PDA

View Full Version : Would you support background checks for magazines IF:


sharxbyte
12-23-2012, 6:17 PM
EDIT:Wow... Lots of hot tempers and sharp tongues in here... I wasnt trying to start a flame war, and it was more of a research question (hence the poll) than anything... The question specifies that only 10rd+ mags would be checked. Do I think there is anything wrong with high caps? Absolutely not! So I like more background checks? NO! But I wanted to know if I was the only one who felt that another dose of an evil already in place would be worth it given that it would expand our freedom. Considering they run your background in Sac and other places just for buying Ammo, I thought this would be a small pill to swallow. Apparently not.

it allowed us to boy/own/use standard (>10) capacity magazines? If magazines were treated nationwide as they are here, with the exception that, with a background check, you can purchase any magazines you like in any capacity you like.

I know it sounds evil, an bad, but I would personally support undergoing a few more background checks if it allowed me to own high caps.

nothinghere2c
12-23-2012, 6:23 PM
my opinion, no.

who will pay for the check each time you buy one? You.
who may be denied a magazine based off any arbitrary prohibition in the check? You.
who will get screwed the next time they want to add background checks to ammo or uppers or cleaning supplies? You.

its sad really...

mrdd
12-23-2012, 6:26 PM
NO! What about buying them over the internet? Do you really want to pay $50 per magazine at an FFL?

sharxbyte
12-23-2012, 6:27 PM
If I have to pay $35 extra to buy magazines, then I'd buy more than one at once. If you have a prohibition, then why are you buying magazines?

mrdd, I have to pay $50 per magazine anyway...

JMP
12-23-2012, 6:29 PM
Why are we acting like we don't already do background checks? Anything further would require the TSA and their rubber glove treatment.

berto
12-23-2012, 6:30 PM
I'd support background checks in order to post stupid crap like this.

nothinghere2c
12-23-2012, 6:30 PM
If I have to pay $35 extra to buy magazines, then I'd buy more than one at once. If you have a prohibition, then why are you buying magazines?

thats assuming there aren't different rules instituted for prohibited persons since this would be a new law. who's to say a bunch of lame exceptions are added in there to exclude a good chunk of people on purpose?

it sounds nice for US Californians to be able to buy std cap mags but really, that's accepting that there is something wrong with std caps. there isn't.

mrdd
12-23-2012, 6:32 PM
If I have to pay $35 extra to buy magazines, then I'd buy more than one at once. If you have a prohibition, then why are you buying magazines?

mrdd, I have to pay $50 per magazine anyway...

Well then you aren't a very good shopper.

fizux
12-23-2012, 6:39 PM
What if they consolidated all of these suitability checks? I have a COE; shouldn't that be enough for everything (CCW, NICS/purchase, std cap mags, EBRs, ammo, etc)?

SoCalDep
12-23-2012, 6:42 PM
It drives me frigin' nuts that I need to go to the pharmacist to get some cold medicine because someone might make meth. They've been doing this for years, and we arrest people with meth every day... meth made with far more restrictive substances than pseudoephedrine. It's a completely useless stupid regulatory bureaucratic feel-good law. So now I get to feel like a criminal if I have a cold. I get to feel bad if I have an SUV because it has a bigger carbon footprint, except cows and volcanoes produce more noxious fumes than cars ever will. I get to wait while my new gun is in 10 day jail while some gang banger gets one off the black market. The government has done so well so far in regulating drugs, I'm sure they'd be able to stop the MASSIVE influx of illegal weapons the demand would bring if guns were outlawed in the US. Fast and Furious is a perfect example of this.

Government regulation has historically been piss poor in terms of any real effectiveness. People who follow the law aren't the ones to worry about. The one's to worry about never follow the law. Shocking.

So no. I don't support a background check for magazines. I support enforcing a moral code. Kids need to be raised right and parents need to pay attention to the crap kids are watching and playing on that retard box. It's sad when you look at a science fiction book written decades ago (Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451) and can't help but think someone is using it as a road map.

Guntech
12-23-2012, 6:44 PM
Why are we acting like we don't already do background checks? Anything further would require the TSA and their rubber glove treatment.

Yeah WTF is with all of these "I give up" threads. Man the **** up.

nothinghere2c
12-23-2012, 6:45 PM
^---

Nessal
12-23-2012, 6:47 PM
Yeah WTF is with all of these "I give up" threads. Man the **** up.



It's because they are either naive or stupid. Most times, both.

EM2
12-23-2012, 7:45 PM
I'd support background checks in order to post stupid crap like this.

Yeah WTF is with all of these "I give up" threads. Man the **** up.


Lots of cowards out there.
No Compromise on principles.

strangerdude
12-23-2012, 7:48 PM
Let me think about that, fu** NO!

Maestro Pistolero
12-23-2012, 7:52 PM
When you can prove to me that most criminals will submit to that, yes. Otherwise it is a pointless inconvenience. If you aren't disqualified fom owning a gun, then you can have all he guns, mags, and ammo you can afford.

Grumpyoldretiredcop
12-23-2012, 9:53 PM
No. No more compromise!

unusedusername
12-23-2012, 10:15 PM
Look at history.

ATF explored this a loooong time ago and determined that this is a dumb idea.

A background check for a "gun part" isn't useful when the "gun part" is identical to a non-"gun part" that you can buy at a different store.

