login
'The' Gun Thread (Page 24)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-04-09 11:30 AM in reply to: #4693164 |
 Deep in the Heart of Texas |  Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Threadpitt83 - 2013-04-09 11:21 AM Doesn't this beg for federal, universal standards? If not; why not? Because compelling universal standards is not one of the powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. |
| 2013-04-09 11:31 AM in reply to: #4693150 |
Champion  5376   PA | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread pitt83 - 2013-04-09 12:15 PM trinnas - 2013-04-09 12:08 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 11:56 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 11:53 AM Big Appa - 2013-04-09 11:44 AM powerman - 2013-04-09 8:29 AM I see 2A as the least restricted. You don't have to undergo a background check. You can easily go to a gun show or private sale and, voila, no restrictions or checks and balance. Pector claims he's in to fight for liberalization of all constitutional and bill of rights. Yet showing an ID to vote erodes a fundamental right. The same as a background check or magazine size erodes that 2A right. False statement in bold. I encourage you to try to do that. You will fail miserably. The right is to vote if you are a U.S. citizen. You are not barred from voting with an ID. Nobody intends an end game of stopping people from voting. The end game on 2A is clear. |
| 2013-04-09 11:32 AM in reply to: #4693194 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Hook'em - 2013-04-09 12:30 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 11:21 AM Doesn't this beg for federal, universal standards? If not; why not? Because compelling universal standards is not one of the powers enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. Yeah, I thought States Rights is sort of mentioned in that pesky document somewhere. |
| 2013-04-09 11:33 AM in reply to: #4693181 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Pector55 - 2013-04-09 12:27 PM trinnas - 2013-04-09 12:08 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 11:56 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 11:53 AM Do you share the same passion for the demand that a voter show identification or pass a poll tax or test? Those ideas, in your home state of PA, have gained significant traction yet voting is a birthright?Big Appa - 2013-04-09 11:44 AM powerman - 2013-04-09 8:29 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 9:20 AM I think it has become apparent that it is the right approach Appa. The so-called "high road" is the path of least resistance and as a result of decades of being passive, our rights have erroded. It is time for the LB approach to beat these misguided folks back. And that is exactly where I'm at. I've said it plenty... I do not have a problem with universal background checks... but universal back ground checks isn't the end, it's the beginnning. gun control advocates do not want less crime, less violence, or less accident. they want less guns...meaning no guns. so their solutions to problems are not solutions to problems, they are nothing more than using any thing they can to advancing their agenda to get rid of guns. Again, if that's what you want, that's fine, just begin a honest movement to repeal the 2A and we can vote on it. But until then, meaningful solutions to crime and violence go by the way side because they are so focused on getting rid of guns. Hence the compelety ridiculous effort to outlaw a "type" of gun responsible for 1% of the problem. And the equally ridiculous use of a tragic event to highlight a "type" of accidental death that is responsible for .0047% of all accidental deaths. But ya... let's just ignor that and keep giving into their ridiculous demands and illogical arguments for why I do not get the choice to exercise a right. I agree with everything you said but on a Tri forum talking about guns and someone disagrees with me I wish to see their points of view and discuss it while I use my vote to keep my rights. Ok basic point I am getting at if I saw my kids arguing in this manor no matter the subject I would teach them the correct way to debate or discuss. So if I think my kids shouldn't do it I think I should act the same way but lead by example even when on a message board they will never read. I agree with you on all topics except when we beging discussing rights. Rights are not debated. Rights are fought for tooth and nail. Good men and women died for those rights and people should not be able to take them away without facing some serious opposition.
Lumping these two things together is going overboard. If I have to prove I am who I say I am, much less undergo a back ground check, before I may excercise my 2A rights, why shouldn't you be made to prove your identity before exercising your right to vote. Shall we do a backbround check on anyone who wants to vote before they are allowed to obtain a ballot? This is the same argument that goes on again and again and again. Compare apples to apples and think about putting the same restrictions on your rights to free speach, or the right to vote, or any of your other rights as you want to on the 2A and see how "reasonable" it sounds to you.
Completely beat me to it. I have no issue with background checks. In PA they talk about a "gunshow loophole" but it does not exist. Vendors all do background checks as required by law. The only way people can transfer guns without a background check in PA is through a face to face transfer of long guns (no handguns allowed). Now, what I would like to see in any "universal background check" bill is an amendment making it unlawful for any state or federal agency to retain the records of the transaction and 2, I want an amendment requiring law enforcement to follow up on all failed checks. In the state of PA, most gun owners on a popular gun owner forum will request to see a state drivers license and a current LTCF or recent purchase receipt to validate that you can legally purchase the firearm. The biggest problem we face in PA is that handgun transfers go through NICs and PICs (PA version of the background check). The state maintains this information in a database. When they encounter someone with a firearm, they run it against this database. However, this results in a hassle for gun owners because the database is incomplete. It is illegal for the state to have a database but when challenged in court, they got away with it because the state maintained that it not a complete database. It's utter nonesense but it gives a good vision into why I want there to be no permanent record at a state level. Also, with the irresponsibility media outlets have shown with publishing permit holders in some states, I do not trust that someone will not gain access to this data and do it on a wider scale. Bottom line is that I purchase my stuff legally and it's nobody's business as to what I own. Thanks for the clarification. I disagree the database is a bad idea, but agree with the risks of it leaking. Mostly, if a thug murders someone, I would like traceability to who owned that gun the first time in a legal fashion. If you're a shill buyer selling stolen or even legally gotten firearms to drug dealers, etc., that's gotta stop. Knowing the legal first or subsequent legal purchases helps here. You say you want no record, I say I'd like a complete one. Is that right? |
