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
  #41  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:38 PM
Hoop Hoop is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Auburn
Posts: 11,539
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virginian View Post
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.
Lots of states do this, like a firearms safety card. It's a good and practical idea.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:43 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,048
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Virginian View Post
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.
This is one possibility. Another is to open NICS to individuals to do it in real time if the concern is that the mark on ID could be out of date.

Those who are pushing for "universal gun registration" are *very* afraid of really having just background checks.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:51 PM
Drew Eckhardt Drew Eckhardt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
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?
I'd keep firearms possession illegal for violent felons like it is now and prosecute those who were caught under federal law.

Otherwise I'd live with it.

I prefer living in a country where criminals have ready access to $100 Raven 25s because this beats the alternatives. Criminals can work around gun bans with imports, which isn't something we want where an automatic AK47 isn't much more difficult to import than a pistol especially since it doesn't cost more to acquire elsewhere (the US spent $60 on each of the Jordanian AK47s we bought for the Iraqi security forces). They can turn to locally produced firearms, although with an open bolt sub-machine gun being the simplest repeating arm we don't want that either. They don't do that in America because it's a big step up in budget and inconvenience to acquire such weapons. Where such inexpensive weapons aren't readily available criminals are better armed - sub machine guns are a preferred weapon among gang members in the gun-free UK (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-8456108.html, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-8456108.html) and they're not just for show http://www.standard.co.uk/news/man-s...r-6389915.html.

Last edited by Drew Eckhardt; 03-24-2013 at 1:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-24-2013, 12:58 PM
skyking13's Avatar
skyking13 skyking13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: California Central Coast
Posts: 214
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoop View Post
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....
Who are you quoting when you write "...they also want to keep records of every brand/model firearm owned by everyone". I too would not agree to a national database of properly owned firearms by people who are not prohibited from owning them. I don't support lists that can give rise to the fear that the government is coming to take away your legally owned firearm.

I do however support background checks that show that when; if you are not on a "prohibited from owning firearms" list, and are transferring a weapon that is not on a stolen or "wanted" list; you can make those transfers within the mandated waiting periods without permanent records.
__________________
Blue Skies & Tailwinds,
Captain Bob
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:03 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
Who are you quoting when you write "...they also want to keep records of every brand/model firearm owned by everyone". I too would not agree to a national database of properly owned firearms by people who are not prohibited from owning them. I don't support lists that can give rise to the fear that the government is coming to take away your legally owned firearm.

I do however support background checks that show that when; if you are not on a "prohibited from owning firearms" list, and are transferring a weapon that is not on a stolen or "wanted" list; you can make those transfers within the mandated waiting periods without permanent records.
The devil is in the details.

Your post presupposes the antis in the Democratic Party would even approve such a law. In all honesty, I believe they won't. They will not approve a universal BG check law without registration of the weapon. The entire point of the universal BG law is to document the transfer of weapons between parties. You can't do that without some form of registration.
__________________
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
  #46  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:09 PM
Hoop Hoop is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Auburn
Posts: 11,539
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
Who are you quoting when you write "...they also want to keep records of every brand/model firearm owned by everyone". I too would not agree to a national database of properly owned firearms by people who are not prohibited from owning them.
That's what the current administration wants in regards to background checks, they've said it several times. Just Google around to see what I mean, hell he said a "database of gun buyers" not too long ago.

A background check system that keeps permanent records of who-bought-what is exactly what they are after.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:13 PM
Red Right Hand's Avatar
Red Right Hand Red Right Hand is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 73
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It's definitely not a tin foil issue. Universal background checks would mean universal registration.

A lot of my guns were purchased C&R cash and carry or antique and have no paper trail. I'd like to keep it that way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tta1q...eature=related


Last edited by Red Right Hand; 03-24-2013 at 1:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:13 PM
skyking13's Avatar
skyking13 skyking13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: California Central Coast
Posts: 214
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
The devil is in the details.

Your post presupposes the antis in the Democratic Party would even approve such a law. In all honesty, I believe they won't. They will not approve a universal BG check law without registration of the weapon. The entire point of the universal BG law is to document the transfer of weapons between parties. You can't do that without some form of registration.
I do not presuppose that the Democrats or any other politician would do anything without it being in their own self interest.

It is MY OPINION that background checks without firearm registration is not only possible but a workable solution. The intent is not to register firearms but to prohibit people who should not be able to own firearms from obtaining them.

