Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what, I'm all for gun ownership but whats wrong with background checks. so there all ready in place,subject every dealer to the same rules, and actually do it right.
Felons can legally obtain a weapon. I've outlined that multiple times and it doesn't have to be a straw purchase either. You can legally build one from parts. It's not really that hard either.
Most liberals want those armed to be responsible and sane, just like I'm sure more conservatives do. There seems to be a notion it's some sort of burden to impose regulations, i.e., making sure crazy mother f*ckers.
Of course you have the idiots on both spectrum who believe that all guns should be banned and the world would be better if everyone had a gun.
Of course everyone only wants responsible people to have access to firearms, but it's only liberals who continue to push for complete bans. From national level politicians to random posters on CD it's liberals who call for bans. It's liberals who push for things like using the 'no fly list' to prevent people from buying firearms. It's liberals who refuse to even acknowledge that actually enforcing existing laws would be enough. It's liberals who push for increased taxes on guns and ammunition to "prevent violence", as if that would have any effect what so ever. Many liberals won't even admit that a failed background check is what allowed mass shooter Dylann Roof to get his guns, but somehow think that MORE laws will work.
The notion is that until you ENFORCE existing laws there is absolutely no point and certainly no benefit to crime reduction in imposing more burdens on law abiding people - the only people laws proposed by the left will ever impact.
I really have to wonder about this being careful business...
I have known plenty enough gun-owners over the years. I know there are plenty enough still today (good and bad guys with guns), and all the while over all the time since the first efforts toward gun-control emerged, there has been this fear and warning about the government taking away our guns.
Yet...
I know not one law-abiding citizen who has let it be known they were prevented from having just about any of the thousands of makes and models on the market, past and present! With all due respect to those who want silencers, I am sorry you can't get those quite so easily, but you can even get those with a little extra time and effort! Oh, wait, I do remember one person who said he couldn't buy a bazooka, but he's since been locked up. Does he count?
Sure seems to me the "sky has been falling" for an awfully long time when it comes to these gun-confiscation concerns, but I haven't seen much evidence yet.
Just saying...
The above does not even closely mesh with what you wrote below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I live in California where most of the guns I have fired have been in the Gold Country. Also in Utah...
I've never before encountered anyone who had such a hankering for a Benelli shotgun, but there are certain models perfectly suitable for what you want to do with it, right? Or just what is that you want to do with that shotgun you can't do with others. Or is it how it looks? Please explain, because no doubt the level of heartburn you express has got to be about something more serious.
For every model deemed not appropriate for general consumer/hunter/protection use, how many thousands of other models are available? Just as pretty, just as accurate, just as lethal? Surely you still own and can buy all sorts of models and enjoy just as much fun or protection or whatever without dwelling on the few models deemed outside the normal market, right? Just how serious is this problem that we can't just buy any model of Benelli shotgun?
I'd like to know before deciding whether to write my Congressman...
Sorry about the magazine woes as well, but again if you can let me know your end-goal or desire with this weaponry, maybe I can better assess the level of damages you are experiencing. Really, I'm serious.
Much as I would like to have fun with a grenade as well (sometimes when I think of my mother-in-law), I can't procure one, but I get over it in a matter of seconds...
So which is it? You never knew anyone that didn't want a un-neutered AR-15? Or a shotgun with a pistol grip because their wrist is messed up from a break when they were young? For someone who supposedly has been around firearms you sure sound like someone out of SF.
And please explain the "deemed not appropriate" comment. I'm interested to hear how suddenly a shotgun with an additional piece of plastic became somehow "inappropriate". Should we limit you on the chemotherapy you will be treated with, or the antibiotics we would prescribe your family? What books you can read because some books are now deemed "inappropriate"?
To answer your question, I shoot 3-Gun. So asinine stupidity of banning certain guns that happen to be used for competition AND CANNOT BE REPLACED BY THE "APPROPRIATE" <huge sarcasm there> ALTERNATIVE because some dimwit doesn't like the look of it.
And with regard to my families protection, I take enormous offense to being limited to firearms that cannot meet the FBI's individual protection requirements. If it wouldn't be useful for a FBI agent pulling their firearm to stop a criminal why is it magically OK to say I must make do with an inferior alternative.
The above does not even closely mesh with what you wrote below.
So which is it? You never knew anyone that didn't want a un-neutered AR-15? Or a shotgun with a pistol grip because their wrist is messed up from a break when they were young? For someone who supposedly has been around firearms you sure sound like someone out of SF.
And please explain the "deemed not appropriate" comment. I'm interested to hear how suddenly a shotgun with an additional piece of plastic became somehow "inappropriate". Should we limit you on the chemotherapy you will be treated with, or the antibiotics we would prescribe your family? What books you can read because some books are now deemed "inappropriate"?
To answer your question, I shoot 3-Gun. So asinine stupidity of banning certain guns that happen to be used for competition AND CANNOT BE REPLACED BY THE "APPROPRIATE" <huge sarcasm there> ALTERNATIVE because some dimwit doesn't like the look of it.
And with regard to my families protection, I take enormous offense to being limited to firearms that cannot meet the FBI's individual protection requirements. If it wouldn't be useful for a FBI agent pulling their firearm to stop a criminal why is it magically OK to say I must make do with an inferior alternative.
I don't know what does not "mesh" from my one comment to the next, but I'm pretty consistent when it comes to my comments in general I think. Thanks for letting me know if otherwise...
I've not known a lot of people with all the various special "needs" possible when it comes to guns, but that doesn't mean I don't understand people are different and they all want different things. Not the argument!
I do live in the Bay Area, and I have enjoyed using firearms. There are lots of others around here who can say the same. Not the argument!
You begin to touch on a little more of interest, to me anyway, when you rightfully point out that what is "deemed appropriate" may or may not be as everyone agrees. I would also admit I am not the gun expert or enthusiast who has spent enough time to know one way or another. I leave that to others, much like I leave it to doctors to decide what is best medicine. And of course we all know the value of a second opinion when it comes to medicine.
I have heard the cases made for what is "appropriate" or not, and I am sure there is fault in the process, but again I leave that to those who are Hell bent on making those distinctions to work it out. I suspect a very few Americans in general give a damn whether everyone can have the utmost in assault rifles or not, regardless how they are defined. Fact is, the great majority of Americans could care less what people want to do with their free time, keep next to their bedside, polish or shoot in general, except that we have this competing problem of too much gun violence for anyone's taste!
Easy answers, no. Full-proof, no. Entirely agreeable, no. Altogether sensible, no. So we battle over what works vs what doesn't, and no one is happy with the results.
Still, I ask myself just how unhappy are most Americans when it comes to these particular gun restrictions all considered? Just what percent, exactly, are not for the most part perfectly satisfied with the array of guns easily purchased in this country? What percent? Is it enough for me or anyone else other than that special enthusiast to get into a twist about, concern ourselves about?
You want the same guns as anyone who is in the FBI? Are you also wanting to wear the same protective gear? For the same reasons, I assume you are or you are not not being honest about the same concerns. Then again, we've got the problem of those who actually want to fight the FBI with the same firepower. Given our choice of whether to allow everyone the same or only the FBI, all considered, I think the restrictions are appropriate.
If on the other hand, you feel the need, want or fear to do that battle on your own, unlike the huge majority of Americans who don't, well I guess you have issues that I can't address or satisfy. I certainly know better than that as do most of us, but the numbers with similar concern or want are surely not in your favor when it comes to what the general public seems to deem best all considered, or so the numbers seem to confirm, over and over...
Good luck with all that and please don't shoot the messenger (pun intended)...
Of course everyone only wants responsible people to have access to firearms, but it's only liberals who continue to push for complete bans. From national level politicians to random posters on CD it's liberals who call for bans. It's liberals who push for things like using the 'no fly list' to prevent people from buying firearms. It's liberals who refuse to even acknowledge that actually enforcing existing laws would be enough. It's liberals who push for increased taxes on guns and ammunition to "prevent violence", as if that would have any effect what so ever. Many liberals won't even admit that a failed background check is what allowed mass shooter Dylann Roof to get his guns, but somehow think that MORE laws will work.
You should look at the other end of the spectrum, i.e., the non-"liberal" one.
Quote:
The notion is that until you ENFORCE existing laws there is absolutely no point and certainly no benefit to crime reduction in imposing more burdens on law abiding people - the only people laws proposed by the left will ever impact.
The current laws are a patchwork spanning several layers of government, purposely intended to be complex in order to get around them (much like our tax system).
I don't know what does not "mesh" from my one comment to the next, but I'm pretty consistent when it comes to my comments in general I think. Thanks for letting me know if otherwise...
I've not known a lot of people with all the various special "needs" possible when it comes to guns, but that doesn't mean I don't understand people are different and they all want different things. Not the argument!
I do live in the Bay Area, and I have enjoyed using firearms. There are lots of others around here who can say the same. Not the argument!
You begin to touch on a little more of interest, to me anyway, when you rightfully point out that what is "deemed appropriate" may or may not be as everyone agrees. I would also admit I am not the gun expert or enthusiast who has spent enough time to know one way or another. I leave that to others, much like I leave it to doctors to decide what is best medicine. And of course we all know the value of a second opinion when it comes to medicine.
I have heard the cases made for what is "appropriate" or not, and I am sure there is fault in the process, but again I leave that to those who are Hell bent on making those distinctions to work it out. I suspect a very few Americans in general give a damn whether everyone can have the utmost in assault rifles or not, regardless how they are defined. Fact is, the great majority of Americans could care less what people want to do with their free time, keep next to their bedside, polish or shoot in general, except that we have this competing problem of too much gun violence for anyone's taste!
Easy answers, no. Full-proof, no. Entirely agreeable, no. Altogether sensible, no. So we battle over what works vs what doesn't, and no one is happy with the results.
Still, I ask myself just how unhappy are most Americans when it comes to these particular gun restrictions all considered? Just what percent, exactly, are not for the most part perfectly satisfied with the array of guns easily purchased in this country? What percent? Is it enough for me or anyone else other than that special enthusiast to get into a twist about, concern ourselves about?
You want the same guns as anyone who is in the FBI? Are you also wanting to wear the same protective gear? For the same reasons, I assume you are or you are not not being honest about the same concerns. Then again, we've got the problem of those who actually want to fight the FBI with the same firepower. Given our choice of whether to allow everyone the same or only the FBI, all considered, I think the restrictions are appropriate.
If on the other hand, you feel the need, want or fear to do that battle on your own, unlike the huge majority of Americans who don't, well I guess you have issues that I can't address or satisfy. I certainly know better than that as do most of us, but the numbers with similar concern or want are surely not in your favor when it comes to what the general public seems to deem best all considered, or so the numbers seem to confirm, over and over...
Good luck with all that and please don't shoot the messenger (pun intended)...
Background checks for felons are useless because (see my multiple previous posts).
Background checks for felons are useless because (see my multiple previous posts).
And yet I don't see anyone refuting my basic claim: Background checks force repeat offenders into the black market in order to obtain their guns. This give law enforcement a means by which they can find and arrest such people before they actually get their guns. Obviously they will only catch a small percentage, but each one they catch is one less criminal with a gun on the streets.
Since my previous post in now buried, I'm going to quote parts of it here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Gun laws should create a black market for guns. [...] If a gang member with numerous prior convictions wants to get a gun, there should be some risk that he will try to buy his gun from an undercover agent. [...] Each time a gang member or career criminal is taken of the streets in this way - i.e., taken off the streets while trying to acquire a gun through the black market - you can be reasonably confident that you have prevented some violent crimes. On the flip side: anyone who is willing to sell a gun to someone without a background check is, in effect, helping criminals, so taking them out of the picture for a while is also helpful.
Some posters have pointed out that a high percentage of gun violence is committed by gang members or career criminals. Resources devoted to effectively enforcing gun laws target these folks and take some of them off the streets before they commit some of the crimes that they would have otherwise committed. What more can you ask from any law?
Without background checks, I see no way to target the felons who are trying to acquire guns illegally - at least not without entrapment. I would love to hear some suggestions on this. Serious: I would love to hear some ideas that I have not thought of. Maybe there is a better way?
As for your point about legally building guns: if it is currently legal for felons to buy the parts to build guns, then perhaps there are some more loop holes to be closed. Or, perhaps these are simply the clever ones who we can't realistically catch. This doesn't mean we should give up and not even bother trying to catch the ones who try to buy guns. Just in general, we don't give up on laws just because we know that there will be some clever folks who will find a way to break them without getting caught.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-12-2016 at 07:04 AM..
I don't know what does not "mesh" from my one comment to the next, but I'm pretty consistent when it comes to my comments in general I think. Thanks for letting me know if otherwise...
You stated that "I know not one law-abiding citizen who has let it be known they were prevented from having just about any of the thousands of makes and models on the market, past and present!" yet your very next post you state that I should be content with the "suitable" guns, completely making my point: there are guns that people cannot get because of silly laws and regulations.
Quote:
I've not known a lot of people with all the various special "needs" possible when it comes to guns, but that doesn't mean I don't understand people are different and they all want different things. Not the argument!
So you don't know, therefore it never happens. I have never met an astronaut therefore no one has gone into space. Fallacious arguments at there best.
Quote:
I do live in the Bay Area, and I have enjoyed using firearms. There are lots of others around here who can say the same. Not the argument!
Color me surprised. A bay area resident all for restrictions. Shocker.
Quote:
You begin to touch on a little more of interest, to me anyway, when you rightfully point out that what is "deemed appropriate" may or may not be as everyone agrees. I would also admit I am not the gun expert or enthusiast who has spent enough time to know one way or another. I leave that to others, much like I leave it to doctors to decide what is best medicine. And of course we all know the value of a second opinion when it comes to medicine.
So why are you arguing with someone who is an enthusiast and has been following the legal and legislative changes for the past 10+ years. This is my problem with you (and other who post like you). Your stepping into a pool that is very deep and you can't even tread water on the subject. You stated (incorrectly) that no one is restricted from owning guns they want (see above), no one is coming for your guns (I gave you 4 instances plus your own representatives have stated on national TV their goal is to end private gun ownership), and you have seemingly swallowed the kool-aid on what is "suitable" and not.
Please let me know why a piece of plastic suddenly makes the same exact firearm bannable?
Quote:
I have heard the cases made for what is "appropriate" or not, and I am sure there is fault in the process, but again I leave that to those who are Hell bent on making those distinctions to work it out. I suspect a very few Americans in general give a damn whether everyone can have the utmost in assault rifles or not, regardless how they are defined. Fact is, the great majority of Americans could care less what people want to do with their free time, keep next to their bedside, polish or shoot in general, except that we have this competing problem of too much gun violence for anyone's taste!
Gun violence is going DOWN, no matter what you believe. It has been going down after almost every state made it "Shall Issue" or "Constitutional Carry" to carry a firearm in public. It's still gong down despite the sunset of the AWB from Clinton. The fact that there are more incidents (not people saved, lowest possible way of recording a defensive gun use) of guns being used to stop crime then the entire number of victims shows the depravity anti-gun folks will go.
I'm not sure if your trolling or not, but if you aren't please go find and look up the actual facts not the kool aid Mr. Obama cried about.
Quote:
Easy answers, no. Full-proof, no. Entirely agreeable, no. Altogether sensible, no. So we battle over what works vs what doesn't, and no one is happy with the results.
There is no battle for constitutional rights. You cannot say that I can restrict anyone but whatever elite I choose from reading certain books, or practicing certain religions. DiFi was made to actually admit this in testimony to Congress. Why do we then accept it for the 2A?
Quote:
Still, I ask myself just how unhappy are most Americans when it comes to these particular gun restrictions all considered? Just what percent, exactly, are not for the most part perfectly satisfied with the array of guns easily purchased in this country? What percent? Is it enough for me or anyone else other than that special enthusiast to get into a twist about, concern ourselves about?
Gun owners? Very upset. They are minimally 40% of the population. And why does it matter what numbers? If only 1 black woman was upset about segregation should it have continued? Your understanding and ability to empathize is probably on par with my empathy for Ham radio or super-car emissions exemptions. The only difference between us is that I would actually side with the freedoms of the individual.
Quote:
You want the same guns as anyone who is in the FBI? Are you also wanting to wear the same protective gear? For the same reasons, I assume you are or you are not not being honest about the same concerns. Then again, we've got the problem of those who actually want to fight the FBI with the same firepower. Given our choice of whether to allow everyone the same or only the FBI, all considered, I think the restrictions are appropriate.
Maybe you truly don't understand what we are talking about. The FBI, every few years, looks for a new personal protection side arm based on their findings in defensive shootings between criminals and law enforcement. Things like capacity of the firearm are taken into account (for instance did you know that the number of rounds per assailant they use is 8, so NY's SAFE act (limit 7) doesn't even set a person up to successfully defend themselves against ONE assailant.
Your reply to this: Meh, let the plebs have whatever we tell them they can have. How very telling about your beliefs.
Quote:
If on the other hand, you feel the need, want or fear to do that battle on your own, unlike the huge majority of Americans who don't, well I guess you have issues that I can't address or satisfy. I certainly know better than that as do most of us, but the numbers with similar concern or want are surely not in your favor when it comes to what the general public seems to deem best all considered, or so the numbers seem to confirm, over and over...
Good luck with all that and please don't shoot the messenger (pun intended)...
In summation:
You aren't a gun person.
You lied about being around guns often (not in the Bay Area bud).
You are OK with governmental restrictions based on a whim
You are in agreement to all this, but when it comes to people using race, religion, or language you stated: "For anyone to view racism as an "excuse" along the lines of this diatribe here just demonstrates why there is the level of protest we have seen nationwide. Doesn't take an "intellectual master" to see the blind apathy of so many people like this who could care less about others subject to racism, or injustice or wrong doing, as long as they can stay in their house, watching their favorite TV shows, wishing they could get their country back from all the immigrants and minorities that don't look or talk like them. "
Blind apathy towards those you don't align/agree/empathize with indeed. Maybe you should follow your own advice.
And yet I don't see anyone refuting my basic claim: Background checks force repeat offenders into the black market in order to obtain their guns. This give law enforcement a means by which they can find and arrest such people before they actually get their guns. Obviously they will only catch a small percentage, but each one they catch is one less criminal with a gun on the streets.
Since my previous post in now buried, I'm going to quote parts of it here:
Without background checks, I see no way to target the felons who are trying to acquire guns illegally - at least not without entrapment. I would love to hear some suggestions on this. Serious: I would love to hear some ideas that I have not thought of. Maybe there is a better way?
As for your point about legally building guns: if it is currently legal for felons to buy the parts to build guns, then perhaps there are some more loop holes to be closed. Or, perhaps these are simply the clever ones who we can't realistically catch. This doesn't mean we should give up and not even bother trying to catch the ones who try to buy guns. Just in general, we don't give up on laws just because we know that there will be some clever folks who will find a way to break them without getting caught.
It's not the "clever ones". You are giving people too much credit. The stuff is sitting right on the counter. BG checks are completely useless to block felons from obtaining weapons. Once I obtain a parts kit I can complete a completely legal weapon in less than an hour. This is not anything new and it's not a "loophole". It's already been defined by the ATF and DOJ and completely legal.
Keep them in jail/prisons their entire sentences for a start. We are all worried about these new immigrants obtaining weapons. Why are we letting them in, in the first place, if we already know we can't block them from getting weapons.
Last edited by 1AngryTaxPayer; 01-12-2016 at 07:48 AM..
Once I obtain a parts kit I can complete a completely legal weapon in less than an hour. This is not anything new and it's not a "loophole". It's already been defined by the ATF and DOJ and completely legal.
If it is illegal for felons to buy guns, then it should also be illegal for them to buy gun parts or gun kits. If it is not illegal, then it is a loophole that should be fixed. So my basic point still stands: Background checks give law enforcement and important tool for catching some repeat offenders before they get the gun in their hands, and each person caught in this way is one less armed criminal on the streets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Easy now...