| 2013-04-09 11:42 AM in reply to: #4693199 |
Champion 17756  SoCal | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread pitt83 - 2013-04-09 9:33 AM Thanks for the clarification. I disagree the database is a bad idea, but agree with the risks of it leaking. Mostly, if a thug murders someone, I would like traceability to who owned that gun the first time in a legal fashion. If you're a shill buyer selling stolen or even legally gotten firearms to drug dealers, etc., that's gotta stop. Knowing the legal first or subsequent legal purchases helps here. You say you want no record, I say I'd like a complete one. Is that right? Even the NAACP is against a kept records to keep a data base. The main problem is on back ground checks is how the data is recorded and how long it is kept. If they did a background check then deleted the check of a person who passed so it has no record besides passing or failing I am ok with that. Edited by Big Appa 2013-04-09 11:51 AM |
| 2013-04-09 11:48 AM in reply to: #4692977 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread powerman - 2013-04-09 10:02 AM tealeaf - 2013-04-09 8:17 AM Hook'em - 2013-04-09 10:02 AM tealeaf - 2013-04-09 7:47 AM No doubt this deputy would have considered himself a so-called "responsible gun owner." Well, he was clearly wrong. That's more my point than anything. Someone tells me they are a responsible gun owner, I roll my eyes and keep my kids the heck away. I'm not making any larger point than that. Although I see, from some the responses, that they think I am. So then to you... that is simply impossible... there is no such thing as a responsible gun owner. That indeed means that all gun owners are irresponsible. What larger point is there to make? I don't think all gun owners are irresponsible-- far from it, but the point is that it’s unlikely that any gun owner would characterize themselves as irresponsible, even though some, like the deputy in this story, clearly are. Given that, if you’re a parent who’s worried about gun-related accidents, what choice do you have but to keep your kid away from anyone who has a gun? I suppose one could make the same argument about any potential hazard that a child might encounter at a friend’s house (swimming pools, bbq grills, household chemicals, knives, dogs, etc,), but I understand what tealeaf is saying: if you’re a parent and you're worried about gun-related accidents, you really have no choice but to keep your kid away from any home where guns are kept, regardless of whether you think the parents are “responsible gun owners” or not. |
| 2013-04-09 11:56 AM in reply to: #4693199 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread pitt83 - 2013-04-09 12:33 PM Thanks for the clarification. I disagree the database is a bad idea, but agree with the risks of it leaking. Mostly, if a thug murders someone, I would like traceability to who owned that gun the first time in a legal fashion. If you're a shill buyer selling stolen or even legally gotten firearms to drug dealers, etc., that's gotta stop. Knowing the legal first or subsequent legal purchases helps here. You say you want no record, I say I'd like a complete one. Is that right? That is correct. Here are my concerns: 1. It will cost money and this experiment has been tried in Canada. It cost a lot and it failed to prevent or solve any crimes. 2. I see the problems that it causes in PA when there is an inaccuracy in the database. Lawful gun owners are detained for no reason other than there is no record or an incorrect record in their illegal database. I had a C&R FFL for several years so I know those are not in the PICs database. I know that I could very well be harrassed if a police officer wanted to run my firearm against the illegal PA database. 3. If a database does not solve or prevent crimes (see #1) then why keep one? The concern leads you to suspect that it could be for the eventual attempt at confiscation (which we all know will be attempted in at some point). AND as we already discussed, abuse and violation of privacy. I believe all of this is simply a waste of time but it's done because targeting law abiding citizens is much more easy than actually dealing with the problem. Stop allowing violent criminals back on the street. |
| 2013-04-09 12:01 PM in reply to: #4693118 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Pector55 - 2013-04-09 10:57 AM mr2tony - 2013-04-09 11:52 AM powerman - 2013-04-09 10:29 AM Power, that's painting with a pretty broad brush isn't it? I'm a gun control advocate and I want less crime, less violence and fewer accidents. I am for universal background checks and punishments for things just like this incident. I am not for eliminating guns completely, I am for responsible ownership, and if you prove you can't be trusted with a gun (like the guy in this story who left it lying around) then you should be convicted of a crime with one of the consequences being that you lose your right to bear arms. He would then lose his job and have his guns confiscated. All rights come with restrictions. The right to bear and have arms should be no different. Pector55 - 2013-04-09 9:20 AM I think it has become apparent that it is the right approach Appa. The so-called "high road" is the path of least resistance and as a result of decades of being passive, our rights have erroded. It is time for the LB approach to beat these misguided folks back. And that is exactly where I'm at. I've said it plenty... I do not have a problem with universal background checks... but universal back ground checks isn't the end, it's the beginnning. gun control advocates do not want less crime, less violence, or less accident. they want less guns...meaning no guns. so their solutions to problems are not solutions to problems, they are nothing more than using any thing they can to advancing their agenda to get rid of guns. Again, if that's what you want, that's fine, just begin a honest movement to repeal the 2A and we can vote on it. But until then, meaningful solutions to crime and violence go by the way side because they are so focused on getting rid of guns. Hence the compelety ridiculous effort to outlaw a "type" of gun responsible for 1% of the problem. And the equally ridiculous use of a tragic event to highlight a "type" of accidental death that is responsible for .0047% of all accidental deaths. But ya... let's just ignor that and keep giving into their ridiculous demands and illogical arguments for why I do not get the choice to exercise a right. So Tony, can you elaborate on what you just said? I don't want to hit you with the same "broad brush" comment before giving you an opportunity to clarify. When a person has an auto accident, do you believe they should have their license and automobiles confiscated and refused the priviledge to ever drive again? After all, that is dangerous and nobody has a right to drive in the first place.
