Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-24-2013, 8:44 AM
GayGuns's Avatar
GayGuns GayGuns is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: LA, CA
Posts: 640
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default WORSE THAN ASSAULT RIFLES BAN -- Universal Background Checks: the Liberal Holy Grail

Universal Background Checks: the Liberal Holy Grail
By Rick Averill

SNIPPET:
Feinstein's assault rifle ban has been removed from the Senate gun-control bill. While that is good news, it was recognized from the beginning as a bridge too far. What has survived, and may well become law, all in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, will actually be far worse.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:31 AM
LoneYote's Avatar
LoneYote LoneYote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 614
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Lost me on paragraph 4 when he said only FFL's can sell guns are shows.
__________________
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
let me guess this means the case will move as fast as a Tuttle on heroin now instead of a snail on salt.................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Need we have a moderator behind every blade of grass?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:42 AM
PoorChoiceofUsername PoorChoiceofUsername is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 50
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow. I really need to buy more Alcoa stock.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:42 AM
Virginian Virginian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I really believe the best way out of "Universal background checks" (actually registration) is to identify those either qualified or disqualified to purchase on their drivers license. At that point I have no problem with police trolling for illegal sales with an improperly marked license, and it leaves no trace of which of the vast majority of citizens is buying a gun.
I see no harm in promoting this ourselves, and if nothing else it will smoke out those who actually want not checks but full registration.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:45 AM
Yankee Clipper Yankee Clipper is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Orange County
Posts: 414
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It never ceases to amaze me that to be a ‘Liberal’ means someone who wants the Central Government to define, catalog, and regulate every aspect of our lives. I used to think liberals had a ‘live-and-let-live’ philosophy. When it comes to guns and gun laws my idea of liberal thinking has been turned on its soft head.
__________________
"That Government should be of laws rather than of men"
Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And, to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!"
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:46 AM
rimfire78's Avatar
rimfire78 rimfire78 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA.
Posts: 1,524
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneYote View Post
Lost me on paragraph 4 when he said only FFL's can sell guns are shows.
You have A.D.D.
__________________

NRA,SAF,CGF
CCRKBA
member
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-24-2013, 10:57 AM
BigAinCA's Avatar
BigAinCA BigAinCA is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Modesto, CA
Posts: 53
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yankee Clipper View Post
I used to think liberals had a ‘live-and-let-live’ philosophy.
I think you are referring to Libertarian...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-24-2013, 11:16 AM
skyking13's Avatar
skyking13 skyking13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: California Central Coast
Posts: 221
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Averill's screed only attempts to misdirect the reader into believing that his version of the opposition's (liberals) position is the actual position that is held.

Background checks should be done on every...repeat, every...firearms transfer. If I didn't know that my middle aged kid had committed a crime sometime after he had left home and then I just gave him a firearm then I contributed to a crime.

My neighbor dies and his spouse wants to give me a revolver he had in the closet for the last 30 years...let's go to an FFL and do a transfer...we'll know if that weapon was stolen in a robbery 40 years ago and reported or had been used in crime that can now be solved.

The INTENT is to keep weapons out of the hands of prohibited people. If this is accomplished then we'll actually see a reduction in gun related crime and we'll be more secure in the right of LAW ABIDING citizens to keep and bear arms without infringement.
__________________
Blue Skies & Tailwinds,
Captain Bob
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-24-2013, 11:21 AM
tiki tiki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Uranus
Posts: 1,430
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

How hard is it to come up with a bill of sale? All my firearms go into my gun trust so there is a paper trail right there.
__________________
"The problem with quotes found on the Internet is you have no way of confirming their authenticity."
-Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-24-2013, 11:34 AM
451040's Avatar
451040 451040 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: So. PRK
Posts: 2,103
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
The INTENT is to keep weapons out of the hands of prohibited people.