An AR magazine is bent sheet metal with a bent metal rod (spring). The only part of that magazine that is only used in guns is the polymer follower...

This is why ATF picked that one part "is the gun" and that part must be a firearms specific part that isn't used outside of firearms.

advocatusdiaboli
12-23-2012, 10:15 PM
I'd support background checks in order to post stupid crap like this.
Seconded. Librarian, are you watching? (of course he is LOL). Happy holidays, Librarian.

Damn True
12-23-2012, 10:24 PM
For a magazine? Step away from the bong.

madjack956
12-23-2012, 10:27 PM
I have a hard time asking for permission for anything that was constitutionally guaranteed.

"Shall Not Be Infringed"

forgiven
12-23-2012, 10:38 PM
Never!

curtisfong
12-23-2012, 11:03 PM
Prove efficacy, and show that it does not unduly burden a fundamental right, and you have my support. Until them, cram it where the son don't shine, junior.

rla_2000
12-23-2012, 11:09 PM
Give an inch, they'd take a mile.

warbird
12-23-2012, 11:10 PM
if a person is cleared to buy a gun then why should he have to do anything extra to obtain mags/ammo. That is just another way to rip the law biding citizen off and make it too expensive for the average citizen to own a weapon. It is all about making it hard to impossible for the honest citizen to obtain a functional weapon to protect themselves. What rationale reason can a legislator give for allowing someone to own a gun but then deny them the right to own mags or ammunition unless they pay an additional blackmail fee?

johnthomas
12-23-2012, 11:11 PM
It is a feeding device, just like hands and fingers loading a single shot. What's next, a timed test to insure we cannot load a gun to fast. The frame or receiver is the gun, not the magazine. Should we have a background on anything remotely related to guns? A two by four could be a stock, a water pipe a barrel, a nail the firing pin. Don't give an inch, they are already planing on taking what they want without our suggestions.

SMR510
12-23-2012, 11:38 PM
They are not interested in compromise, their version of compromise is getting exactly what they want and taking everything we want off the table. Do not forget that we have a right to our small arms and they have no right to take them or neuter them!

What you are proposing is insane and they will never give us rights they have taken away back without the courts forcing them to! They are pushing to get the entire country to go to 10 round mags yet they are going to give us our 30s back?

uhlan1
12-24-2012, 12:01 AM
it allowed us to boy/own/use standard (>10) capacity magazines? If magazines were treated nationwide as they are here, with the exception that, with a background check, you can purchase any magazines you like in any capacity you like.

I know it sounds evil, an bad, but I would personally support undergoing a few more background checks if it allowed me to own high caps.

Not a bloody chance. They already did a background check for each and every gun I slap the silly thing into. Do you want to compromise on a permit required for ammunition purposes as well. This whole movement is filled with surrender monkeys.
Have you emailed your state and federal representatives?
The governor?
Make your voices heard outside this forum! We are many. We are many millions of democrats. We are millions of union members. We are millions of independents. A quarter million (many union members) are employed by firearms manufacturers and large distributors alone. We are only weak if we remain silent.
Remember their true goal, their long term goal, is not gun control. It is no guns. And one way of doing it without an outright ban is to make exercising our sport so tedious and expensive that people just give it up.

Spawn
12-24-2012, 1:44 AM
Sacramento would probably slap on a 10 day waiting period on these mags
:puke:

ClarenceBoddicker
12-24-2012, 1:59 AM
No, making any deals with the devil (Gun Grabbers) is stupid.

gixxnrocket
12-24-2012, 6:39 AM
Hell NO!

Look, we all passed a background check the first time we all purchased a fire arm. I consent for that one. However my legal status and character have been unchanged. Why would the government need me to reverrify the same information repeatedly. Be it ammo, guns, powder, targets, (as mentioned above) cold medicine. I feel the BG checks are being used as 1. An intimitator or deturant. 2. An additional means for my purchases to be tracked monitored and eventually regulated.

Instead of going along with the government's and media's pursuit of BG checks why arent we calling for the government to actually do their JOB. Arrest or detain & seize arms from those individuals that are judged and ruled as felons, domestically violent or mentally ill at the exact time of the occurance.
Problem solved. Step off my 1st 2nd 4th and 5th amendments

TacticalChihuahua
12-24-2012, 6:52 AM
The idea is packaged nice but is just not sound. All of this bargaining and middle ground crap is just a way for the politicians to move closer and closer to disarming the public. That is their ultimate goal. Will an AWB lower gun crime? It won't now and it didn't 10 years ago, and they know that. It's symbolic and a move in their desired direction of completely disarming this country

TacticalChihuahua
12-24-2012, 6:54 AM
Hell NO!

Look, we all passed a background check the first time we all purchased a fire arm. I consent for that one. However my legal status and character have been unchanged. Why would the government need me to reverrify the same information repeatedly. Be it ammo, guns, powder, targets, (as mentioned above) cold medicine. I feel the BG checks are being used as 1. An intimitator or deturant. 2. An additional means for my purchases to be tracked monitored and eventually regulated.