I was very clear in my first post that if you can't responsibly own a gun, then you shouldn't be allowed to have one. I really don't see why this is so controversial. Second, you act like this shooting was just some random happening that couldn't have been avoided, and I couldn't disagree more. Leaving the gun out, loaded and charged, is negligent, or actually reckless, at best. So jail time and/or permit revocation would be a proper punishment for the person who left out the gun because he was negligent or reckless. To use a car analogy, when someone drives negligently or recklessly, they lose their license or go to jail because they've proven they can't operate a vehicle responsibly. |
| 2013-04-09 12:06 PM in reply to: #4693199 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread pitt83 - 2013-04-09 11:33 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 12:27 PM Thanks for the clarification. I disagree the database is a bad idea, but agree with the risks of it leaking. Mostly, if a thug murders someone, I would like traceability to who owned that gun the first time in a legal fashion. If you're a shill buyer selling stolen or even legally gotten firearms to drug dealers, etc., that's gotta stop. Knowing the legal first or subsequent legal purchases helps here. You say you want no record, I say I'd like a complete one. Is that right?trinnas - 2013-04-09 12:08 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 11:56 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 11:53 AM Do you share the same passion for the demand that a voter show identification or pass a poll tax or test? Those ideas, in your home state of PA, have gained significant traction yet voting is a birthright?Big Appa - 2013-04-09 11:44 AM powerman - 2013-04-09 8:29 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 9:20 AM I think it has become apparent that it is the right approach Appa. The so-called "high road" is the path of least resistance and as a result of decades of being passive, our rights have erroded. It is time for the LB approach to beat these misguided folks back. And that is exactly where I'm at. I've said it plenty... I do not have a problem with universal background checks... but universal back ground checks isn't the end, it's the beginnning. gun control advocates do not want less crime, less violence, or less accident. they want less guns...meaning no guns. so their solutions to problems are not solutions to problems, they are nothing more than using any thing they can to advancing their agenda to get rid of guns. Again, if that's what you want, that's fine, just begin a honest movement to repeal the 2A and we can vote on it. But until then, meaningful solutions to crime and violence go by the way side because they are so focused on getting rid of guns. Hence the compelety ridiculous effort to outlaw a "type" of gun responsible for 1% of the problem. And the equally ridiculous use of a tragic event to highlight a "type" of accidental death that is responsible for .0047% of all accidental deaths. But ya... let's just ignor that and keep giving into their ridiculous demands and illogical arguments for why I do not get the choice to exercise a right. I agree with everything you said but on a Tri forum talking about guns and someone disagrees with me I wish to see their points of view and discuss it while I use my vote to keep my rights. Ok basic point I am getting at if I saw my kids arguing in this manor no matter the subject I would teach them the correct way to debate or discuss. So if I think my kids shouldn't do it I think I should act the same way but lead by example even when on a message board they will never read. I agree with you on all topics except when we beging discussing rights. Rights are not debated. Rights are fought for tooth and nail. Good men and women died for those rights and people should not be able to take them away without facing some serious opposition.
Lumping these two things together is going overboard. If I have to prove I am who I say I am, much less undergo a back ground check, before I may excercise my 2A rights, why shouldn't you be made to prove your identity before exercising your right to vote. Shall we do a backbround check on anyone who wants to vote before they are allowed to obtain a ballot? This is the same argument that goes on again and again and again. Compare apples to apples and think about putting the same restrictions on your rights to free speach, or the right to vote, or any of your other rights as you want to on the 2A and see how "reasonable" it sounds to you.
Completely beat me to it. I have no issue with background checks. In PA they talk about a "gunshow loophole" but it does not exist. Vendors all do background checks as required by law. The only way people can transfer guns without a background check in PA is through a face to face transfer of long guns (no handguns allowed). Now, what I would like to see in any "universal background check" bill is an amendment making it unlawful for any state or federal agency to retain the records of the transaction and 2, I want an amendment requiring law enforcement to follow up on all failed checks. In the state of PA, most gun owners on a popular gun owner forum will request to see a state drivers license and a current LTCF or recent purchase receipt to validate that you can legally purchase the firearm. The biggest problem we face in PA is that handgun transfers go through NICs and PICs (PA version of the background check). The state maintains this information in a database. When they encounter someone with a firearm, they run it against this database. However, this results in a hassle for gun owners because the database is incomplete. It is illegal for the state to have a database but when challenged in court, they got away with it because the state maintained that it not a complete database. It's utter nonesense but it gives a good vision into why I want there to be no permanent record at a state level. Also, with the irresponsibility media outlets have shown with publishing permit holders in some states, I do not trust that someone will not gain access to this data and do it on a wider scale. Bottom line is that I purchase my stuff legally and it's nobody's business as to what I own. I'll throw in the Nebraska 2 cents as well. Zero chance you can legally purchase a handgun at a gun show here without a background check, and it's even illegal to lend/sell/transfer a handgun to a private citizen anywhere without them showing you a state handgun purchase permit to prove a background check was done. It may shock you to hear this, but I have absolutely no problem with this law. It's very unobtrusive and costs me $5 every three years to get a new background check and a permit. The best part is I don't have to sit and wait for a NICS check at the gun store. just show them your permit and your on your way. My wife had to get her purchase permit to legally borrow a handgun from a friend of ours to take it to the range. |
| 2013-04-09 12:08 PM in reply to: #4693264 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread mr2tony - 2013-04-09 1:01 PM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 10:57 AM I was very clear in my first post that if you can't responsibly own a gun, then you shouldn't be allowed to have one. I really don't see why this is so controversial. Second, you act like this shooting was just some random happening that couldn't have been avoided, and I couldn't disagree more. Leaving the gun out, loaded and charged, is negligent, or actually reckless, at best. So jail time and/or permit revocation would be a proper punishment for the person who left out the gun because he was negligent or reckless. To use a car analogy, when someone drives negligently or recklessly, they lose their license or go to jail because they've proven they can't operate a vehicle responsibly. mr2tony - 2013-04-09 11:52 AM powerman - 2013-04-09 10:29 AM Power, that's painting with a pretty broad brush isn't it? I'm a gun control advocate and I want less crime, less violence and fewer accidents. I am for universal background checks and punishments for things just like this incident. I am not for eliminating guns completely, I am for responsible ownership, and if you prove you can't be trusted with a gun (like the guy in this story who left it lying around) then you should be convicted of a crime with one of the consequences being that you lose your right to bear arms. He would then lose his job and have his guns confiscated. All rights come with restrictions. The right to bear and have arms should be no different. Pector55 - 2013-04-09 9:20 AM I think it has become apparent that it is the right approach Appa. The so-called "high road" is the path of least resistance and as a result of decades of being passive, our rights have erroded. It is time for the LB approach to beat these misguided folks back. And that is exactly where I'm at. I've said it plenty... I do not have a problem with universal background checks... but universal back ground checks isn't the end, it's the beginnning. gun control advocates do not want less crime, less violence, or less accident. they want less guns...meaning no guns. so their solutions to problems are not solutions to problems, they are nothing more than using any thing they can to advancing their agenda to get rid of guns. Again, if that's what you want, that's fine, just begin a honest movement to repeal the 2A and we can vote on it. But until then, meaningful solutions to crime and violence go by the way side because they are so focused on getting rid of guns. Hence the compelety ridiculous effort to outlaw a "type" of gun responsible for 1% of the problem. And the equally ridiculous use of a tragic event to highlight a "type" of accidental death that is responsible for .0047% of all accidental deaths. But ya... let's just ignor that and keep giving into their ridiculous demands and illogical arguments for why I do not get the choice to exercise a right. So Tony, can you elaborate on what you just said? I don't want to hit you with the same "broad brush" comment before giving you an opportunity to clarify. When a person has an auto accident, do you believe they should have their license and automobiles confiscated and refused the priviledge to ever drive again? After all, that is dangerous and nobody has a right to drive in the first place.
