'The' Gun Thread (Page 29)

Exactly right.  It's not that we are paranoid, it's that we are not stupid.  This has been fun so far though and in 2014, I know liberals are concerned about a 1996 repeat.  Back then, the strategy was clear.  Divide sport shooters and the hunters.  Tell the hunters we are just like you and that nobody needs high capacity mags or black guns.  It worked and the first AWB was passed.  Now, people communicate much better and sport shooting is very popular.  I know a lot of shooters who have no intention of hunting, nor could they kill an animal if they wanted to.  The problem for the left is that hunters and sport shooters hang side by side at the range now.  The strategy of using a wedge between them failed and now the gun control cloud is scrambling to save face by just passing something... anything to say they did something. 

I think 2014 will be one interesting mid-term election. 

Yes, yes I have!

Do YOU honestly believe that there has never, not ONCE been a crime committed by a weapon obtained through a "Loophole" that would otherwise NOT have been obtained had said purchaser gone through a background check?...........(cricket chirping).........

Replace re-evaluate with "Enforce" and you would have success.  The problem is, it's be admitted that it doesn't happen.

http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2011/02/first-order-business-enforce-existing-federal-gun-laws

That was not a personal attack.  You can't just make stuff up because it fits your agenda.  I realize that the anti-gun side doesn't have the facts to back up the emotional plea, but it's not personal, and when you do it, it's NOT a discussion.

Dude....if you knew me better you'd never type "cricket chirping"  

Sure there has.......just like there have been black rifles used in crimes......that number is less than 1%. 

I work under the premise of what is worth the time and money to help reduce crime and what isn't.  The fact is, these bills proposed are not about lessening crime, because they won't....and you know it.  But look at the complete waste of time and money going on to push these bills forward.  It's a joke.

Look, if I thought for one minute that they would reduce crime I'd be on your side.....my job just got easier, yeah me!  But I know damn well that's not the case.

My apologies (again).  I mentioned paranoia as a symptom.  However, I did NOT call YOU paranoid. 

Words matter (as I have been told already today).

Good, I was talking to you.....vegas did not make a personal attack.

OK I'll play and argue against "universal background" checks on "it's merits"

1.  The stated purpose of background checks is to (a) prevent those who are not legally permitted to have a gun from purchasing or obtaining a gun.  (b) by so doing also increase the governments ability to successfully prosecute those that engage in illegal activity associated with the illegal purchase of a firearm.

2.  The proposed legislation fails on both accounts, and in addition to failing on its intended/stated purpose unduly burdens law abiding citizens.

3.  The "universal background" check fail primarily because they are not "universal"  Due to Federal and State privacy rights and laws, coupled with state and federal confidentiality laws pertaining to psychiatric/psychological treatment information regarding individuals suffering from mental illnesses or voluntarily seeking psychological treatment will not be captured by the "universal background" checks.  Bottom line, highly unlikely that the background checks as currently proposed would have ever caught Mr. Lanza.

4.  The "universal background" checks as it relates to the mentally ill may violate the equal protection clause because it disproportionately captures individuals that are involuntarily committed or treated for mental illness.  Those involuntary treatments are or may be caught by the proposed "universal background checks".  It is disproportionate based upon socio economics because those with money and insurance are more likely to be treated voluntarily and thus may be able to avail themselves of the privacy and confidentiality protections that may not exist with involuntary commitment or treatment.

5.  The justification of a registry will allow for better more zealous prosecution I find specious at best.  Especially in light of the current administrations abysmal record on the prosecution of current Federal firearms violations.  The DOJ has specifically said that CURRENTLY under the current back ground check system that they do not have the man power to prosecute individuals that lie on background checks.  So, we are to believe that with an increase in records keeping this priority decision and man power issue will be solved?

6.  The current "universal background check" bills go much further than just "closing the gun show loopholes"...again read the proposed bills, don't take my word for it.  The majority of what is in the bills, and what the requirements would be are not being talked about.  Ask yourself this question:  Why not?  I believe that the background check bill goes too far, and takes more steps then are necessary to meet the stated goals of back ground checks. 

7.  You dismiss the  fear of the government outright with the use of the dismissive "black helicopter" phrase.  However,  this ignores the factual history of the passage of the Bill of Rights.  It's not a fear of the government per se.  It's a fear of human nature and those that are in the government.  It is so universal as to be a truism that men are corruptible, and as such, regardless of the form of government, those that rule always overstep the limitations of that government for their own personal reasons, be it wealth, power or other reasons.  The founding fathers and framers had such a fear of the abuses of government that they demanded after the passage of the Constitution that certain enumerated God given/natural rights be explicitly protected.  Of these is the 2nd Amendment.  So you may dismiss the notion of "black helicopters' but of course the idea behind "black helicopters" men like Madison did not dismiss and felt that it was a reality to be guarded against.

8.  You do know that Federally there is a law prohibiting a federal register of gun owners, and in many states there are similar laws.  So, my question is, what has changed that warrants a rescission from these laws prohibiting gun registries?  Violent crimes are consistently declining, gun crimes are declining?  so what is the reason for the change?   

***READ THIS*** 

Very flammable topic, lots of strong opinions. But under no circumstances will this thread, or any others stay, or users stay, if there are attacks on people. Or lightly disguised trolling. Especially on this topic. 

Here's some tips: if a post contains the word 'you', the post is headed that direction. If there's ridicule in a post, it's headed that direction. If there are inferences that someone is stupid or doesn't get it, it's headed that direction. If the post represents as fact something that's not, it's headed that direction. And hypothetically, if there's a post that everyone knows is over the line, and the justification is 'he/she started it, I was just replying in kind', it is that direction. And if a post uses someone else's words "in quotes", essentially mocking them, it's that direction. 

Discuss the topic, not the people. It's your choice until it becomes our choice. 

Sadly, I think I realize it too.  But as a parent and an LEO I'm desperate for something, anything that might help.  The justice system is broken.  Can't fix it.  So arguing that better enforcement is the answer is a fool's folly.  How many lives saved makes it 'worth it'.  1000s, 100s?  Or just one if it's YOUR one.  I've been wringing my hands for years to no avail.  But we gotta keep trying SOMETHING.  The only other option is to STOP TRYING-and I can't do that.  Neither can you or you wouldn't be doing this.   Stay Safe!

Thank YOU Rick

So, the items I layed out were for completely different things, to illustrate that law abiding citizens already jump through hoops and get checked over and over again.  The currently proposed law does nothing to streamline, lower cost or harmonize anything.  To Brock Sampson's point, it is a mislabeled, increasingly intrusive bill which attempts to further attack the good guys.  If the bad guys don't care about today's laws, it's clear they won't care about new levels of complexity.

You will actually have additional overhead and cost with your new bill.  I believe that rational folks on the left need to initiate the surge within the Democratic party to alienate those who have ending 2A as the end game, so they can actually work with the clear headed to be able to get actual results.  As it stands now, the anti-gun crowd is to the left, what the Westboro Batist folks are to the right.  Don't get me wrong.. I love them both.  The more loud extremists the left and right have, the more people are forced out of the (R) and (D) world and are left to think freely. 

No we do not have to keep trying something.  There is no amount of bubble wrap in the world that will make everyone safe all the time.  There will always be bad people and those bad people will always hurt other people.  They do not care about your "Laws"!  Focus on finding and eliminating the bad people not punishing the good.

If you do the homework on police officers killed in Philly, you will see a disturbing pattern that makes it clear that enforcement is far from a fool's folly.  Guys that killed the LEO's were not allowed to own the guns.  They stole them.  Why were they back on the street in the first place?

Then we fix it.  We take the time and energy put into what is TRULY a fool's folly and we point it in the direction needed.  I'm not as desperate as you......I look at the numbers and I see a steady reduction in violent/gun crimes.  If we work on the justice system and getting them to help us enforce the laws already on the books then we get even more reduction.....which is the idea. 

Think about it.....you want to add another law into a sytem you freely admit is broke.  No, fix what is broke first or any additons are meaningless.

We are on the same page, just a different idea on how to get there.  I don't want to infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.  In fact, as an employee of the govt., the Constitution expressly forbids it.

You be safe as well.

"Why were they back on the street in the first place?"

IDK.  That was my meaning when I mentioned the 'fools folly'.  I'm ALL IN for more enforcement; but politics and budgets and agendas have tampered down most significant reform.  Believe me when I say, It's MY folly.

It wasn't meant as a personal attack on you. Just pointing out what you said was factually incorrect. Craigslist prohibits the sale of firearms on their site.

(snicker) You guys Kill me....but please, not with a gun obtained through a Loophole. 

Enjoy your day, everyone.

No, 20,000 is too many. There should be no carry laws. there should be no "permitting. It should just be constitutional carry... that sort of what "bear" means.

I think there should be prohibited people, and in order to sell to those that are permitted, then we have to have a check....

That's pretty much it for me. Oh... and the... if you comit a crime with a gun it's life in prison. If you posses as a prohibited person, or sell to one... life in prison.

Then you could just leave the other 95% and 40 million law abiding people to enjoy the rights granted to them the day they drew their first breath.

I'm not sure how else to take it when "you" is whom you you are talking about.... but I get it. Accepted.

So then to the subject.... do you not know there are plenty in government that would indeed repeal the 2A if they could?