It is correct that criminals will not use legal transfers to obtain their weapons. This will only prevent them from doing so if they attempt to do so. I also agree that enforcing current statutes will go a long way in keeping firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
__________________
Blue Skies & Tailwinds,
Captain Bob
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:14 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
"...they also want to keep records of every brand/model firearm owned by everyone". I too would not agree to a national database of properly owned firearms by people who are not prohibited from owning them.
I'm still waiting on the answer to how a universal background check system is enforceable without one.

Unless the point of the law is just to 'make a statement', and not actually accomplish anything.

If it takes absolutely no effort to circumvent, it's just so much fluff so why bother wasting the money? It'd be better spent making sure NICS is actually up to date.

Last edited by aklover_91; 03-24-2013 at 1:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:16 PM
richard chese's Avatar
richard chese richard chese is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Take her out to Wasco and Shafter
Posts: 435
iTrader: 1 / 100%
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?
Never going to happen. Crime has never been 0%. There isn't a damn thing we can do about that. However, owning a legal gun is our right.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:21 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,048
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
It is MY OPINION that background checks without firearm registration is not only possible but a workable solution. The intent is not to register firearms but to prohibit people who should not be able to own firearms from obtaining them.
That's the talk, but not the walk. Look at what is *actually* being proposed.

Background checks were never the real problem.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:22 PM
Virginian Virginian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 70
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
This is one possibility. Another is to open NICS to individuals to do it in real time if the concern is that the mark on ID could be out of date.

Those who are pushing for "universal gun registration" are *very* afraid of really having just background checks.
Exactly so. There is no way they will propose a law that doesn't fit their ends, which means we have to... and I see no reason it should be a concession in the slightest.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:25 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoop View Post
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....
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
I do not presuppose that the Democrats or any other politician would do anything without it being in their own self interest.

It is MY OPINION that background checks without firearm registration is not only possible but a workable solution. The intent is not to register firearms but to prohibit people who should not be able to own firearms from obtaining them.
.
The lawmakers who are charged with voting on these matters don't give a damn about your or my opinion. A BG check system will necessarily require weapon registration.

Why?

"Your Honor, my client Thug Lyfe passed his private background check when he bought the firearm he got caught with."

Thug Lyfe might have 10 felonies on his rap sheet, but without a registry the State cannot prove he bought a weapon illegally.

It doesn't just apply to criminals either. Why bother to run a BG check on a private sale at all? After all nothing's registered, so without proof one DIDNT run a background check the law cannot arrest anyone for it. Unless the cops are physically preset during the private sale there's no evidence of a crime.
__________________
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
  #54  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:27 PM
VegasND's Avatar
VegasND VegasND is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Clark County
Posts: 8,640
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Goody! Another thread where Californians - so impressed with how well their gun control works - want to impose it on everybody else.

Please guys, stay in California and ask all your think-alikes who abandoned your paradise to return home.


The laws you are proposing for me don't work where they now exist but you want to impose them anyway.
__________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.
--River Tam
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:33 PM
skyking13's Avatar
skyking13 skyking13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: California Central Coast
Posts: 214
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
The lawmakers who are charged with voting on these matters don't give a damn about your or my opinion. A BG check system will necessarily require weapon registration.

Why?

"Your Honor, my client Thug Lyfe passed his private background check when he bought the firearm he got caught with."

Thug Lyfe might have 10 felonies on his rap sheet, but without a registry the State cannot prove he bought a weapon illegally.

It doesn't just apply to criminals either. Why bother to run a BG check on a private sale at all? After all nothing's registered, so without proof one DIDNT run a background check the law cannot arrest anyone for it. Unless the cops are physically preset during the private sale there's no evidence of a crime.
What am I missing here? If Thug tried to purchase a weapon a BG check would show that he is a prohibited person. The purchase would not have gone through and the record of his attempting to purchase a firearm would be grounds for an indictment as he would be a felon attempting to obtain a firearm. There would be no need to register a firearm that he NEVER got. There is only the record of a crime being committed that he then be jailed for if convicted.
__________________
Blue Skies & Tailwinds,
Captain Bob
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:42 PM
82fb 82fb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Coarsegold, CA (Fresno)
Posts: 138
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

FREEDOM IS WORTH THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:46 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
......and the record of his attempting to purchase a firearm would ......
Wait, I thought your system didnt have a "record" , since it doesn't have a registry.