First, I didn't act like this shooting was just some random happening. I simply asked you a question to clarify something. I wasn't using an analogy with the car, I was curious as to whether you agreed that if a person caused a car accident, they should also have their vehicle seized and have their ability to operate or own one terminated. A proper analoygy would be if someone left their keys in their car and someone else hopped in and caused an accident. FWIW, I'm not defending anyone here. I think both are equally irresponsible. I'm sure others would agree since cars are not as scary so some. |
| 2013-04-09 12:13 PM in reply to: #4693274 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread tuwood - 2013-04-09 1:06 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 11:33 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 12:27 PM Thanks for the clarification. I disagree the database is a bad idea, but agree with the risks of it leaking. Mostly, if a thug murders someone, I would like traceability to who owned that gun the first time in a legal fashion. If you're a shill buyer selling stolen or even legally gotten firearms to drug dealers, etc., that's gotta stop. Knowing the legal first or subsequent legal purchases helps here. You say you want no record, I say I'd like a complete one. Is that right?trinnas - 2013-04-09 12:08 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 11:56 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 11:53 AM Do you share the same passion for the demand that a voter show identification or pass a poll tax or test? Those ideas, in your home state of PA, have gained significant traction yet voting is a birthright?Big Appa - 2013-04-09 11:44 AM powerman - 2013-04-09 8:29 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 9:20 AM I think it has become apparent that it is the right approach Appa. The so-called "high road" is the path of least resistance and as a result of decades of being passive, our rights have erroded. It is time for the LB approach to beat these misguided folks back. And that is exactly where I'm at. I've said it plenty... I do not have a problem with universal background checks... but universal back ground checks isn't the end, it's the beginnning. gun control advocates do not want less crime, less violence, or less accident. they want less guns...meaning no guns. so their solutions to problems are not solutions to problems, they are nothing more than using any thing they can to advancing their agenda to get rid of guns. Again, if that's what you want, that's fine, just begin a honest movement to repeal the 2A and we can vote on it. But until then, meaningful solutions to crime and violence go by the way side because they are so focused on getting rid of guns. Hence the compelety ridiculous effort to outlaw a "type" of gun responsible for 1% of the problem. And the equally ridiculous use of a tragic event to highlight a "type" of accidental death that is responsible for .0047% of all accidental deaths. But ya... let's just ignor that and keep giving into their ridiculous demands and illogical arguments for why I do not get the choice to exercise a right. I agree with everything you said but on a Tri forum talking about guns and someone disagrees with me I wish to see their points of view and discuss it while I use my vote to keep my rights. Ok basic point I am getting at if I saw my kids arguing in this manor no matter the subject I would teach them the correct way to debate or discuss. So if I think my kids shouldn't do it I think I should act the same way but lead by example even when on a message board they will never read. I agree with you on all topics except when we beging discussing rights. Rights are not debated. Rights are fought for tooth and nail. Good men and women died for those rights and people should not be able to take them away without facing some serious opposition.
Lumping these two things together is going overboard. If I have to prove I am who I say I am, much less undergo a back ground check, before I may excercise my 2A rights, why shouldn't you be made to prove your identity before exercising your right to vote. Shall we do a backbround check on anyone who wants to vote before they are allowed to obtain a ballot? This is the same argument that goes on again and again and again. Compare apples to apples and think about putting the same restrictions on your rights to free speach, or the right to vote, or any of your other rights as you want to on the 2A and see how "reasonable" it sounds to you.
Completely beat me to it. I have no issue with background checks. In PA they talk about a "gunshow loophole" but it does not exist. Vendors all do background checks as required by law. The only way people can transfer guns without a background check in PA is through a face to face transfer of long guns (no handguns allowed). Now, what I would like to see in any "universal background check" bill is an amendment making it unlawful for any state or federal agency to retain the records of the transaction and 2, I want an amendment requiring law enforcement to follow up on all failed checks. In the state of PA, most gun owners on a popular gun owner forum will request to see a state drivers license and a current LTCF or recent purchase receipt to validate that you can legally purchase the firearm. The biggest problem we face in PA is that handgun transfers go through NICs and PICs (PA version of the background check). The state maintains this information in a database. When they encounter someone with a firearm, they run it against this database. However, this results in a hassle for gun owners because the database is incomplete. It is illegal for the state to have a database but when challenged in court, they got away with it because the state maintained that it not a complete database. It's utter nonesense but it gives a good vision into why I want there to be no permanent record at a state level. Also, with the irresponsibility media outlets have shown with publishing permit holders in some states, I do not trust that someone will not gain access to this data and do it on a wider scale. Bottom line is that I purchase my stuff legally and it's nobody's business as to what I own. I'll throw in the Nebraska 2 cents as well. Zero chance you can legally purchase a handgun at a gun show here without a background check, and it's even illegal to lend/sell/transfer a handgun to a private citizen anywhere without them showing you a state handgun purchase permit to prove a background check was done. It may shock you to hear this, but I have absolutely no problem with this law. It's very unobtrusive and costs me $5 every three years to get a new background check and a permit. The best part is I don't have to sit and wait for a NICS check at the gun store. just show them your permit and your on your way. My wife had to get her purchase permit to legally borrow a handgun from a friend of ours to take it to the range. Completely sensible. Is the serial number then registered to you? |
| 2013-04-09 12:15 PM in reply to: #4643301 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Re: Background checks. Even if I thought that a background check would keep guns out of criminal's hands....which I don't....can someone explain to me how we check the "mental health history" (one of THE biggest markers for mass shootings) of people in light of Hipaa regulations? What I hear from most proponents of background checks in that they want them done, but they don't believe the same govt. has the right to medical records. I've got news for you.....if you aren't going to include medical records and guidelines for what mental health issues preclude you from owning a gun.....then throw the whole idea in a trash heap, because it's useless. |
| 2013-04-09 12:16 PM in reply to: #4693291 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread pitt83 - 2013-04-09 1:13 PM Completely sensible. Is the serial number then registered to you? Be careful pitt... we might drag you into a national reciprocity discussion.
