't make sense.
It is refreshing to see so many clearheaded gun owners with common sense on thus forum. Not typical of the general population unfortunately.
It is refreshing to see so many clearheaded gun owners with common sense on thus forum. Not typical of the general population unfortunately.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Actually, yes, it is. I have no idea what the above sentence means.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
What transfer tax?TimSr said:
I don't think it's about adding a tax at all. I think it's about creating a universal registry. And I worry about that more than I do about a possible tax.