Without a record of the background check transaction, anyone could freely ignore the law with impunity. Why not just skip even calling NiCS? There's no documented proof a background check was done, so the government can't charge you with violating it. There's no denial, because the BG check didn't happen.

In order to bring charges you need documented proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the law was broken. As applied to Universal BG Checks, this requires a "record"- and such a record would need the name , date , time, and firearm information to be any good in court.Otherwise , all one need do to avoid prosecution is say they passed a BG check on a different gun.
__________________
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
  #58  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:48 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
What am I missing here? If Thug tried to purchase a weapon a BG check would show that he is a prohibited person. The purchase would not have gone through and the record of his attempting to purchase a firearm would be grounds for an indictment as he would be a felon attempting to obtain a firearm. There would be no need to register a firearm that he NEVER got. There is only the record of a crime being committed that he then be jailed for if convicted.
Because he can't just send his girlfriend in or buy it off another thugg?

Nobody would buy cheap used guns and take the serials off before selling face to face?

We like to joke a lot, but criminals have a lack of ethics or morals, not basic problem solving skills.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:49 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,048
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aklover_91 View Post
I'm still waiting on the answer to how a universal background check system is enforceable without one.
There is nothing to enforce if the intent is to "keep firearms out of hands of criminals." Government checking whether my firearms are registered or not if I can possess them legally is not going to prevent someone who is not allowed to own a firearm from possessing one. Similarly, a prohibited person with a firearm is already a crime regardless of any registry or background check and such a firearm can be immediately confiscated and the person charged.

What's there to enforce *IF* the intent is to "keep firearms out of hands of criminals?"
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-24-2013, 1:52 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 IVC View Post
There is nothing to enforce if the intent is to "keep firearms out of hands of criminals." Government checking whether my firearms are registered or not if I can possess them legally is not going to prevent someone who is not allowed to own a firearm from possessing one. Similarly, a prohibited person with a firearm is already a crime regardless of any registry or background check and such a firearm can be immediately confiscated and the person charged.

What's there to enforce *IF* the intent is to "keep firearms out of hands of criminals?"
That's kind of the point I've been trying to make. A 'Universal Background Check' system can't really do anything without a universal regitry and inventory checks (something I'd hope none of us are OK with), so why would anyone support a universal check system?

It's asinine feelgood BS.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 03-24-2013, 2:04 PM
hnoppenberger's Avatar
hnoppenberger hnoppenberger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,406
iTrader: 62 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
Thats actually you. You are hoping for this utopia that can't happen. Let it go.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 03-24-2013, 2:06 PM
Virginian Virginian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 70
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

At the extreme, maintain lists of prohibited people, and lost/stolen firearms that can be accessed online. The honest people will check, the criminals won't. Just like now. In the example of the guy above, the simple answer is that it came up clean when I checked.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-24-2013, 2:22 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,048
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverTauron View Post
Thug Lyfe might have 10 felonies on his rap sheet, but without a registry the State cannot prove he bought a weapon illegally.
He is a "felon in possession" which is a much more serious problem than a paperwork violation.

That's the whole issue with the "background checks to keep felons in check" - the mere possession is already sufficient to get a conviction.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-24-2013, 2:23 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
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.
wow...just, wow.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03-24-2013, 2:37 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,048
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VegasND View Post
Goody! Another thread where Californians - so impressed with how well their gun control works - want to impose it on everybody else.

Please guys, stay in California and ask all your think-alikes who abandoned your paradise to return home.

The laws you are proposing for me don't work where they now exist but you want to impose them anyway.
Broad brush and attacking your allies. What do you do to your enemies?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-24-2013, 2:38 PM
MalikCarr MalikCarr is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 42
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I've consistently argued that if the gun-grabbers were smart, they'd offer a repeal of the Hughes Amendment attached to a private-party transfer ban like we have in California. This would placate a lot of gun owners who aren't looking at it from an ideological perspective - who wouldn't want a legal machine gun?