|
| 2013-04-09 12:18 PM in reply to: #4693291 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread pitt83 - 2013-04-09 1:13 PM tuwood - 2013-04-09 1:06 PM Completely sensible. Is the serial number then registered to you?pitt83 - 2013-04-09 11:33 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 12:27 PM Thanks for the clarification. I disagree the database is a bad idea, but agree with the risks of it leaking. Mostly, if a thug murders someone, I would like traceability to who owned that gun the first time in a legal fashion. If you're a shill buyer selling stolen or even legally gotten firearms to drug dealers, etc., that's gotta stop. Knowing the legal first or subsequent legal purchases helps here. You say you want no record, I say I'd like a complete one. Is that right?trinnas - 2013-04-09 12:08 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 11:56 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 11:53 AM Do you share the same passion for the demand that a voter show identification or pass a poll tax or test? Those ideas, in your home state of PA, have gained significant traction yet voting is a birthright?Big Appa - 2013-04-09 11:44 AM powerman - 2013-04-09 8:29 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 9:20 AM I think it has become apparent that it is the right approach Appa. The so-called "high road" is the path of least resistance and as a result of decades of being passive, our rights have erroded. It is time for the LB approach to beat these misguided folks back. And that is exactly where I'm at. I've said it plenty... I do not have a problem with universal background checks... but universal back ground checks isn't the end, it's the beginnning. gun control advocates do not want less crime, less violence, or less accident. they want less guns...meaning no guns. so their solutions to problems are not solutions to problems, they are nothing more than using any thing they can to advancing their agenda to get rid of guns. Again, if that's what you want, that's fine, just begin a honest movement to repeal the 2A and we can vote on it. But until then, meaningful solutions to crime and violence go by the way side because they are so focused on getting rid of guns. Hence the compelety ridiculous effort to outlaw a "type" of gun responsible for 1% of the problem. And the equally ridiculous use of a tragic event to highlight a "type" of accidental death that is responsible for .0047% of all accidental deaths. But ya... let's just ignor that and keep giving into their ridiculous demands and illogical arguments for why I do not get the choice to exercise a right. I agree with everything you said but on a Tri forum talking about guns and someone disagrees with me I wish to see their points of view and discuss it while I use my vote to keep my rights. Ok basic point I am getting at if I saw my kids arguing in this manor no matter the subject I would teach them the correct way to debate or discuss. So if I think my kids shouldn't do it I think I should act the same way but lead by example even when on a message board they will never read. I agree with you on all topics except when we beging discussing rights. Rights are not debated. Rights are fought for tooth and nail. Good men and women died for those rights and people should not be able to take them away without facing some serious opposition.
Lumping these two things together is going overboard. If I have to prove I am who I say I am, much less undergo a back ground check, before I may excercise my 2A rights, why shouldn't you be made to prove your identity before exercising your right to vote. Shall we do a backbround check on anyone who wants to vote before they are allowed to obtain a ballot? This is the same argument that goes on again and again and again. Compare apples to apples and think about putting the same restrictions on your rights to free speach, or the right to vote, or any of your other rights as you want to on the 2A and see how "reasonable" it sounds to you.
Completely beat me to it. I have no issue with background checks. In PA they talk about a "gunshow loophole" but it does not exist. Vendors all do background checks as required by law. The only way people can transfer guns without a background check in PA is through a face to face transfer of long guns (no handguns allowed). Now, what I would like to see in any "universal background check" bill is an amendment making it unlawful for any state or federal agency to retain the records of the transaction and 2, I want an amendment requiring law enforcement to follow up on all failed checks. In the state of PA, most gun owners on a popular gun owner forum will request to see a state drivers license and a current LTCF or recent purchase receipt to validate that you can legally purchase the firearm. The biggest problem we face in PA is that handgun transfers go through NICs and PICs (PA version of the background check). The state maintains this information in a database. When they encounter someone with a firearm, they run it against this database. However, this results in a hassle for gun owners because the database is incomplete. It is illegal for the state to have a database but when challenged in court, they got away with it because the state maintained that it not a complete database. It's utter nonesense but it gives a good vision into why I want there to be no permanent record at a state level. Also, with the irresponsibility media outlets have shown with publishing permit holders in some states, I do not trust that someone will not gain access to this data and do it on a wider scale. Bottom line is that I purchase my stuff legally and it's nobody's business as to what I own. I'll throw in the Nebraska 2 cents as well. Zero chance you can legally purchase a handgun at a gun show here without a background check, and it's even illegal to lend/sell/transfer a handgun to a private citizen anywhere without them showing you a state handgun purchase permit to prove a background check was done. It may shock you to hear this, but I have absolutely no problem with this law. It's very unobtrusive and costs me $5 every three years to get a new background check and a permit. The best part is I don't have to sit and wait for a NICS check at the gun store. just show them your permit and your on your way. My wife had to get her purchase permit to legally borrow a handgun from a friend of ours to take it to the range. Ah But is this not the equivalent of your poll tax?
|
| 2013-04-09 12:25 PM in reply to: #4693301 |
Sensei Sin City | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread trinnas - 2013-04-09 10:18 AM Ah But is this not the equivalent of your poll tax?
