huntsman
Member
those of you who seek reasonable guns laws remember how the healthcare law was handled, and empty bill to be filled in by bureaucrats at a latter date.
yes you do! and good question........I guess with that reasoning I give up my rights each time I buy a firearm through a dealer. Why aren't we fighting to do away with the instant checks that are in place now?
You cannot prevent incidents such as sandy hook. They are actions that are neither preventable or is one able to predict such incidents. They will happen guns or no guns. Todays its guns tomorrow its gasoline or chemicals or whatever.People here seem to forget that it's in gun owners' own self-interest to try to prevent unsuitable individuals -- those likely to commit crimes -- from getting guns. Remember, it's massacres such as that in Sandy Hook that lead to draconian gun laws. If we can prevent a massacre, we protect our gun rights. The difficult part is setting up a system that weeds out the unsuitable individuals but doesn't trample on the rights of the responsible and law-abiding. That's the area in which we need to have a constructive dialogue.
mack said:I've changed my mind on universal background checks...
AlexanderA said:People here seem to forget that it's in gun owners' own self-interest to try to prevent unsuitable individuals -- those likely to commit crimes -- from getting guns.
Remember, it's massacres such as that in Sandy Hook that lead to draconian gun laws.
No, it's a desire for draconian gun laws that leads to draconian gun laws.Remember, it's massacres such as that in Sandy Hook that lead to draconian gun laws.
They have these moves drawn up and wait for the "right" opportunity to put them in place by never letting a crises go to waste.No, it's a desire for draconian gun laws that leads to draconian gun laws.
If NOBODY was shot for the next three years, Feinstein would STILL want an AWB.
Gun control isn't a means to an end for these people (and their fifth columnists here and elsewhere), it is AN END IN ITSELF. Any claim to the contrary is delusional.
To the OP. If you want to run a background check on a private sale. Go right ahead.
Bring your guns down to your local FFL and ask them to complete the transfer for you. I am sure they will have no problem taking your money and transferring your guns at a 'reasonable' fee.
Just dont force it on me.
I am not sure we have a choice left though.
Let's be fair here. You're not telling the whole story. The reason that three of the four shooters you mentioned were able to purchase their weapons after passing a background check was a failure in reporting people with mental health issues to the NICS database. The reporting of people with criminal histories has been pretty reliable; the reporting of people with potentially dangerous mental illness has been extremely spotty, and in some states practically non-existent. This is an eminently correctable problem. And if it is corrected, as it should be, there is no reason why such background checks cannot become more effective in detecting people who have been judged a danger to themselves or others by mental health professionals. A lot of the reason reporting of such individuals has been so spotty is opposition by medical professional on the grounds of privacy. In the wake of these recent mass shootings, that opposition is waning fast.Sandy Hook - shooter murdered his mother and stole her legally owned firearms. How would a UBC help?Originally Posted by AlexanderA
People here seem to forget that it's in gun owners' own self-interest to try to prevent unsuitable individuals -- those likely to commit crimes -- from getting guns.
Aurora - shooter bought his firearms through an FFL and passed NICS check
Giffords - shooter bought his firearms through an FFL and passed NICS check
VA Tech - AFTER being adjudicated as a danger to himself or others, shooter bought firearms through FFL and passed NICS check
A universal background check would not have prevented ANY of these incidents.
So why would we adopt a solution that has failed to prevent the last 4 massacres and which will also lead to a database of who owns what guns? What is going to happen WHEN that next massacre occurs? What "reasonable compromise" will be demanded from gun owners now that they know who owns what?Remember, it's massacres such as that in Sandy Hook that lead to draconian gun laws.
Do you judge every Nigerian "404" email individually on its "merits"?We need to appear at least willing to talk about them, and if we find a proposal violates the second amendment or penalizes lawful gun owners, then is the time to draw the lines in the sand.
You CAN'T.How else do you keep firearms put of the hands of the mentally ill, the violent (domestic violence, etc.), and ex-felons.