Then after the next mass killing by a lunatic, the grabbers demand and achieve the NICS records being permanent. After the *next* mass killing, they use that to confiscate.
__________________

On the back window of a Prius; causes mental anguish to those who live in a world of stereotypes.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 03-24-2013, 2:45 PM
Virginian Virginian is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 70
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If the gun-grabbers were smart, they probably wouldn't be gun-grabbers in the first place. Instead we get some retread ChiCom trying to shred the Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 03-24-2013, 2:46 PM
ssaction's Avatar
ssaction ssaction is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 208
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HondaMasterTech View Post
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?
Nope.

But what about anyone who is a prohibited person? People who have served their time for a felony & been released? For example, armed robbery.

How about anyone who has had a 5150, misdemeanor, or used drugs? There are probably quite a few of those that shouldn't own guns too.

If you want to lock up everyone who shouldn't have guns, that is going to be a big project. There are a lot of them walking free. They probably don't need to be locked up. Just not owning firearms.
__________________
"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
  #69  
Old 03-24-2013, 2:46 PM
rm1911's Avatar
rm1911 rm1911 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Soviet Socialist Republic of Kalifornia
Posts: 2,619
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

What we should demand then is simple. We "give" on uni background checks. If we pass then we buy whatever the hell we want. If we're "safe" then it doesn matter what gun I buy. And if I'm safe to own a gun then I'm safe for ccw. Period end of story.

Force them into accepting their own stupidity. They can't have it both ways. I'm no threat with a bolt 3006 or an ar15 with 100 rd drum mags. They want something from us. They better have something to offer othe than "you're still allowed..." If not then F*** them
__________________
NRA Life Member since 1990

They're not liberals, they're leftists. Please don't use the former for the latter. Liberals are Locke, Jefferson, Burke, Hayek. Leftists are progressives, Prussian state-socialists, fascists. Liberals stand against the state and unequivocally support liberty. Leftists support state tyranny.

Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 03-24-2013, 2:49 PM
ssaction's Avatar
ssaction ssaction is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 208
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
He is a "felon in possession" which is a much more serious problem than a paperwork violation.

That's the whole issue with the "background checks to keep felons in check" - the mere possession is already sufficient to get a conviction.
I thought the idea of "background checks" was to prevent the felon from obtaining the firearm at the point of sale.
__________________
"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
  #71  
Old 03-24-2013, 2:52 PM
ssaction's Avatar
ssaction ssaction is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 208
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rm1911 View Post
What we should demand then is simple. We "give" on uni background checks. If we pass then we buy whatever the hell we want. If we're "safe" then it doesn matter what gun I buy. And if I'm safe to own a gun then I'm safe for ccw. Period end of story.

Force them into accepting their own stupidity. They can't have it both ways. I'm no threat with a bolt 3006 or an ar15 with 100 rd drum mags. They want something from us. They better have something to offer othe than "you're still allowed..." If not then F*** them
Why not?
__________________
"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
  #72  
Old 03-24-2013, 2:57 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 rm1911 View Post
What we should demand then is simple. We "give" on uni background checks. If we pass then we buy whatever the hell we want. If we're "safe" then it doesn matter what gun I buy. And if I'm safe to own a gun then I'm safe for ccw. Period end of story.

Force them into accepting their own stupidity. They can't have it both ways. I'm no threat with a bolt 3006 or an ar15 with 100 rd drum mags. They want something from us. They better have something to offer othe than "you're still allowed..." If not then F*** them
This is an argument I pull out sometimes. 'Alright, I'll submit to all this vetting. What do I get in return now? Give me one good reason, now that you've confirmed I'm kosher beyond the shadow of a doubt, I can't go buy a box of hand grenades.'

Shuts them up pretty quick.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 03-24-2013, 3:24 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
Nope.

But what about anyone who is a prohibited person? People who have served their time for a felony & been released? For example, armed robbery.

How about anyone who has had a 5150, misdemeanor, or used drugs? There are probably quite a few of those that shouldn't own guns too.

If you want to lock up everyone who shouldn't have guns, that is going to be a big project. There are a lot of them walking free. They probably don't need to be locked up. Just not owning firearms.
Why should anyone be expected to sympathize with a violent criminal?

As far as prohibiting offenders of non violent crimes goes, at what point to you draw the line of distrust? Do you agree with the current criteria for prohibition? What about more strict criteria?

The reason for concern with the sometimes seemingly arbitrary prohibition is the constant increase in offenses that qualify a person for prohibition.