Instead of going along with the government's and media's pursuit of BG checks why arent we calling for the government to actually do their JOB. Arrest or detain & seize arms from those individuals that are judged and ruled as felons, domestically violent or mentally ill at the exact time of the occurance.
Problem solved. Step off my 1st 2nd 4th and 5th amendments

And this ^^^

Well put sir... I'm giving this a big NO

spetsnaz
12-24-2012, 6:54 AM
what???? get out of here with that garbage. they've taken our rights away and we are still negotiation bull#$# get out of here with that s$%^

njineermike
12-24-2012, 6:57 AM
Why not a background check to buy olive oil, paper towels or toothpaste? Those are other inanimate objects that aren't firearms, either.

TacticalChihuahua
12-24-2012, 7:00 AM
Yeah WTF is with all of these "I give up" threads. Man the **** up.

Yes!! Hahahhaha :rofl2:

mif_slim
12-24-2012, 8:00 AM
No for me also. Adding 1 reg to firearms is 1 right taken away from us.

tcrpe
12-24-2012, 8:02 AM
I don't see a lot of support here for boxing up the crazies and cracking down on the criminals.

I wonder why not.

the86d
12-24-2012, 8:08 AM
For something that the pinko-commies suffering from Hoplophobia are so scared about, I have not problem with a BG check, but not registration, and not per item, but per sale of sets, I would be okay with this. If there is a registration, then I reject the whole idea completely. However this is what they do, they chip away every time they pass something bit-by-bit. First Rifle BG check, then Registration... Every inch just makes the each step takes away a little more... baby steps, like when liberals took their first acid, just a bit more, just a bit more, until one day they were Raging Liberal-looneys.

The same BG check I think could be implemented fully and automated with a valid ID withing the state, all without registration (rifles!). A tag could be put in place by the DMV (I am sure they have plenty of data-room for a single bit) 1, or 0. 1 means you have something that prevents you from buying things that are firearm related... It could just be a swipe, and have checks and balances, and all at Liberal's expense, since they want it. Hell, we can add it to the future marijuana-tax, once the ignorant push that through... :)

the86d
12-24-2012, 8:09 AM
For something that the pinko-commies suffering from Hoplophobia are so scared about, I have not problem with a BG check, but not registration, and not per item, but per sale of sets, I would be okay with this. If there is a registration, then I reject the whole idea completely.

The same BG check I think could be implemented fully and automated with a valid ID withing the state, all without registration (rifles!). A tag could be put in place by the DMV (I am sure they have plenty of data-room for a single bit) 1, or 0. 1 means you have something that prevents you from buying things that are firearm related... It could just be a swipe, and have checks and balances, and all at Liberal's expense, since they want it. :)

Dragunov
12-24-2012, 8:40 AM
it allowed us to boy/own/use standard (>10) capacity magazines? If magazines were treated nationwide as they are here, with the exception that, with a background check, you can purchase any magazines you like in any capacity you like.

I know it sounds evil, an bad, but I would personally support undergoing a few more background checks if it allowed me to own high caps.That's because you live in a place that already restricts your magazines. Why not add a little more dog poop to the cookie batter.

advocatusdiaboli
12-24-2012, 9:02 AM
I know it sounds evil, an bad, but I would personally support undergoing a few more background checks if it allowed me to own high caps.

You know how the antis work right? You'll make the concession and then they'll ask for another, and another, and another—until they've got all our guns. They told us that the bullet button was a good compromise they could live with and that lasted a few years, now they want bullet buttons taken away. They'll never stop so we must never give an inch because they see that divisive weakness and it emboldens them to take the next step.

artoaster
12-24-2012, 9:32 AM
The whole hi-cap magazine restriction thing is stupid. It won't do a thing to prevent any bad things from happening.

People calling for this expect gun owners to concede some sort of restriction when they know all they're doing is lashing out with anger or futility at american gun culture.

They expect to gain a victory here and then if the pro-gun agrees with that then they can think they are right- more gun control!

Next is the AR15, which they wish to demonize and yet their firearms knowledge is almost non-existent. Well, they know AK and Glock.

Common sense dictates that they go after institutions charged with controlling people who need control by society's laws- criminal justice, mental health, prescription drug providers, correctional agencies and demand better results in dealing with at-risk people.

donny douchebag
12-24-2012, 9:42 AM
It's because they are either naive or stupid. Most times, both.

Or they see the writing on the wall. What are all you internet tough guys gonna do? Stamp your feet, whine, and write letters/call your reps in Sac? Yeah, like that has worked in the past.

thefitter
12-24-2012, 10:44 AM
"...dog poop to the cookie batter."

You guys crack me up!

rugershooter
12-24-2012, 9:58 PM
What's with all the damn threads about trading things in exchange for some rights back? Did everybody's balls get cut off or something? You all know how the antis work. Give an inch and they're take a mile. Don't offer anything. MY rights are not for sale because you (wrongly)think that it will stop people who would murder innocent people.

Bobby Hated
12-24-2012, 10:04 PM
The fact that OP even asked this question shows that the anti gunners are framing the debate. Smarten up people!!

12voltguy
12-24-2012, 10:23 PM
Look at history.

ATF explored this a loooong time ago and determined that this is a dumb idea.

A background check for a "gun part" isn't useful when the "gun part" is identical to a non-"gun part" that you can buy at a different store.

An AR magazine is bent sheet metal with a bent metal rod (spring). The only part of that magazine that is only used in guns is the polymer follower...