Oh, you are talking about TAXING your poll with a "T". NM. Cary on. |
| 2013-04-09 12:26 PM in reply to: #4693301 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread trinnas - 2013-04-09 1:18 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 1:13 PM tuwood - 2013-04-09 1:06 PM Completely sensible. Is the serial number then registered to you?pitt83 - 2013-04-09 11:33 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 12:27 PM Thanks for the clarification. I disagree the database is a bad idea, but agree with the risks of it leaking. Mostly, if a thug murders someone, I would like traceability to who owned that gun the first time in a legal fashion. If you're a shill buyer selling stolen or even legally gotten firearms to drug dealers, etc., that's gotta stop. Knowing the legal first or subsequent legal purchases helps here. You say you want no record, I say I'd like a complete one. Is that right?trinnas - 2013-04-09 12:08 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 11:56 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 11:53 AM Do you share the same passion for the demand that a voter show identification or pass a poll tax or test? Those ideas, in your home state of PA, have gained significant traction yet voting is a birthright?Big Appa - 2013-04-09 11:44 AM powerman - 2013-04-09 8:29 AM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 9:20 AM I think it has become apparent that it is the right approach Appa. The so-called "high road" is the path of least resistance and as a result of decades of being passive, our rights have erroded. It is time for the LB approach to beat these misguided folks back. And that is exactly where I'm at. I've said it plenty... I do not have a problem with universal background checks... but universal back ground checks isn't the end, it's the beginnning. gun control advocates do not want less crime, less violence, or less accident. they want less guns...meaning no guns. so their solutions to problems are not solutions to problems, they are nothing more than using any thing they can to advancing their agenda to get rid of guns. Again, if that's what you want, that's fine, just begin a honest movement to repeal the 2A and we can vote on it. But until then, meaningful solutions to crime and violence go by the way side because they are so focused on getting rid of guns. Hence the compelety ridiculous effort to outlaw a "type" of gun responsible for 1% of the problem. And the equally ridiculous use of a tragic event to highlight a "type" of accidental death that is responsible for .0047% of all accidental deaths. But ya... let's just ignor that and keep giving into their ridiculous demands and illogical arguments for why I do not get the choice to exercise a right. I agree with everything you said but on a Tri forum talking about guns and someone disagrees with me I wish to see their points of view and discuss it while I use my vote to keep my rights. Ok basic point I am getting at if I saw my kids arguing in this manor no matter the subject I would teach them the correct way to debate or discuss. So if I think my kids shouldn't do it I think I should act the same way but lead by example even when on a message board they will never read. I agree with you on all topics except when we beging discussing rights. Rights are not debated. Rights are fought for tooth and nail. Good men and women died for those rights and people should not be able to take them away without facing some serious opposition.
Lumping these two things together is going overboard. If I have to prove I am who I say I am, much less undergo a back ground check, before I may excercise my 2A rights, why shouldn't you be made to prove your identity before exercising your right to vote. Shall we do a backbround check on anyone who wants to vote before they are allowed to obtain a ballot? This is the same argument that goes on again and again and again. Compare apples to apples and think about putting the same restrictions on your rights to free speach, or the right to vote, or any of your other rights as you want to on the 2A and see how "reasonable" it sounds to you.
Completely beat me to it. I have no issue with background checks. In PA they talk about a "gunshow loophole" but it does not exist. Vendors all do background checks as required by law. The only way people can transfer guns without a background check in PA is through a face to face transfer of long guns (no handguns allowed). Now, what I would like to see in any "universal background check" bill is an amendment making it unlawful for any state or federal agency to retain the records of the transaction and 2, I want an amendment requiring law enforcement to follow up on all failed checks. In the state of PA, most gun owners on a popular gun owner forum will request to see a state drivers license and a current LTCF or recent purchase receipt to validate that you can legally purchase the firearm. The biggest problem we face in PA is that handgun transfers go through NICs and PICs (PA version of the background check). The state maintains this information in a database. When they encounter someone with a firearm, they run it against this database. However, this results in a hassle for gun owners because the database is incomplete. It is illegal for the state to have a database but when challenged in court, they got away with it because the state maintained that it not a complete database. It's utter nonesense but it gives a good vision into why I want there to be no permanent record at a state level. Also, with the irresponsibility media outlets have shown with publishing permit holders in some states, I do not trust that someone will not gain access to this data and do it on a wider scale. Bottom line is that I purchase my stuff legally and it's nobody's business as to what I own. I'll throw in the Nebraska 2 cents as well. Zero chance you can legally purchase a handgun at a gun show here without a background check, and it's even illegal to lend/sell/transfer a handgun to a private citizen anywhere without them showing you a state handgun purchase permit to prove a background check was done. It may shock you to hear this, but I have absolutely no problem with this law. It's very unobtrusive and costs me $5 every three years to get a new background check and a permit. The best part is I don't have to sit and wait for a NICS check at the gun store. just show them your permit and your on your way. My wife had to get her purchase permit to legally borrow a handgun from a friend of ours to take it to the range. Ah But is this not the equivalent of your poll tax?