The RESULT is a national registry of the possesions of law abiding citizens and the DOJ's continued non-prosecution of gun crimes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-24-2013, 11:41 AM
skyking13's Avatar
skyking13 skyking13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: California Central Coast
Posts: 221
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 451040 View Post
The RESULT is a national registry of the possesions of law abiding citizens and the DOJ's continued non-prosecution of gun crimes.
Perhaps with a cooperative approach we can find a way to only have a registry of those who are prohibited to own firearms and a registry of those firearms that have been reported as stolen or used in a crime. Then a check of a person and a weapon would reveal that if the person is a prohibited person from owning a firearm and if the firearm is a "wanted" weapon. Would this make sense?
__________________
Blue Skies & Tailwinds,
Captain Bob
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-24-2013, 11:47 AM
Abenaki Abenaki is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 411
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Gun control is not about crime.....never has been.....never will be!

Gun control, is about control!
It is about enslavement!
It is about communist and their desire to take over this nation!


Abenaki
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-24-2013, 11:52 AM
skyking13's Avatar
skyking13 skyking13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: California Central Coast
Posts: 221
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abenaki View Post
Gun control is not about crime.....never has been.....never will be!

Gun control, is about control!
It is about enslavement!
It is about communist and their desire to take over this nation!


Abenaki
__________________
Blue Skies & Tailwinds,
Captain Bob
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-24-2013, 11:56 AM
HondaMasterTech's Avatar
HondaMasterTech HondaMasterTech is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
Perhaps with a cooperative approach we can find a way to only have a registry of those who are prohibited to own firearms and a registry of those firearms that have been reported as stolen or used in a crime. Then a check of a person and a weapon would reveal that if the person is a prohibited person from owning a firearm and if the firearm is a "wanted" weapon. Would this make sense?
You cannot legislate guns from the hands of criminals. You can only legislate rights from the law abiding. Involving law-abiding people and their rights when trying to legislate against crime is unacceptable. It is inconvenient when trying to increase public safety but that is not my problem.

Keep your public safety away from my rights.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
(Please skip the lame "two weeks" replies.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:14 PM
guntntteacher guntntteacher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 128
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Considering they want universal background checks for guns, but they never want universal background checks for any other right. The founders wrote the bill of rights in plan language because they knew without them the republic is lost. Criminals never follow laws hence a criminal.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:15 PM
eam's Avatar
eam eam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: West Los Angeles
Posts: 177
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The retirement of the AWB did nothing to reassure me as I assumed all along they were asking for way more regulation than they were going to be able to get -- with the idea of eventually "giving up" their most obviously unlikely demands to force bipartisan concession on the rest.

Sure, they might lose one battle but they'd still win the war. And next time, they can ask for something even more ridiculous and the AWB can be their winning concession, and so on.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:20 PM
ringchild ringchild is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: north bay/marin co.
Posts: 41
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
Perhaps with a cooperative approach we can find a way to only have a registry of those who are prohibited to own firearms and a registry of those firearms that have been reported as stolen or used in a crime. Then a check of a person and a weapon would reveal that if the person is a prohibited person from owning a firearm and if the firearm is a "wanted" weapon. Would this make sense?
no, it would not make sense.
you cannot compromise/cooperate with people who's endgame is the elimination of firearms ownership by private, non-leo citizens.
everything they do....every inch they take....is with the intention of eventually attaining their goal of an unarmed society.

imho, if one cannot be trusted to own a firearm, then one cannot be trusted to live in a free society.
murderers (not killers..there is a difference) need to be locked up permanently....not released.
if ya release a guy who beats his grandmother to death with a hammer, are you really surprised when he shoots the first responders after setting fire to a house?

what about people who, while being guilty of a felony, have never committed a violent act in their life? should they really lose their rights, for life?
if they are not dangerous, they should regain full rights upon release.

same thing with crazies....if someone is truly a danger to themselves or others, why let them walk among us?
great, so they can't get a gun...
they'd probably have no problem getting a car, or a knife, or a barrel of diesel and a truckload of chicken*****.

what about the 18mo old who was put on a terrorist no-fly list last year?
what might their background check show?

no, universal background checks are a terrible idea.
cooperating with the antis in this matter is playing right into their hand.
if they get universal background checks, they will do whatever they can to place as many people in a prohibited category as possible.