This is why ATF picked that one part "is the gun" and that part must be a firearms specific part that isn't used outside of firearms.

that describes a barrel:D:facepalm:

FoxTrot87
12-24-2012, 10:51 PM
it allowed us to boy/own/use standard (>10) capacity magazines? If magazines were treated nationwide as they are here, with the exception that, with a background check, you can purchase any magazines you like in any capacity you like.

I know it sounds evil, an bad, but I would personally support undergoing a few more background checks if it allowed me to own high caps.

How about a passive ID verification system for all sales in the US. Not immediately accessible for location and no method of recording items.

This would also be required to turn on a car, buy gas, purchase food, vote, go to school, and etc.

Kharn
12-25-2012, 4:40 AM
A background check on an 11 round mag will stop nothing. Criminals will have their girlfriends straw purchase them, or they'll make do with 10.

The Shadow
12-25-2012, 4:53 AM
Every law the gun grabbers want to create is focused on law abiding gun owners. If they really wanted to make it more difficult on criminals, they would make laws that focus on criminals. The problem is, part of their constituency are criminals, so they would be cutting their own throats by making laws that throw them in prison for a very long time.

donw
12-25-2012, 5:07 AM
why not return to the M1 Garand style "Clips"?

if something like "Undergoing a background check for magazine purchase"...each magazine would have to be serial numbered... government, at all level, is bad enough without adding more "Numbers" to be recorded.

all it would do, IMO, is add to the nightmare of what is called "Law"...

donw
12-25-2012, 5:11 AM
Every law the gun grabbers want to create is focused on law abiding gun owners. If they really wanted to make it more difficult on criminals, they would make laws that focus on criminals. The problem is, part of their constituency are criminals, so they would be cutting their own throats by making laws that throw them in prison for a very long time.

^very true...however...keep in mind...legislators CREATE more problems than they solve with most irrational laws they pass...

i believe that they have a "What can we make illegal today?" approach, NOT "What can we solve today?" approach.

CharlesV
12-25-2012, 5:15 AM
My answer is NO. I went along with BG checks when buying the gun, so thats all, that it.

What i would support, which i dont see as compromise but improvement:

1) Tiered age limits for guns, like 25 years old for a small caliber rifle and 35 years old for a handgun.
2) Mental health checks, but i dont see how to do this without massive corruption
3) Permanent loss of guns when the guns were accessed by minors or anyone other than the owner.
4) Severe and harshest penalties when guns are used in crimes, aggression or intimidation.

The reason i say improvement is because many owners take guns for granted, they are poor self-policemen and need to see the extreme seriousness and responsibities that come with mature ownership.

I said mental health checks but i didnt say it strongly enough. I have a friend who is a full-blown alcoholic and another who is a full-blown drug abuser. Both are high everyday and when shooting. I refuse to join either one. If you cant drive drunk how can you shoot drunk? Both say they are in control and both say, Hey its my RIGHT! I say BULL****, neither one should have a gun, in my view, and any others like them. When i hear Not One Inch, yeah who is saying it?

The Shadow
12-25-2012, 5:21 AM
^very true...however...keep in mind...legislators CREATE more problems than they solve with most irrational laws they pass...

i believe that they have a "What can we make illegal today?" approach, NOT "What can we solve today?" approach.

I think it's worse than that. In my observations, I've noticed that Democrats create gun laws as a form of political capital so that they can later say, "Hey vote for me. See what laws I created to make YOU safer ?" It doesn't matter to them that it's not true, but their name is on the new law, and they can use it to their benefit because no one will actually do any fact checking.

The Shadow
12-25-2012, 5:38 AM
My answer is NO. I went along with BG checks when buying the gun, so thats all, that it.

What i would support, which i dont see as compromise but improvement:

1) Tiered age limits for guns, like 25 years old for a small caliber rifle and 35 years old for a handgun.
2) Mental health checks, but i dont see how to do this without massive corruption
3) Permanent loss of guns when the guns were accessed by minors or anyone other than the owner.
4) Severe and harshest penalties when guns are used in crimes, aggression or intimidation.

The reason i say improvement is because many owners take guns for granted, they are poor self-policemen and need to see the extreme seriousness and responsibities that come with mature ownership.

I said mental health checks but i didnt say it strongly enough. I have a friend who is a full-blown alcoholic and another who is a full-blown drug abuser. Both are high everyday and when shooting. I refuse to join either one. If you cant drive drunk how can you shoot drunk? Both say they are in control and both say, Hey its my RIGHT! I say BULL****, neither one should have a gun, in my view, and any others like them. When i hear Not One Inch, yeah who is saying it?

Well, if what you're saying about your friends is true, and they bought their firearms without the help of someone else, then they committed a federal offense, because the law prohibits alcoholics and drug abusers from buying guns, and the 4473 specifically asks if they are alcoholics or drug abusers.

As for mental health checks that focus on mental stability beyond alcohol and drug abuse, (i.e. mental retardation, paranoia, schizophrenia, depression, suicidal), if a person hasn't been committed under 5150, then it's up to the family and their doctor to see that s/he is properly identified as a mental defective.

Part of the major problem in California is the fact that mental health institutions are few and far between. Patton State in San Bernardino only houses the criminally insane, and in other places, there has to be immediate, articulable facts to support confining a person involutarily for 72 hour observation. In other words, if you can't say that a person is a danger to themselves or others, and they refuse to commit themselves, that person walks. It doesn't matter what they did yesterday or last week, there has to be immediate evidence at the moment or they can't be taken into custody.