That's likely the cost to administer the program. But perhaps you could draw the hyperbole that my exercising my right to vote places a financial penalty on my town who have to pay poll workers, maintain systems to count votes (but not true in Florida  ). Perhaps that cost for a backgrond check IS a financial burden to exercise a constitutional right. So, we dump the cost into the general fund? That'll go over like a fart in church. |
| 2013-04-09 12:28 PM in reply to: #4643301 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread I have a federal background check every time I purchase a rifle. I have a federal background check and a state background check every time I purchase a hand gun. I have a federal background check when I purchase a supressor, shorten the length of a barrel, or add a stock to a hand gun. (Did I mention sending in $200 for a tax stamp and waiting 3-9 months)? I have a local and federal background check for my state LTCF. I have other state and federal background checks for other states in which I have applied for a carry permit (Utah and Arizona). Two of those states required fingerprint cards. (All of the above have occured so far this year) Is it still a mystery why gun owners are annoyed by the constant claim that people can just purchase firearms anywhere anytime? I have had 2-3 speeding tickets my entire life and that is the extent of my run in with the law. If you feel that more laws are the answer then I am convinced that you are simply unaware of the current laws on the books. |
| 2013-04-09 12:30 PM in reply to: #4693333 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Pector55 - 2013-04-09 12:28 PM I have a federal background check every time I purchase a rifle. I have a federal background check and a state background check every time I purchase a hand gun. I have a federal background check when I purchase a supressor, shorten the length of a barrel, or add a stock to a hand gun. (Did I mention sending in $200 for a tax stamp and waiting 3-9 months)? I have a local and federal background check for my state LTCF. I have other state and federal background checks for other states in which I have applied for a carry permit (Utah and Arizona). Two of those states required fingerprint cards. (All of the above have occured so far this year) Is it still a mystery why gun owners are annoyed by the constant claim that people can just purchase firearms anywhere anytime? I have had 2-3 speeding tickets my entire life and that is the extent of my run in with the law. If you feel that more laws are the answer then I am convinced that you are simply unaware of the current laws on the books. Can I have access to your medical history in a background check? |
| 2013-04-09 12:35 PM in reply to: #4693223 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Big Appa - 2013-04-09 10:42 AM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 9:33 AM Thanks for the clarification. I disagree the database is a bad idea, but agree with the risks of it leaking. Mostly, if a thug murders someone, I would like traceability to who owned that gun the first time in a legal fashion. If you're a shill buyer selling stolen or even legally gotten firearms to drug dealers, etc., that's gotta stop. Knowing the legal first or subsequent legal purchases helps here. You say you want no record, I say I'd like a complete one. Is that right? Even the NAACP is against a kept records to keep a data base. The main problem is on back ground checks is how the data is recorded and how long it is kept. If they did a background check then deleted the check of a person who passed so it has no record besides passing or failing I am ok with that. Ya, and the ACLU has a problem with it too, for several reasons. |
| 2013-04-09 12:35 PM in reply to: #4693333 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Pector55 - 2013-04-09 1:28 PM I have a federal background check every time I purchase a rifle. I have a federal background check and a state background check every time I purchase a hand gun. I have a federal background check when I purchase a supressor, shorten the length of a barrel, or add a stock to a hand gun. (Did I mention sending in $200 for a tax stamp and waiting 3-9 months)? I have a local and federal background check for my state LTCF. I have other state and federal background checks for other states in which I have applied for a carry permit (Utah and Arizona). Two of those states required fingerprint cards. (All of the above have occured so far this year) Is it still a mystery why gun owners are annoyed by the constant claim that people can just purchase firearms anywhere anytime? I have had 2-3 speeding tickets my entire life and that is the extent of my run in with the law. If you feel that more laws are the answer then I am convinced that you are simply unaware of the current laws on the books. So, you oppose simplifying and harmonizing these systems? |
| 2013-04-09 12:37 PM in reply to: #4693350 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread powerman - 2013-04-09 1:35 PM Big Appa - 2013-04-09 10:42 AM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 9:33 AM Thanks for the clarification. I disagree the database is a bad idea, but agree with the risks of it leaking. Mostly, if a thug murders someone, I would like traceability to who owned that gun the first time in a legal fashion. If you're a shill buyer selling stolen or even legally gotten firearms to drug dealers, etc., that's gotta stop. Knowing the legal first or subsequent legal purchases helps here. You say you want no record, I say I'd like a complete one. Is that right? Even the NAACP is against a kept records to keep a data base. The main problem is on back ground checks is how the data is recorded and how long it is kept. If they did a background check then deleted the check of a person who passed so it has no record besides passing or failing I am ok with that. Ya, and the ACLU has a problem with it too, for several reasons. How then do we stop shill buying? Short of knowing that you're buying a handgun weekly, which leads one to believe that you may be trafficking them, it's an acceptable risk? |
| 2013-04-09 12:38 PM in reply to: #4693102 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread mr2tony - 2013-04-09 9:52 AM powerman - 2013-04-09 10:29 AM Power, that's painting with a pretty broad brush isn't it? I'm a gun control advocate and I want less crime, less violence and fewer accidents. I am for universal background checks and punishments for things just like this incident. I am not for eliminating guns completely, I am for responsible ownership, and if you prove you can't be trusted with a gun (like the guy in this story who left it lying around) then you should be convicted of a crime with one of the consequences being that you lose your right to bear arms. He would then lose his job and have his guns confiscated. All rights come with restrictions. The right to bear and have arms should be no different. Pector55 - 2013-04-09 9:20 AM I think it has become apparent that it is the right approach Appa. The so-called "high road" is the path of least resistance and as a result of decades of being passive, our rights have erroded. It is time for the LB approach to beat these misguided folks back. And that is exactly where I'm at. I've said it plenty... I do not have a problem with universal background checks... but universal back ground checks isn't the end, it's the beginnning. gun control advocates do not want less crime, less violence, or less accident. they want less guns...meaning no guns. so their solutions to problems are not solutions to problems, they are nothing more than using any thing they can to advancing their agenda to get rid of guns. Again, if that's what you want, that's fine, just begin a honest movement to repeal the 2A and we can vote on it. But until then, meaningful solutions to crime and violence go by the way side because they are so focused on getting rid of guns. Hence the compelety ridiculous effort to outlaw a "type" of gun responsible for 1% of the problem. And the equally ridiculous use of a tragic event to highlight a "type" of accidental death that is responsible for .0047% of all accidental deaths. But ya... let's just ignor that and keep giving into their ridiculous demands and illogical arguments for why I do not get the choice to exercise a right. Fair enough Tony, but you can't have what you want with the 2A in place. And no there is not "restrictions" on rights. There are times they do not apply, but they are not "restricted". The types of restrictions you want on guns, can't be had with 2A, nor would you allow the same types of "restrictions" placed on other rights. what you need to do is join a movement to repeal the 2A, then we can have a honset discussion, and even a vote if it gets that far... but trying to find every imaginal way to restrict a right and do end arounds isn't going to get you where you want to be. |
| 2013-04-09 12:39 PM in reply to: #4693351 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread pitt83 - 2013-04-09 1:35 PM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 1:28 PM So, you oppose simplifying and harmonizing these systems?I have a federal background check every time I purchase a rifle. I have a federal background check and a state background check every time I purchase a hand gun. I have a federal background check when I purchase a supressor, shorten the length of a barrel, or add a stock to a hand gun. (Did I mention sending in $200 for a tax stamp and waiting 3-9 months)? I have a local and federal background check for my state LTCF. I have other state and federal background checks for other states in which I have applied for a carry permit (Utah and Arizona). Two of those states required fingerprint cards. (All of the above have occured so far this year) Is it still a mystery why gun owners are annoyed by the constant claim that people can just purchase firearms anywhere anytime? I have had 2-3 speeding tickets my entire life and that is the extent of my run in with the law. If you feel that more laws are the answer then I am convinced that you are simply unaware of the current laws on the books. Let me get this straight. You want the government to simply and harmonize?