how's this for a background check:
if you are free enough to walk into a gun shop with no cuffs on and no police escort, then you haven't been convicted of anything that would prohibit you from owning a gun.

pretty simple, eh?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:25 PM
HondaMasterTech's Avatar
HondaMasterTech HondaMasterTech is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ringchild View Post
no, it would not make sense.
you cannot compromise/cooperate with people who's endgame is the elimination of firearms ownership by private, non-leo citizens.
everything they do....every inch they take....is with the intention of eventually attaining their goal of an unarmed society.

imho, if one cannot be trusted to own a firearm, then one cannot be trusted to live in a free society.
murderers (not killers..there is a difference) need to be locked up permanently....not released.
if ya release a guy who beats his grandmother to death with a hammer, are you really surprised when he shoots the first responders after setting fire to a house?

what about people who, while being guilty of a felony, have never committed a violent act in their life? should they really lose their rights, for life?
if they are not dangerous, they should regain full rights upon release.

same thing with crazies....if someone is truly a danger to themselves or others, why let them walk among us?
great, so they can't get a gun...
they'd probably have no problem getting a car, or a knife, or a barrel of diesel and a truckload of chicken*****.

what about the 18mo old who was put on a terrorist no-fly list last year?
what might their background check show?

no, universal background checks are a terrible idea.
cooperating with the antis in this matter is playing right into their hand.
if they get universal background checks, they will do whatever they can to place as many people in a prohibited category as possible.

how's this for a background check:
if you are free enough to walk into a gun shop with no cuffs on and no police escort, then you haven't been convicted of anything that would prohibit you from owning a gun.

pretty simple, eh?
Yes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
(Please skip the lame "two weeks" replies.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:26 PM
skyking13's Avatar
skyking13 skyking13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: California Central Coast
Posts: 221
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HondaMasterTech View Post
You cannot legislate guns from the hands of criminals. You can only legislate rights from the law abiding. Involving law-abiding people and their rights when trying to legislate against crime is unacceptable. It is inconvenient when trying to increase public safety but that is not my problem.

Keep your public safety away from my rights.
OK...and if it were "your problem", how would you go about keeping prohibited persons from obtaining weapons?
__________________
Blue Skies & Tailwinds,
Captain Bob
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:27 PM
OniKoroshi's Avatar
OniKoroshi OniKoroshi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Capitol of PRK
Posts: 1,106
iTrader: 45 / 100%
Default

Universal background checks for welfare...
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:32 PM
Spyder's Avatar
Spyder Spyder is offline
Just me, baby. Just me.
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In a shack, in the woods
Posts: 9,087
iTrader: 79 / 100%
Default

...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:34 PM
HondaMasterTech's Avatar
HondaMasterTech HondaMasterTech is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
OK...and if it were "your problem", how would you go about keeping prohibited persons from obtaining weapons?
Only remove firearm rights from those too dangerous to be set free in society. Then, don't set those people free in society.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
(Please skip the lame "two weeks" replies.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:40 PM
ssaction's Avatar
ssaction ssaction is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 209
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HondaMasterTech View Post
Only remove firearm rights from those too dangerous to be set free in society. Then, don't set those people free in society.
We had better start building more prisons and mental hospitals then.

And send the Gestapo out to start rounding people up.
__________________
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

NRA Life Patron Member
SAF Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:40 PM
skyking13's Avatar
skyking13 skyking13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: California Central Coast
Posts: 221
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ringchild View Post
no, it would not make sense.
you cannot compromise/cooperate with people who's endgame is the elimination of firearms ownership by private, non-leo citizens.
everything they do....every inch they take....is with the intention of eventually attaining their goal of an unarmed society.

imho, if one cannot be trusted to own a firearm, then one cannot be trusted to live in a free society.
murderers (not killers..there is a difference) need to be locked up permanently....not released.
if ya release a guy who beats his grandmother to death with a hammer, are you really surprised when he shoots the first responders after setting fire to a house?

what about people who, while being guilty of a felony, have never committed a violent act in their life? should they really lose their rights, for life?
if they are not dangerous, they should regain full rights upon release.

same thing with crazies....if someone is truly a danger to themselves or others, why let them walk among us?
great, so they can't get a gun...
they'd probably have no problem getting a car, or a knife, or a barrel of diesel and a truckload of chicken*****.

what about the 18mo old who was put on a terrorist no-fly list last year?
what might their background check show?

no, universal background checks are a terrible idea.
cooperating with the antis in this matter is playing right into their hand.
if they get universal background checks, they will do whatever they can to place as many people in a prohibited category as possible.

how's this for a background check:
if you are free enough to walk into a gun shop with no cuffs on and no police escort, then you haven't been convicted of anything that would prohibit you from owning a gun.

pretty simple, eh?
Your first statement is from the tin hat crowd and does not deserve a response.

If you have been convicted of a crime greater than a misdemeanor whether it was a violent crime, a financial crime, or a crime of passion you have demonstrated a propensity to disregard those rules that set apart those who are "law abiding" from those who are "criminals". Even if you had served you sentence, unless you have all your rights restored you should be prohibited from owning a firearm. It's that SIMPLE!

If someone is criminally insane and a danger to themselves or others we, as a society have the responsibility to care for those people in a manner that will keep them safe as well as us, from them.

We can keep our rights under all the amendments to the constitution including those under the first, second, fifth, and fourteenth!

When I hear "not an inch" I'm just thinking that you're referring to your manhood. If you cannot offer something constructive that will keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them, then stay out of the conversation.
__________________
Blue Skies & Tailwinds,
Captain Bob
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:46 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
OK...and if it were "your problem", how would you go about keeping prohibited persons from obtaining weapons?
It's impossible to prevent people from getting guns. Bad guys in Chicago have no trouble buying and selling guns, and that city has the toughest law in the nation on gun control.

A bad man intent on murder and robbery gives not a single damn about a 6 month misdemeanor gun offense.

All a universal background check law does is set the stage for more controls.Say we do create an "anonymous" system. What will happen after the next shooting , as sure as the sunrise, is that there will be proposals closing the "unregistered background check loophole."

The idea that we should regulate the tool instead of the perpetrator has no merit in reality.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:52 PM
skyking13's Avatar
skyking13 skyking13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: California Central Coast
Posts: 221
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
It's impossible to prevent people from getting guns. Bad guys in Chicago have no trouble buying and selling guns, and that city has the toughest law in the nation on gun control.

A bad man intent on murder and robbery gives not a single damn about a 6 month misdemeanor gun offense.

All a universal background check law does is set the stage for more controls.Say we do create an "anonymous" system. What will happen after the next shooting , as sure as the sunrise, is that there will be proposals closing the "unregistered background check loophole."

The idea that we should regulate the tool instead of the perpetrator has no merit in reality.
Not answering the question. I'll ask it again...IF IT WERE "YOUR PROBLEM"...WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO PREVENT PROHIBITED PERSONS FROM OBTAINING FIREARMS?

Will you just be avoiding answering the question again?
__________________
Blue Skies & Tailwinds,
Captain Bob
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:54 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post

If you have been convicted of a crime greater than a misdemeanor whether it was a violent crime, a financial crime, or a crime of passion you have demonstrated a propensity to disregard those rules that set apart those who are "law abiding" from those who are "criminals". Even if you had served you sentence, unless you have all your rights restored you should be prohibited from owning a firearm. It's that SIMPLE!


.
Why set the bar at the "misdemeanor" level?

After all many of the worst spree killers in history died with clean criminal records.

Why not set the bar so that any violation of law disqualifies you from owning firearms? If you have no regard for the speed limit , clearly it demonstrates a lack of regard for public safety.
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:54 PM
aklover_91 aklover_91 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 809
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
-snip-
How would you enforce a universal background check?

Because as it stands, it's not enforceable. Anywhere at all.

Unless you have mandatory registration and some mechanism for checking to see if everyone has the guns registered them, there's no mechanism to keep people from palming guns face to face.

We have universal checks in California last time I checked, and it doesn't seem to do much of anything.

Doing something just for the sake of doing something is nothing but wasted effort, unfortunately there aren't solutions for every problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
IF IT WERE "YOUR PROBLEM"...WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO PREVENT PROHIBITED PERSONS FROM OBTAINING FIREARMS?
Probably exactly what we do now on a federal level. Electronic background check at initial point of sale. The only prohibited people who don't get denied are the ones who don't have there info in NICS do to negligence of whoever's supposed to report it, the ones who aren't in there because they don't have a record don't have a record.

I'm not willing to waste money and resources on a hairbrained scheme that can't work, or convert to handling guns like the UK does. Are you?

Last edited by aklover_91; 03-24-2013 at 1:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:00 PM
nicoroshi's Avatar
nicoroshi nicoroshi is offline
www.Buildyourownak.info
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Da East Bay Bro!
Posts: 3,697
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Simple really.
Enforce the laws already on the books.
When criminals do not fear any repercussions from committing a crime using a firearm there is no incentive not to.
Commit a crime using a firearm should = life in prison without possibility of early release. And bring back the chain gangs. No free ride for convicted felons. They should have to break rocks daily until they pass from this world.
Commit a murder using a firearm should = death penalty to be carried out immediately.
If that was the case it would give the bad guys incentive to not be bad guys using a firearm.
The current system of a 'slap on the wrist' and released back into the public to commit more crimes after a shortened sentence is what is not working.
No need to regulate the law abiding to solve the problem.

Last edited by nicoroshi; 03-24-2013 at 1:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:04 PM
skyking13's Avatar
skyking13 skyking13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: California Central Coast
Posts: 221
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Why set the bar at the "misdemeanor" level?

After all many of the worst spree killers in history died with clean criminal records.

Why not set the bar so that any violation of law disqualifies you from owning firearms? If you have no regard for the speed limit , clearly it demonstrates a lack of regard for public safety.
Well worth considering! Someone with multiple speeding tickets, dui's, and reckless driving convictions shows that the person has judgement issues and perhaps should be prohibited from owning a firearm.

Perhaps we can even include those who overeat or insist on drinking huge sugary drinks as that shows poor judgement!
__________________
Blue Skies & Tailwinds,
Captain Bob
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:04 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What is all this propaganda lol
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:04 PM
HondaMasterTech's Avatar
HondaMasterTech HondaMasterTech is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssaction View Post
We had better start building more prisons and mental hospitals then.

And send the Gestapo out to start rounding people up.

Are you suggesting that keeping murderers, rapists and child molesters away from our children is unamerican and something only a Nazi would do?

Are you comfortable with child molesters walking the streets?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
(Please skip the lame "two weeks" replies.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:08 PM
LoneYote's Avatar
LoneYote LoneYote is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 614
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rimfire78 View Post
You have A.D.D.
No, just a low tolerance for deception inside the "truth and facts" side of the argument.
__________________
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Quote:
Originally Posted by mossy View Post
let me guess this means the case will move as fast as a Tuttle on heroin now instead of a snail on salt.................
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
Need we have a moderator behind every blade of grass?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:10 PM
Kyle1886's Avatar
Kyle1886 Kyle1886 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: N. San Diego Co.
Posts: 1,546
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
If you have been convicted of a crime greater than a misdemeanor whether it was a violent crime, a financial crime, or a crime of passion you have demonstrated a propensity to disregard those rules that set apart those who are "law abiding" from those who are "criminals".!
No tin foil hat here...remember that some unintentional "crimes" were once "infractions or warnings" that have become misdemeanors, and tomorrow will be felonies. Not all "crimes" are intended and people do make mistakes.

Respectfully
Kyle
__________________
Take responsibility for your own actions!

WE are the NRA.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:11 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
Well worth considering! Someone with multiple speeding tickets, dui's, and reckless driving convictions shows that the person has judgement issues and perhaps should be prohibited from owning a firearm.

Perhaps we can even include those who overeat or insist on drinking huge sugary drinks as that shows poor judgement!
Glad you've come to this realization, because what you consider absurd to the point of sarcasm is exactly what the government wants.

Universal Background Checks start off with "let's keep bad guys from getting guns". The story ends with

"Grounds for Denial of Gun Rights:
Angry wife.
Speeding tickets
Late cell phone bill
Subpar Credit Scores
Lack of Health Insurance
Late cable bill
Extends Periods of Unemployment
Unpaid child support
Misfiled tax return
.............................."
__________________
The more prohibitions you have, the less virtuous people will be.
The more subsidies you have, the less self reliant people will be.
-Lao-Tzu, Tau Te Ching. 479 BCE

The 1911 may have been in wars for 100 years, but Masetro Bartolomeo Beretta was arming the world 400 years before John Browning was ever a wet dream.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:20 PM
HondaMasterTech's Avatar
HondaMasterTech HondaMasterTech is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Glad you've come to this realization, because what you consider absurd to the point of sarcasm is exactly what the government wants.

Universal Background Checks start off with "let's keep bad guys from getting guns". The story ends with

"Grounds for Denial of Gun Rights:
Angry wife.
Speeding tickets
Late cell phone bill
Subpar Credit Scores
Lack of Health Insurance
Late cable bill
Extends Periods of Unemployment
Unpaid child support
Misfiled tax return
.............................."
Exactly. And, since you cannot prevent crimes by first offenders through legislation or any other means, assuming proper upbringing, etc, the government will always have an excuse to ban firearms.

Dianne Fienstein admitted that her ultimate goal is complete disarmament of the American people. With this in mind, common ground is a Wolf in sheeps clothing. Compromise with your rights all you want, just don't be surprised when you wake up one day with them gone.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
(Please skip the lame "two weeks" replies.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ford8N View Post
If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. Senator Dianne Feinstein, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:24 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,491
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
Background checks should be done on every...repeat, every...firearms transfer. If I didn't know that my middle aged kid had committed a crime sometime after he had left home and then I just gave him a firearm then I contributed to a crime.
Let's be analytical and separate this into two steps: (1) background check; (2) registration.

Since many/most agree that some sort of instant background check would be welcome in situations you describe and since we today have the technology to perform quick and instant background checks, there is very little contention there.

The main disagreement is in registration. So, the best current solution is to find a bipartisan way to have background checks *without* registration - then we get what one side claims to want (universal background checks), without affecting what other side claims is being shoved down our throats (universal registration).

All we need is to start calling a spade a spade and start calling the proposed legislation "universal firearm registration" instead of "universal background checks," then push for changing it such that it is indeed just a "universal background check" without any possibility of registration. There were multiple technical proposals on these forums that would make it possible.

As for "registration leads to confiscation," it has happened in CA with SKS rifles and it is currently being proposed with RAW-s. This is far from any tinfoil hat hypothesis since (1) it has happened in recent history; (2) is being proposed as we speak.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member

Last edited by IVC; 03-24-2013 at 1:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:24 PM
glock7's Avatar
glock7 glock7 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: V.C.
Posts: 3,258
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Background checks--->registration---->confiscation---->no tin foil hat here. History is on our side here. Enforce the laws we have now. Those of you who want universal registration...go to the head of the line and turn in your firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:27 PM
Virginian Virginian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 71
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
Not answering the question. I'll ask it again...IF IT WERE "YOUR PROBLEM"...WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO PREVENT PROHIBITED PERSONS FROM OBTAINING FIREARMS?

Will you just be avoiding answering the question again?
As I suggested above, a simple mark on the drivers license takes care of that problem. Just as a computer check of serial numbers would point up lost or stolen guns. You are trying to control criminals by regulating honest people.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:37 PM
Hoop's Avatar
Hoop Hoop is offline
Ready fo HILLARY!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Auburn
Posts: 11,564
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
Perhaps with a cooperative approach we can find a way to only have a registry of those who are prohibited to own firearms and a registry of those firearms that have been reported as stolen or used in a crime.
That's the whole point of a background check, the problem is that you are missing out on the whole "...they also want to keep records of every brand/model firearm owned by everyone" thing. It is de facto national registration for all firearms.

If they wanted to do national INSTANT background checks that didn't record any information about the actual firearm being transferred then I would be in favor of it, but even then it does very little since criminals will still just sell 'em to each other as they always have....
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 3:04 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.