Ford8N
12-25-2012, 5:41 AM
Hell NO!

Look, we all passed a background check the first time we all purchased a fire arm. I consent for that one. However my legal status and character have been unchanged. Why would the government need me to reverrify the same information repeatedly. Be it ammo, guns, powder, targets, (as mentioned above) cold medicine. I feel the BG checks are being used as 1. An intimitator or deturant. 2. An additional means for my purchases to be tracked monitored and eventually regulated.

Very true. The background check after the first one is just intimidation of the law abiding gun owner to discourage getting a gun. And it's working. Criminals could care less about background checks.

Instead of going along with the government's and media's pursuit of BG checks why arent we calling for the government to actually do their JOB. Arrest or detain & seize arms from those individuals that are judged and ruled as felons, domestically violent or mentally ill at the exact time of the occurance.
Problem solved. Step off my 1st 2nd 4th and 5th amendments

That is what Wayne laPierre said during his interview. But also, Adam Lanza had no prior criminal activity before he slaughtered all those people. There is only one way to stop evil monsters like him, the NRA suggested it, but, the soccer mom's are to scared of reality.

I don't see a lot of support here for boxing up the crazies and cracking down on the criminals.

I wonder why not.

Indeed, I wondered that myself.

rugershooter
12-25-2012, 6:30 AM
My answer is NO. I went along with BG checks when buying the gun, so thats all, that it.

What i would support, which i dont see as compromise but improvement:

1) Tiered age limits for guns, like 25 years old for a small caliber rifle and 35 years old for a handgun.

Why? What is so special about those arbitrary age numbers? What makes you or anybody else qualified to decide what is the appropriate age to exercise rights? By your numbers, I couldn't own small caliber rifles or handguns yet. But the United States Navy trusts me with M16s, M240s, grenade launchers, and other weapons; yet I couldn't own even a handgun because the antis like you don't recognize my rights.

2) Mental health checks, but i dont see how to do this without massive corruption

Who gets to decide the criteria for being mentally sane and who employs them?

3) Permanent loss of guns when the guns were accessed by minors or anyone other than the owner.

So if I have kids and they ever access a gun for self defense I would permanently be denied my right to keep and bear arms? If I forgot to lock the safe that's a justification for infringement of my rights?

4) Severe and harshest penalties when guns are used in crimes, aggression or intimidation.

We already have laws that enhance the penalties for using firearms in crimes. There are even laws that enhance the penalties for using specific action types such as semi auto handguns. Yet they don't seem to work in stopping these murderers. It sure as hell didn't stop the guy who pulled a gun on me.

The reason i say improvement is because many owners take guns for granted, they are poor self-policemen and need to see the extreme seriousness and responsibities that come with mature ownership.

I have been shooting since I was 5. I've been taught to be responsible and careful. I don't need other people to police me, and sure don't need compromising antis like you deciding the criteria for when or even if I can exercise my rights. The types and number of guns I own are none of your business. As long as I'm not murdering other people, what I do with my guns is not your concern. Criminals don't obey the law. Is there something you don't understand about that? Because the background checks, arbitrary age limitations, licensing and other bulls**t doesn't stop criminals. You know who stops criminals? The good guy who has a gun and shoots the bad guy. But because of antis like you, I cant carry a gun here in California. Thankfully I can still carry a knife. But I'd bet that if you had your way, I wouldn't be able to carry the kinds of knives I like to carry.

I said mental health checks but i didnt say it strongly enough. I have a friend who is a full-blown alcoholic and another who is a full-blown drug abuser. Both are high everyday and when shooting. I refuse to join either one. If you cant drive drunk how can you shoot drunk? Both say they are in control and both say, Hey its my RIGHT! I say BULL****, neither one should have a gun, in my view, and any others like them. When i hear Not One Inch, yeah who is saying it?

Answers in red

njineermike
12-25-2012, 8:03 AM
My answer is NO. I went along with BG checks when buying the gun, so thats all, that it.

What i would support, which i dont see as compromise but improvement:

1) Tiered age limits for guns, like 25 years old for a small caliber rifle and 35 years old for a handgun.
2) Mental health checks, but i dont see how to do this without massive corruption
3) Permanent loss of guns when the guns were accessed by minors or anyone other than the owner.
4) Severe and harshest penalties when guns are used in crimes, aggression or intimidation.

The reason i say improvement is because many owners take guns for granted, they are poor self-policemen and need to see the extreme seriousness and responsibities that come with mature ownership.

I said mental health checks but i didnt say it strongly enough. I have a friend who is a full-blown alcoholic and another who is a full-blown drug abuser. Both are high everyday and when shooting. I refuse to join either one. If you cant drive drunk how can you shoot drunk? Both say they are in control and both say, Hey its my RIGHT! I say BULL****, neither one should have a gun, in my view, and any others like them. When i hear Not One Inch, yeah who is saying it?

You just posted in another thread that the NRA doesn't stand up for our rights enough and questioned the motives and intentions of their actions, then propose, voluntarily, to give up WAY more ground than they ever would.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=10011488#post10011488

skyscraper
12-25-2012, 8:07 AM
My answer is NO. I went along with BG checks when buying the gun, so thats all, that it.

What i would support, which i dont see as compromise but improvement:

1) Tiered age limits for guns, like 25 years old for a small caliber rifle and 35 years old for a handgun.
2) Mental health checks, but i dont see how to do this without massive corruption
3) Permanent loss of guns when the guns were accessed by minors or anyone other than the owner.
4) Severe and harshest penalties when guns are used in crimes, aggression or intimidation.

The reason i say improvement is because many owners take guns for granted, they are poor self-policemen and need to see the extreme seriousness and responsibities that come with mature ownership.

I said mental health checks but i didnt say it strongly enough. I have a friend who is a full-blown alcoholic and another who is a full-blown drug abuser. Both are high everyday and when shooting. I refuse to join either one. If you cant drive drunk how can you shoot drunk? Both say they are in control and both say, Hey its my RIGHT! I say BULL****, neither one should have a gun, in my view, and any others like them. When i hear Not One Inch, yeah who is saying it?

Let me guess, you are over 35?

Crdmiller
12-25-2012, 8:29 AM
In reply to the op's query;

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The Wingnut
12-25-2012, 11:41 AM
NOT ONE INCH!

bergmen
12-25-2012, 11:56 AM
I voted absolutely NOT. And here is an article that explains it best:

http://bit.ly/TbTGVG

"Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance..."

This is a very good read and should be required reading by everyone in political office working on firearm restrictions of any kind.

Dan

morfeeis
12-25-2012, 11:58 AM
**** NO!

EM2
12-25-2012, 4:15 PM
How about a passive ID verification system for all sales in the US. Not immediately accessible for location and no method of recording items.

This would also be required to turn on a car, buy gas, purchase food, vote, go to school, and etc.



How about Freedom & Liberty.
You guys make me sick.:mad:

EM2
12-25-2012, 4:24 PM
My answer is NO. I went along with BG checks when buying the gun, so thats all, that it.

What i would support, which i dont see as compromise but improvement:

1) Tiered age limits for guns, like 25 years old for a small caliber rifle and 35 years old for a handgun.
2) Mental health checks, but i dont see how to do this without massive corruption
3) Permanent loss of guns when the guns were accessed by minors or anyone other than the owner.
4) Severe and harshest penalties when guns are used in crimes, aggression or intimidation.

The reason i say improvement is because many owners take guns for granted, they are poor self-policemen and need to see the extreme seriousness and responsibities that come with mature ownership.

I said mental health checks but i didnt say it strongly enough. I have a friend who is a full-blown alcoholic and another who is a full-blown drug abuser. Both are high everyday and when shooting. I refuse to join either one. If you cant drive drunk how can you shoot drunk? Both say they are in control and both say, Hey its my RIGHT! I say BULL****, neither one should have a gun, in my view, and any others like them. When i hear Not One Inch, yeah who is saying it?



http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=10011488#post10011488
post #57
I agree with GaryV. There was a time, when i was still NRA, that NRA was very strong and consistent and smart. Some years ago they changed, i didnt change, and i found they were speaking less for me and more for something else. I even thought at times they were working against the interests of gun owners; i couldnt make any sense of their rationales and they didnt explain themselves either. Today i ask, whose side are they really on?

I think its absurd for posters to say that unless a criticizer starts a New NRA today that his comments are pointless, instead we need to find all the common ground we can even though NRA might not be it.

Can anyone see where our common ground is in this thread or would you all rather bicker?




You seem a bit conflicted.
You say no to compromise but then go on to make firearms ownership more restrictive.
How bout you come back when you have collected your thoughts into something resembling common sense.

mrdd
12-28-2012, 10:32 AM
Look at history.

ATF explored this a loooong time ago and determined that this is a dumb idea.

A background check for a "gun part" isn't useful when the "gun part" is identical to a non-"gun part" that you can buy at a different store.

An AR magazine is bent sheet metal with a bent metal rod (spring). The only part of that magazine that is only used in guns is the polymer follower...

This is why ATF picked that one part "is the gun" and that part must be a firearms specific part that isn't used outside of firearms.

that describes a barrel:D:facepalm:

Yes but a barrel is just a piece of bar stock with a hole drilled down its axis. Not exactly rocket science.

dfletcher
12-28-2012, 10:48 AM
Again, why are gun owners the ones who must "give up something"?

I have an idea. In CA we have something called a COE. It is a further check by the state allowing certain benefits to the holder such as exemption from the "1 per 30" handgun restriction and "walk out same day" with your purchase on C & R guns, to include handguns. Instead of offering what we'll give up, let's ask the CA legislature to allow C & R holders to purchase greater capacity magazines. I'd even allow a boost in the annual fee. Let's ask THEM to compromise for a change.

And I'll ask again - if gun owners agree that availability or use of a 30 round magazine is an issue, how do we plan on opposing restrictions on the possession of three separate 10 round magazines? If anyone believes anti-gunners won't subsequently focus on that, I'd suggest they read Feinstein's bill or re-run David Gregory's interview with LaPierre when he asked why magazine capacity shouldn't be limited to "5 or 10 rounds". So 10 rounds as a maximum is no longer the low ceiling - 5 rounds has been suggested.

woodsman
12-28-2012, 11:13 AM
I don't see a lot of support here for boxing up the crazies and cracking down on the criminals.

I wonder why not.

This!


Enforce the already too many laws.
Keep violent criminals incarcerated.

pHredd9mm
12-28-2012, 11:19 AM
Only for magazines like "Time", "Newsweek", "People", "Mother Jones", etc. :)

Kukuforguns
12-28-2012, 11:34 AM
What is the purpose of the background checks for +10 magazine purchases?

Let's assume the purpose is to decrease the amount of gun violence. So, let's start with asking how many violent crimes are enabled by the use of +10 magazines. Let's make the further (and incorrect) assumption that your proposed law would prevent crimes involving the discharge of more than 10 rounds. The vast majority of gun violence involves the discharge of fewer than 10 rounds. Accordingly, any reduction in gun violence is going to be statistically insignificant with respect to the total amount of gun violence. So, right of the bat your proposed law will not have a statistically significant impact on reducing gun violence even if we make the incorrect assumption I mentioned.

Next question: Are there ways violent criminals could circumvent the background checks in order to commit the few crimes that involve the discharge of more than 10 rounds? Here the answer is clearly yes. Private party sales. Home manufacturing. Theft. Carrying multiple guns. Carrying multiple magazines. So, not only would your proposed law fail to have any statistically significant impact (even if perfectly implemented), it also is true that the law is easily circumvented by criminals.

Given that your proposed law would not, and cannot, achieve the laudable goal of reducing gun violence -- what's the point? The only reasons to pass this law have nothing to do with reducing gun violence, but rather with reducing/obstructing lawful citizens' ownership of +10 magazines.

SNCaliber
12-28-2012, 11:51 AM
no and never and no.

The Gleam
12-28-2012, 12:09 PM
Seung-Hui Cho used ONLY 10-Round mags at Virgnia Tech. He bought them on Ebay.

Scott Evans Dekraai used only 10 round magazines at the Salon Meritage hair salon in Seal Beach, CALIFORNIA (where high-capacity magazines are BANNED for sale) in his 9mm Springfield, Heckler & Koch .45, and a Smith & Wesson .44 magnum REVOLVER which does not use magazines at all.

10 Rounds, or 20 rounds, or 100 rounds makes little difference to the person intent on killing someone. If they have that much intent, they'll just change magazines faster which is more of a threat if one 10-rounder jams than if their single 100-rounder jams and that is all they have.

Timothy McVeigh didn't use any form of firearm magazines. And James Holmes would have blown up his whole apartment building, rigged to kill a likely 57 people with items that can be purchased from Home Depot, had his crazy night-at-the-moves plan been stopped.

So NO, and NO, oh and by the way, NO! It might make you feel like you've done something, but who have you blocked? Yourself, and millions of others that would never use their high-capacity magazines in a crime or to commit senseless murders. You have done NOTHING to stop guys like the above.

dfletcher
12-28-2012, 1:23 PM
I don't see a lot of support here for boxing up the crazies and cracking down on the criminals.

I wonder why not.

If the subject is addressed specifically I think you'll see much supprt for "cracking down on criminals". "Enforce the laws" is a common way of expressing such support.

"Boxing up the crazies" becomes a bit more difficult. Is a GI who received individual psych counseling a "crazy"? If a GI doing hazardous duty attended some sort of PTSD class as SOP when separating - is he a "crazy"? An ancient TRO earned during a divorce? Those pushing gun control tend to want to cast as wide a net as possible. Gun owners tend to not trust them as a result.

So "crazy = no gun" - OK, fine. But a close eye needs to be kept on who & what's defined as crazy.

Bobio
12-28-2012, 2:02 PM
Back ground checks on Magazines are stupid and a waste of time and money.

Baja Daze
12-28-2012, 2:10 PM
HELL NO! And enough with these threads full of capitulation already! :mad:

Californio
12-28-2012, 2:33 PM
I have been thinking along those lines.

Do a COE check, then give me a CCW no questions asked, cash and carry all firearms, buy all ammunition, buy all magazines, no safe handgun list, ship in -State PPT's between FFL's, no driving twice or both parties present crap, let me have NFA firearms - stay the hell out of my life.

You get to check my Status every two years and you only have x days to do it.

In AZ my BIL has a CCW and that is pretty much how it works.

Edit: Screw the registration databases also, just check my eligibility every two years.







Again, why are gun owners the ones who must "give up something"?

I have an idea. In CA we have something called a COE. It is a further check by the state allowing certain benefits to the holder such as exemption from the "1 per 30" handgun restriction and "walk out same day" with your purchase on C & R guns, to include handguns. Instead of offering what we'll give up, let's ask the CA legislature to allow C & R holders to purchase greater capacity magazines. I'd even allow a boost in the annual fee. Let's ask THEM to compromise for a change.

And I'll ask again - if gun owners agree that availability or use of a 30 round magazine is an issue, how do we plan on opposing restrictions on the possession of three separate 10 round magazines? If anyone believes anti-gunners won't subsequently focus on that, I'd suggest they read Feinstein's bill or re-run David Gregory's interview with LaPierre when he asked why magazine capacity shouldn't be limited to "5 or 10 rounds". So 10 rounds as a maximum is no longer the low ceiling - 5 rounds has been suggested.

mshill
12-28-2012, 2:39 PM
Stupid ridiculous. Do this and the responsible thing to do would be a background check to put gas in my car, after all, cars kill as many or more people a year as guns.

richard chese
12-28-2012, 2:47 PM
It's because they are either naive or stupid. Most times, both.

or liberal

richard chese
12-28-2012, 2:49 PM
Only for magazines like "Time", "Newsweek", "People", "Mother Jones", etc. :)

+1;)

chris
12-28-2012, 2:51 PM
For something that the pinko-commies suffering from Hoplophobia are so scared about, I have not problem with a BG check, but not registration, and not per item, but per sale of sets, I would be okay with this. If there is a registration, then I reject the whole idea completely.

The same BG check I think could be implemented fully and automated with a valid ID withing the state, all without registration (rifles!). A tag could be put in place by the DMV (I am sure they have plenty of data-room for a single bit) 1, or 0. 1 means you have something that prevents you from buying things that are firearm related... It could just be a swipe, and have checks and balances, and all at Liberal's expense, since they want it. :)

wrong no more compromises that will screw us in the end.

You know how the antis work right? You'll make the concession and then they'll ask for another, and another, and another—until they've got all our guns. They told us that the bullet button was a good compromise they could live with and that lasted a few years, now they want bullet buttons taken away. They'll never stop so we must never give an inch because they see that divisive weakness and it emboldens them to take the next step.

exactly. the BB is legal until someone wants to make it ilegal. sorry no more. the line must be drawn.

cantcme
12-28-2012, 2:59 PM
How about a thorough investigation of anyone that proposes to take my rights away? Who are you connected to? Who donates to your cause? What level of armed protection do you have? Am I paying for your protection? Have you ever worked a day in your life?

mike.h
12-28-2012, 3:07 PM
no, please stop, we have enough gun laws

sharxbyte
12-31-2012, 7:23 AM
Wow... Lots of hot tempers and sharp tongues in here... I wasnt trying to start a flame war, and it was more of a research question (hence the poll) than anything...

Hippies_Have_Guns_Too
12-31-2012, 9:13 AM
Never! Not one inch!

nothinghere2c sums it up for me. I would only add: Plus its nobody's freak'n business what a law abiding citizen owns. Plus where's the corpus delicti in owning a high capacity magazine? No corpus delicti. No crime. Period!




my opinion, no.

who will pay for the check each time you buy one? You.
who may be denied a magazine based off any arbitrary prohibition in the check? You.
who will get screwed the next time they want to add background checks to ammo or uppers or cleaning supplies? You.

its sad really...

Dragunov
12-31-2012, 8:48 PM
My answer is NO. I went along with BG checks when buying the gun, so thats all, that it.

What i would support, which i dont see as compromise but improvement:

1) Tiered age limits for guns, like 25 years old for a small caliber rifle and 35 years old for a handgun.
2) Mental health checks, but i dont see how to do this without massive corruption
3) Permanent loss of guns when the guns were accessed by minors or anyone other than the owner.
4) Severe and harshest penalties when guns are used in crimes, aggression or intimidation.

The reason i say improvement is because many owners take guns for granted, they are poor self-policemen and need to see the extreme seriousness and responsibities that come with mature ownership.

I said mental health checks but i didnt say it strongly enough. I have a friend who is a full-blown alcoholic and another who is a full-blown drug abuser. Both are high everyday and when shooting. I refuse to join either one. If you cant drive drunk how can you shoot drunk? Both say they are in control and both say, Hey its my RIGHT! I say BULL****, neither one should have a gun, in my view, and any others like them. When i hear Not One Inch, yeah who is saying it?Explain to the 21 year old combat vet that at home, he cant be trusted with a potato gun. You're also further taking any reasonable chance of my teenage daughters, who are well trained with their weapons and well schooled in safety, being able to defend themselves during a break in. You are further telling me that you wish for me to lose my firearms because I bothered teaching my kids how to handle firearms safely, and responsibly enough to the point where they are allowed to keep them at hand UNSUPERVISED!

It's this kind of thinking that got us into this mess to begin with. I have no answer for your drunk buddies, other than to keep your distance and "Darwin award" There are certain acceptable risks with the second amendment, just as there is with owning and operating a motor vehicle. As a matter of fact, why wouldn't you want even STRICTER rules for operating a motor vehicle? They kill far more people, in an even more grotesque fashion than a firearm.

Would you put the same restrictions on owning an automobile? If not, then you're a hypocrite. And by the way.... As STUPID as they are.... Your "buddies" are correct... As much as it pains me to say it as I DON'T approve of handling firearms while drinking.
I DO however, agree with your fourth point. SEVERELY punish ANYone who uses a firearm in during a crime!

stix213
12-31-2012, 8:52 PM
INCH - NOT ONE!

rplusplus
12-31-2012, 8:54 PM
1) Will not make streets safer
2) Will not ensure that children will not die at school
3) Will not ensure that moviegoers will not die at Batman Movies
4) Will not do any of the things that feel good Democrats/Liberals will promise the Sheeple.
5) Will only make is that honest law abiding gun owners feed more money into the coffers of the state at the detriment of low income minorities who are the primary victims of violence.

Dragunov
12-31-2012, 8:56 PM
Wow... Lots of hot tempers and sharp tongues in here... I wasnt trying to start a flame war, and it was more of a research question (hence the poll) than anything...A debate isn't a flame war. I think it's an excellent topic to mull over with each other. Good call. :)

winnre
12-31-2012, 9:17 PM
I say after one gun you need a safe, not a lock.