With "expanded" background checks, the criteria for prohibition expands as well. Taking the right to be armed is not trivial as the right to be armed is as fundamental as the laws of physics.
__________________
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
  #74  
Old 03-24-2013, 3:29 PM
SilverTauron SilverTauron is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
He is a "felon in possession" which is a much more serious problem than a paperwork violation.

That's the whole issue with the "background checks to keep felons in check" - the mere possession is already sufficient to get a conviction.
Exactly.

Except DAs won't prosecute bad guys for weapons violations. Prosecutors want the bad guys to go down for the hard stuff like assault, murder, etc. In other words, the prosecutors want the scumbag to go down for what they DID with the gun, not for the gun itself.

So, sometimes they cut deals leaving the gun charges out of the picture in exchange for a guilty plea. Or they leave the gun charges on, but what's a 5 year sentence on a firearm beef when someone's going to prison for Murder or some other capital crime which carries a multi- decade sentence?
__________________
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
  #75  
Old 03-24-2013, 3:35 PM
ssaction's Avatar
ssaction ssaction is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 208
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=HondaMasterTech;10903159]Why should anyone be expected to sympathize with a violent criminal?[/QUOTE}
They shouldn't.

Quote:
As far as prohibiting offenders of non violent crimes goes, at what point to you draw the line of distrust? Do you agree with the current criteria for prohibition? What about more strict criteria?
That is what I was asking.

Quote:
The reason for concern with the sometimes seemingly arbitrary prohibition is the constant increase in offenses that qualify a person for prohibition.
I agree.

Quote:
With "expanded" background checks, the criteria for prohibition expands as well. Taking the right to be armed is not trivial as the right to be armed is as fundamental as the laws of physics.
That's the scarey part.

But the point I originally was trying to make is that a lot of people that shouldn't own guns aren't locked up. And there isn't enough institutions to hold them. And it would take a real expansion of gov't to institutionalize them. It probably would never fly.
__________________
"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
  #76  
Old 03-24-2013, 3:48 PM
HondaMasterTech's Avatar
HondaMasterTech HondaMasterTech is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,338
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[QUOTE=ssaction;10903248]
Quote:
Originally Posted by HondaMasterTech View Post
Why should anyone be expected to sympathize with a violent criminal?[/QUOTE}
They shouldn't.


That is what I was asking.


I agree.


That's the scarey part.

But the point I originally was trying to make is that a lot of people that shouldn't own guns aren't locked up. And there isn't enough institutions to hold them. And it would take a real expansion of gov't to institutionalize them. It probably would never fly.
In the end, it's not the criminals who are the problem. I can live with them. The problem is anyone who tires to disarm innocent people. That's where this whole debate comes from.

If i had to choose to either live in a world where nobody was armed or a world where everyone were armed I'd choose guns. Because, a criminal doesn't need a gun to harm people but i need a gun to prevent harm.
__________________
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
  #77  
Old 03-24-2013, 3:57 PM
Cannon-Arms Cannon-Arms is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: High Desert
Posts: 1,652
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking13 View Post
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.
Telling.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 03-24-2013, 4:07 PM
Jwtechnic's Avatar
Jwtechnic Jwtechnic is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Finally free in AZ - Formerly Bay Area
Posts: 264
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eam View Post
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.
That's pretty much what I was thinking all along too.
__________________
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.

When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic110666_7.gif

Last edited by Jwtechnic; 03-24-2013 at 4:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 03-24-2013, 4:20 PM
VegasND's Avatar
VegasND VegasND is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Clark County
Posts: 8,640
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

I don't attack allies.

You obviously didn't read this thread. Go back and find the posts where members of Calguns net are advocating more laws to restrict MY Rights.

Those people are not my allies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Broad brush and attacking your allies. What do you do to your enemies?
__________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.
--River Tam
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 03-24-2013, 4:32 PM
joe4702 joe4702 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 288
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

20,000+ Federal, state and local gun laws on the books and some people still argue for one more law, one more scheme, one more hoop for law-abiding citizens to jump through that will somehow make a difference.

No thanks. Not one more inch. We should be repealing gun laws, not adding more, especially now that we've seen far too many politicians who are more than willing to confiscate guns and turn law-abiding citizens into criminals once they feel they have sufficient votes and power to do so.
__________________

NRA Endowment Life Member
NRA Instructor, Basic Pistol
SAF Life Member
AzCDL Member
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 7:11 AM.




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.