|
| 2013-04-09 12:40 PM in reply to: #4693264 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread mr2tony - 2013-04-09 12:01 PM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 10:57 AM I was very clear in my first post that if you can't responsibly own a gun, then you shouldn't be allowed to have one. I really don't see why this is so controversial. Second, you act like this shooting was just some random happening that couldn't have been avoided, and I couldn't disagree more. Leaving the gun out, loaded and charged, is negligent, or actually reckless, at best. So jail time and/or permit revocation would be a proper punishment for the person who left out the gun because he was negligent or reckless. To use a car analogy, when someone drives negligently or recklessly, they lose their license or go to jail because they've proven they can't operate a vehicle responsibly. mr2tony - 2013-04-09 11:52 AM powerman - 2013-04-09 10:29 AM Power, that's painting with a pretty broad brush isn't it? I'm a gun control advocate and I want less crime, less violence and fewer accidents. I am for universal background checks and punishments for things just like this incident. I am not for eliminating guns completely, I am for responsible ownership, and if you prove you can't be trusted with a gun (like the guy in this story who left it lying around) then you should be convicted of a crime with one of the consequences being that you lose your right to bear arms. He would then lose his job and have his guns confiscated. All rights come with restrictions. The right to bear and have arms should be no different. Pector55 - 2013-04-09 9:20 AM I think it has become apparent that it is the right approach Appa. The so-called "high road" is the path of least resistance and as a result of decades of being passive, our rights have erroded. It is time for the LB approach to beat these misguided folks back. And that is exactly where I'm at. I've said it plenty... I do not have a problem with universal background checks... but universal back ground checks isn't the end, it's the beginnning. gun control advocates do not want less crime, less violence, or less accident. they want less guns...meaning no guns. so their solutions to problems are not solutions to problems, they are nothing more than using any thing they can to advancing their agenda to get rid of guns. Again, if that's what you want, that's fine, just begin a honest movement to repeal the 2A and we can vote on it. But until then, meaningful solutions to crime and violence go by the way side because they are so focused on getting rid of guns. Hence the compelety ridiculous effort to outlaw a "type" of gun responsible for 1% of the problem. And the equally ridiculous use of a tragic event to highlight a "type" of accidental death that is responsible for .0047% of all accidental deaths. But ya... let's just ignor that and keep giving into their ridiculous demands and illogical arguments for why I do not get the choice to exercise a right. So Tony, can you elaborate on what you just said? I don't want to hit you with the same "broad brush" comment before giving you an opportunity to clarify. When a person has an auto accident, do you believe they should have their license and automobiles confiscated and refused the priviledge to ever drive again? After all, that is dangerous and nobody has a right to drive in the first place.
I'll go so far as to kind of agree with you. Obviously we don't know the facts in the case, but if someone does have negligence that results in a death then they should be held criminally responsible if it's warranted. It doesn't matter if they ran a red light, hit somebody with a jet ski or left a gun on the bed. Our court/legal system gets to decide if it's a criminal level negligence and at a misdemeanor or felony level based on the facts which dictates the loss of 2A rights or not going forward. So, in that context I'm ok with it. However, a blanket everyone who has a something negligent happen with a firearm should lose their rights for life is a bit much because facts will vary a lot from case to case. All accidents can be prevented, but there are truly accidents and there are negligent accidents. |
| 2013-04-09 12:42 PM in reply to: #4693364 |
Champion 16151 Checkin' out the podium girls | Subject: RE: 'The' Gun Thread Pector55 - 2013-04-09 1:39 PM pitt83 - 2013-04-09 1:35 PM Pector55 - 2013-04-09 1:28 PM So, you oppose simplifying and harmonizing these systems?I have a federal background check every time I purchase a rifle. I have a federal background check and a state background check every time I purchase a hand gun. I have a federal background check when I purchase a supressor, shorten the length of a barrel, or add a stock to a hand gun. (Did I mention sending in $200 for a tax stamp and waiting 3-9 months)? I have a local and federal background check for my state LTCF. I have other state and federal background checks for other states in which I have applied for a carry permit (Utah and Arizona). Two of those states required fingerprint cards. (All of the above have occured so far this year) Is it still a mystery why gun owners are annoyed by the constant claim that people can just purchase firearms anywhere anytime? I have had 2-3 speeding tickets my entire life and that is the extent of my run in with the law. If you feel that more laws are the answer then I am convinced that you are simply unaware of the current laws on the books. Let me get this straight. You want the government to simply and harmonize?
Shouldn't a "universal" background check do that? I would hope so. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK