TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkDfO5Kj5Js

Gun show loopholes!!

Dangerous guns!!

I hope we all remember this report. It is going to seem friendly if the Dems remain in control and especially if they take the Executive. For all of the inaction of the Republican party, when they were in charge, I fear their inaction will seem like a beautiful dream compared to what is coming if we do not vote in mass for pro-2A Conservatives. Just because the lion isn't roaring doesn't mean it isn't getting ready to eat us. A Dem controlled Congress and a President will ensure we lose. Especially when the media is activists in denying us of our rights.

That gun store/range in the middle and at the end of the piece is Blue Ridge Arsenal. Nice place with nice and very helpful folks!!

-Rug

I've heard all the NRA apologists support of this bill, but I'll say it again: there is no good way to spin this.

This is gun control. It had the NRA's full support. I find that inexcusable.

KBCraig wrote:....

This is gun control. It had the NRA's full support. I find that inexcusable.

When I heard that the NRA supported it I was slackjawed. Now, I'm simply a disgusted life-member-since-1973.

KBCraig wrote:I've heard all the NRA apologists support of this bill, but I'll say it again: there is no good way to spin this.

This is gun control. It had the NRA's full support. I find that inexcusable.

No it is not, no matter how loudly or persistently perennial NRA-bashers make this claim. The bill's provisions have been set out and discussed in detail in other threads.

Chas.

nuparadigm wrote:

KBCraig wrote:....

This is gun control. It had the NRA's full support. I find that inexcusable.

When I heard that the NRA supported it I was slackjawed. Now, I'm simply a disgusted life-member-since-1973.

Don't buy any of GOA's garbage; read the bill and see what it really does. If you do, I believe your disgust will be directed toward people and groups other than the NRA.

If you're interested in opinions on both side of the issue, have a look at this thread. At least you'll be able to see what the bill really does and does not do.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... hilit=2640

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

KBCraig wrote:This is gun control. It had the NRA's full support. I find that inexcusable.

No it is not, no matter how loudly or persistently perennial NRA-bashers make this claim.

I'm an NRA member, and I'll bash them all I want when they support gun control.

Does this restrict anyone from buying guns? It's gun control!

The official NRA stance is that gun control is wonderful, so long as it only restricts those people from getting guns. Can you name a federal gun control law that has passed despite full-out opposition by the NRA? I can't. Every federal gun control law has had at least tacit approval from NRA.

The NICS Improvement Act does exactly that; Once this is implemented NICS will have far fewer false results, both "proceed" and "deny". The data will be more accurate and more quickly retrieved, so there will be fewer "detains". And you cannot be charged a fee for NICS. This means your purchase won't be delayed because someone with the same name and general description robbed a bank 2 years ago. It also means that a stalker will be even less likely to be able to purchase a gun the day a restraining order is levied against him, before it's made it into the system; NICS will find out.

Does this restrict anyone from buying guns? It's gun control!

Background checks are not gun control; It's who is denied and whether that denial is for good reason. If you're denied because you're a felon or crazy, I don't think you're going to find many who'll champion your cause. Same if you're a wife-beater or stalker. If you're denied because you're a permanent resident who crossed into Canada a month ago (you have to have spent the last 90 days in-country to pass NICS if you aren't a citizen), I think you'll find a few more sympathetic ears.

By your logic, there should be no law proactively preventing a violent felon from walking out of jail on parole, buying a gun and holding up a convenience store. And he does his time, gets out and does it again. An ideal free society can have only consequences, and when people die as the result of an action, other lawful citizens don't want it to happen again. You therefore MUST have proactive measures to prevent repeat offenses. I therefore categorically disagree with your logic; felons should be barred from buying and owning weapons, and the fact that they can obtain weapons anyway doesn't mean we should make it any easier or more legal for them to do so. That means you need a way to find out who is and is not a felon. How do you do that without keeping a database? Tattoo every prohibited person's forehead? Forget that; 50 million people died not too long ago because of that line of thinking. Require that each individual provide proof of a clear criminal record? Nobody would want to deal with the paperwork, and there's still have to be databases of criminal records even if they aren't federally linked. Require a psychiatric evaluation? Talk about a hurdle to gun ownership; any good psychiatrist can find SOMETHING wrong with you. Chronic depression as a disease didn't EXIST 30 years ago, and now you can be diagnosed, medicated and yes, committed for it.

NICS is the best solution to a problem even you must admit exists; criminals do bad things with guns, and even with no restrictions the vast majority of law-abiding citizens will not own or carry a gun to protect themselves. Yes, they're sheep. That doesn't mean they're any less deserving of life, liberty and property, nor should they be forced, de facto, to arm themselves against their will because of the realities of a society with totally unfettered gun access.

Liko81 wrote:
NICS is the best solution to a problem even you must admit exists; criminals do bad things with guns, and even with no restrictions the vast majority of law-abiding citizens will not own or carry a gun to protect themselves. Yes, they're sheep. That doesn't mean they're any less deserving of life, liberty and property, nor should they be forced, de facto, to arm themselves against their will because of the realities of a society with totally unfettered gun access.

WE were doing just fine before the Brady Bill. The Brady Bill (Original Nics) didn't lower crime rates. Neither did the assault weapon ban, or any of the other abominations passed by the gun control nuts. NICs hasn't fixed nothing but get the Brady's foot in the door. As I understand the 1st and Second Amendment don't leave much room for comprimise. NICs is Illegal.

My take on the video was that it was very anti-gun the way it was reported.

I also don't fault our current system for the way Virginia Tech happened, that is 100% fault on the school's part. He had been reported many times before by female students for stalking, but it was not reported to the police because the school did not want the bad publicity on their name, so the even this new system wouldn't of worked.

I also don't agree with disarming felons for the rest of their natural born life either. Example, 18 year old kid gets busted for selling meth and is charged with felony possession of a controlled substance, serves the mandatory 8 years in prison, stays spotlessly clean for the 10 year probation after prison. He is proven to be no threat and is contributing to society. Why shouldn't he then be allowed to purchase a firearm? Now, Im not saying that as soon as they are free that they can buy firearms, but after a probationary period of time they should be allowed to.

Liko81 wrote:The NICS Improvement Act does exactly that; Once this is implemented NICS will have far fewer false results, both "proceed" and "deny".

That's not an improvement. An improvement would be, "The Gun Control Act of 1968 is hereby repealed."

Background checks are not gun control; It's who is denied and whether that denial is for good reason.

That denial is the only reason for background checks. Denial is gun control, no matter how much lipstick you smear on the pig.

By your logic, there should be no law proactively preventing a violent felon from walking out of jail on parole, buying a gun ....

Now you're getting the idea!

.... and holding up a convenience store.

And there you lost it. Last time I checked, holding up convenience stores would remain against the law.

All the Brady, NICS, waiting periods, etc., in the world have never, and will never, stopped repeat offenders from obtaining guns.

And he does his time, gets out and does it again. An ideal free society can have only consequences, and when people die as the result of an action, other lawful citizens don't want it to happen again. You therefore MUST have proactive measures to prevent repeat offenses.

Law prohibit and proscribe; sometimes they require and prescribe; but never, ever, in the history of lawmaking, has a law prevented anything.

That means you need a way to find out who is and is not a felon. How do you do that without keeping a database? Tattoo every prohibited person's forehead?

You're this close to finishing that thought to its logical conclusion, but you can't get past the notion that some people should be denied guns because of a past conviction.

The logical conclusion is this: you can not do so without keeping a database on every person, including biometric identity verification. And once again, even this will not prevent felons from acquiring guns illegally.

NICS is the best solution to a problem even you must admit exists; criminals do bad things with guns,

Criminals like who? Like G. Gordon Liddy? Like former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales? Like Scooter Libby? Merle Haggard? Martha Stewart? Or perhaps one of the thousands of people who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence following a shouting match, only to later become a "prohibited person"?

If you haven't noticed, not all felons are Ted Bundy (who never used a gun, by the way).

KBCraig wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

KBCraig wrote:This is gun control. It had the NRA's full support. I find that inexcusable.

No it is not, no matter how loudly or persistently perennial NRA-bashers make this claim.

I'm an NRA member, and I'll bash them all I want when they support gun control.

Does this restrict anyone from buying guns? It's gun control!

The official NRA stance is that gun control is wonderful, so long as it only restricts those people from getting guns. Can you name a federal gun control law that has passed despite full-out opposition by the NRA? I can't. Every federal gun control law has had at least tacit approval from NRA.

Similar to Craig (I suppose) I don't listen to "NRA-bashers"; I listen to myself and to my own sense of what is right and wrong under the Constitution. I know that many - if not most - on this Board disagree, but I believe the NRA started on hidden slippery slope in 1968 and has, incrementally, slid farther down in response to each Bradyesque rant.

I bought my Life Membership in the NRA to celebrate a promotion in the Marine Corps (some in our society would say being a Marine is proof of being mentally defective). Because of that membership, the NRA is my Association, too and I'll disagree with it whenever I believe it to be wrong. BTW - I am not a member of GOA and I do not receive any information from them.

KBCraig wrote:You're this close to finishing that thought to its logical conclusion, but you can't get past the notion that some people should be denied guns because of a past conviction.

You're durn tootin'. There are way too many repeat/multiple offenders for anyone to be able to say of any ex-con "I trust him with a gun" without having spent serious time getting to know that person. I do agree that the former meth-head who's cleaned up his act and become a productive citizen should have an avenue for restoration of civil rights other than a presidential pardon, but his life since he got out should be put under a magnifying glass before we restore him to full citizenship. You know the saying: "Fool me once...". Lawful citizens are assumed to be so, and thus by the protections of the Bill of Rights are trusted by government in our society. Ex-cons are not; they must prove they are worthy of trust and until that happens the government, and society, do not trust them. They are not subject to many of the rights we enjoy; they cannot vote, they have little right to privacy (sex offenders have their name, address and phone number published for life and must inform authorities about their movements, parolees are subject to search and seizure without a warrant, are under a curfew and are also restricted in their movements, and every known member of a prison gang is tracked for life), and felons cannot own firearms. It is part of their punishment and an insurance measure against repeat offenses.

The logical conclusion is this: you can not do so without keeping a database on every person, including biometric identity verification.

bull. What you do is create a database of "prohibited persons"; criminal offenders and the adjudged insane. I would not have such information. Therefore when they search for me they get no hits other than my SS record which confirms that a person named John Doe really does exist and is a U.S. citizen (and that record, surprise surprise, was already in federal hands and was already used to verify identity and citizenship long before NICS). That's a "proceed". I as a lawful citizen then do not need any additional personal information the Federal government did not already keep in this DB. If you're looking to fight a federal DB, start attacking Social Security, Customs, and the Real ID Act; the Federal gov't has had paper on you since you were born, knows every date, time and airline flight or automobile you used to cross the borders of this country, and is trying to control at the federal level everything for which you need a photo ID. THAT's scary.

And once again, even this will not prevent felons from acquiring guns illegally.

No, it wouldn't. Maybe "prevent" is too strong a word. How about "drastically reduce the chances of"? That is, after all, the purpose of any law; lawful citizens will obey it even if they wouldn't have acted the same way were it NOT a law, and therefore the chance it will be broken is reduced. Laws can, in addition to prohibiting an action and proscribing consequences, can authorize agents of the government or citizens to enact measures that reduce the chance of it being broken, so the law is enforced proactively. That is both for the good of society and to save the government money; prevent one person from breaking the law and you avoid the cost of a trial and a prison bunk. It also is logical; Ex-cons have proven themselves to be irrespectful of the law, and thus are not likely to be deterred by the threat of punishment. If you wish for an ex-con to obey the law given that he is irrespectful of it, measures must therefore be taken to reduce his ability to break it.

Should we not have jails because criminals can escape from jail? It's illegal to escape, or even attempt to escape, from the custody of a lawful detaining authority. We spend a lot of money on jails to proactively enforce that law by drastically reducing escapes. It can still be broken because no jail, even a supermax, is absolutely 100% escape-proof, so by your logic jails don't work and should be scrapped. That's ridiculous.

Bring it closer to home; a person entering your house uninvited is doing so illegally (either trespassing or B&E). Should you leave your door unlocked? Of course not. Most housing codes require a deadbolt on every hinged entry/exit door; they can't compel you to use it, but the intention is obvious; require builders to provide it proactively, and you are likely to use it, reducing occurrences of crimes related to illegal entry. Do burglaries and home invasions still occur? Of course; locks can be defeated, or the criminals will choose another home. Does that mean locks are worthless? No.

The same applies here. NICS cannot guarantee that no criminal or insane person will have access to a gun through other means, or even guarantee that a felon will not pass the NICS check. It cannot be 100% effective; nothing can. However it drastically reduces the ability of a felon or insane person to acquire a gun from a retailer, and by so doing reduces the chance of a felon being able to acquire a gun period.

NICS does not work. Only the stupidest criminals are unable to obtain firearms (like the guy who tried to rob a gun store with a knife). Police arrest hundreds of criminals a day who are convicted felons, underage, lack state permits, or are carrying illegally. Hundreds of thousands of armed criminals who could not pass NICS are at large.

Most weapons in criminal hands are stolen or bought through straw sales.

No form of "gun control" prevents criminals from getting weapons. In 1900, citizens of the U.K. could own and carry weapons freely. The country had the lowest rate of violent crime that has ever existed anywhere. Now this island nation has banned civilian ownership of handguns. They have a growing number of armed criminals and a higher rate of violent crime than the U.S.

- Jim