ThIS IS WHY YOU NEVER GIVE MONEY TO THE NRA--BUMPFIRE STOCK BAN SIGNED

[ArcadiaGP]

London Murder Rate Overtakes New York for First Time Ever after Spate of Fatal Stabbings and Shootings

Edit: Er, yeah what BF said. Only saw your line... image didn't load for some reason.

 

[Jimb]

So, you are not against universal background checks? You think they are a solution? A solution to what?

Study your history and you will find that UBCs do absolutely nothing to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Without knowing who has the guns, how do you know when a transfer has been made without a check?

The facts is that nothing short of magically making ALL of the guns disappear will stop people from using them to do bad things.

"Absolutely Nothing".....completely disagree, and will not drink that koolaid. Of course a universal check will not stop every bad thing....nor do drivers licenses or stop lights, but they are required, and are better than the alternative of neither. A universal check system, which allows the various agencies to funnel info into a one-stop shop, should not confront any law biding gun owner. And, another possible reality here is that the existence of such a check will most likely diminish the talk of magically making all guns disappear....that's how compromise works.

 

[GLOCKMAN23C]

"Absolutely Nothing".....completely disagree, and will not drink that koolaid. Of course a universal check will not stop every bad thing....nor do drivers licenses or stop lights, but they are required, and are better than the alternative of neither. A universal check system, which allows the various agencies to funnel info into a one-stop shop, should not confront any law biding gun owner. And, another possible reality here is that the existence of such a check will most likely diminish the talk of magically making all guns disappear....that's how compromise works.

I disagree. Universal background checks will only lead to full registration, and eventually to confiscation. Every time we compromise what do we get? By definition compromise means that both sides get something beneficial. Every compromise we end up with fewer rights and more regulation. If for some reason you don't believe me, look at what happened in Australia and Great Britain.

 

[KLB]

"Absolutely Nothing".....completely disagree, and will not drink that koolaid. Of course a universal check will not stop every bad thing....nor do drivers licenses or stop lights, but they are required, and are better than the alternative of neither. A universal check system, which allows the various agencies to funnel info into a one-stop shop, should not confront any law biding gun owner. And, another possible reality here is that the existence of such a check will most likely diminish the talk of magically making all guns disappear....that's how compromise works.

Go back and look at history. They have existed before, did nothing, and were removed. You actually drank the koolaid, the anti-gun koolaid. Tell me what you think they would stop. You think that those that ignore the law will suddenly decide that they have to follow this one? What will they stop?

What exactly do you think drivers licenses do? Do they magically stop anyone from driving without one? Do they stop stupid people from doing stupid things while driving? They just give the government another form of control over those that are actually generally law abiding.

As for compromise, that is not how compromise works. Compromise is you get something and I get something. In your compromise, gun owners only lose more and gain nothing.

Lastly, how do you think UBCs will work without registration? How will the government know if you illegally sold a gun to someone without a check? Or is universal gun registration a good thing too? We law abiding citizens should not worry about having hurdles, restrictions, and controls around us, right?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Go back and look at history. They have existed before, did nothing, and were removed. You actually drank the koolaid, the anti-gun koolaid. Tell me what you think they would stop. You think that those that ignore the law will suddenly decide that they have to follow this one? What will they stop?

What exactly do you think drivers licenses do? Do they magically stop anyone from driving without one? Do they stop stupid people from doing stupid things while driving? They just give the government another form of control over those that are actually generally law abiding.

As for compromise, that is not how compromise works. Compromise is you get something and I get something. In your compromise, gun owners only lose more and gain nothing.

Lastly, how do you think UBCs will work without registration? How will the government know if you illegally sold a gun to someone without a check? Or is universal gun registration a good thing too? We law abiding citizens should not worry about having hurdles, restrictions, and controls around us, right?

Yep. Hopefully Kirk will be along soon. I think we need a remedial history lesson on Indiana's foray into UBCs years ago. Hint: they dropped it because people didn't follow it then, and they won't follow it now.

 

[2A_Tom]

"Absolutely Nothing".....completely disagree, and will not drink that koolaid. Of course a universal check will not stop every bad thing....nor do drivers licenses or stop lights, but they are required, and are better than the alternative of neither. A universal check system, which allows the various agencies to funnel info into a one-stop shop, should not confront any law biding gun owner. And, another possible reality here is that the existence of such a check will most likely diminish the talk of magically making all guns disappear....that's how compromise works.

You have not studied or been in this fight long have you? The way compromise works is each legislative session they take a little more until there is nothing left to take.

 

[Expat]

"Absolutely Nothing".....completely disagree, and will not drink that koolaid. Of course a universal check will not stop every bad thing....nor do drivers licenses or stop lights, but they are required, and are better than the alternative of neither. A universal check system, which allows the various agencies to funnel info into a one-stop shop, should not confront any law biding gun owner. And, another possible reality here is that the existence of such a check will most likely diminish the talk of magically making all guns disappear....that's how compromise works.

This may be just about the dumbest thing I have seen posted on the INGO in a while. You understand that the only way to enforce a universal background check is registration? How did registration work out in most countries that tried it, bans and confiscation.

 

[2A_Tom]

You do believe that our current Government is totally altruistic, don't you.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

When a guy states he is anti military and anti LEO, he has lost lot of friends. LOOK AT HIS POST HISTORY.

I looked at his post history, can you point to any specific posts where he states he is anti military/leo? Considering he is former military, and I believe retired with 20+ yrs in.

Yep. Hopefully Kirk will be along soon. I think we need a remedial history lesson on Indiana's foray into UBCs years ago. Hint: they dropped it because people didn't follow it then, and they won't follow it now.

IIRC A good sized portion of owners didn't even know it was the law, those that did regularly ignored it, and he hasn't been able to find a single prosecution for not doing so and he's looked.

 

[luger fan]

When I see criticism of the NRA, I ask the simple question: Where would we be if they didn't exist?

+1. Life would be a lot more fun if we went to pre 1934 firearm laws BUT that's not going to happen.

 

[Jimb]

Go back and look at history. They have existed before, did nothing, and were removed. You actually drank the koolaid, the anti-gun koolaid. Tell me what you think they would stop. You think that those that ignore the law will suddenly decide that they have to follow this one? What will they stop?

What exactly do you think drivers licenses do? Do they magically stop anyone from driving without one? Do they stop stupid people from doing stupid things while driving? They just give the government another form of control over those that are actually generally law abiding.

As for compromise, that is not how compromise works. Compromise is you get something and I get something. In your compromise, gun owners only lose more and gain nothing.

Lastly, how do you think UBCs will work without registration? How will the government know if you illegally sold a gun to someone without a check? Or is universal gun registration a good thing too? We law abiding citizens should not worry about having hurdles, restrictions, and controls around us, right?

I have drank no such koolaid. lol
I can see the writing on the wall that the "all or nothing" no compromise will yield eventually....and my thoughts here are really more about offering a process, albeit one that will be impossible to gauge success because you never know what could've happened, that will quell the calls for all out bans, which will probably move closer to a reality after another yahoo or two shoots up a crowd of humans because they are unable to deal with their distorted perception of life. I know there is no one stop fix all solution here that will stop every bad thing, but if an attempt to make things more difficult for folks who should not of been able to purchase in the first place(TX church and FL school) that doesn't ban anything for everyone else.....I think is worth discussing is all. I started thinking this, and began questioning the NRA's motives, when they fought restricting purchases to people on the terrorist watch list. Makes no sense to me. It's this methodology that opens the door to a realist possibility for real bans; when there is no common sense cooperation on anything.
As far as licenses....I guess we'll never know how many people choose not to drive because they have no license and it's the law....but I would venture to say that there's many more than one....and those folks are unable to do stupid things while driving because they are not.
Compromise - How much have we really lost as gun owners?
I agree 100%...we should not have to jump through hoops to buy and sell a gun to fellow level headed humans....but I'd much rather deal with a moderately inconvenient registration issue at times than what I think may be coming, if given the choice. But, then we diverge into a whole other issue there. That's really the core issue I think....whether or not one believes the gov will ever come for our guns; limits ones' ability to bend on any of these other items above. I personally think this is impossible.....how many millions are out there, and how much would it cost to buy them back? Because, that is the only way it could happen in our current form of democracy...that is unless we move to a much more authoritarian leader with no term limits; suggested as a good idea by our Prez.....that's when I would begin to worry anyway.

 

[Dead Duck]

I will compromise.
Bring back my right to build and shoot my machineguns, chop and bob my rifles and shotguns, make and use my own suppressors and trailer my own howitzer WITHOUT seeking the governments permission and then.... only then I MIGHT be OK with some kind of compromise.

Until then, well no.

 

[Jimb]

You do believe that our current Government is totally altruistic, don't you.

No, but all of the politicians are though. Ha!
**I probably need some sort of sarcasm symbol to use here**

 

[KLB]

I have drank no such koolaid. lol
I can see the writing on the wall that the "all or nothing" no compromise will yield eventually....and my thoughts here are really more about offering a process, albeit one that will be impossible to gauge success because you never know what could've happened, that will quell the calls for all out bans, which will probably move closer to a reality after another yahoo or two shoots up a crowd of humans because they are unable to deal with their distorted perception of life. I know there is no one stop fix all solution here that will stop every bad thing, but if an attempt to make things more difficult for folks who should not of been able to purchase in the first place(TX church and FL school) that doesn't ban anything for everyone else.....I think is worth discussing is all. I started thinking this, and began questioning the NRA's motives, when they fought restricting purchases to people on the terrorist watch list. Makes no sense to me. It's this methodology that opens the door to a realist possibility for real bans; when there is no common sense cooperation on anything.
As far as licenses....I guess we'll never know how many people choose not to drive because they have no license and it's the law....but I would venture to say that there's many more than one....and those folks are unable to do stupid things while driving because they are not.
Compromise - How much have we really lost as gun owners?
I agree 100%...we should not have to jump through hoops to buy and sell a gun to fellow level headed humans....but I'd much rather deal with a moderately inconvenient registration issue at times than what I think may be coming, if given the choice. But, then we diverge into a whole other issue there. That's really the core issue I think....whether or not one believes the gov will ever come for our guns; limits ones' ability to bend on any of these other items above. I personally think this is impossible.....how many millions are out there, and how much would it cost to buy them back? Because, that is the only way it could happen in our current form of democracy...that is unless we move to a much more authoritarian leader with no term limits; suggested as a good idea by our Prez.....that's when I would begin to worry anyway.

Question, which of your example shooters would have been denied a gun with UBCs? Didn't both of them pass a background check? The issue with the case in TX was the Air Force never reported the guys domestic violence to the NICS, so he passed. The one in FL had a lot of issues with the police leading up to his day, but they never did anything about it. In fact, the only idiot I can think of that didn't pass a BC off of the top of my head was the schmuck in Sandy Hook. He killed his mom and took hers. I don't think he was going to call in for a BC when he took possession.

You don't see a problem with someone being stripped of their rights without due process? Because there is none when it comes to putting people on that watch list. The watch list in general is a travesty that needs to be done away with when it comes to US citizens. Go search for articles about people being on there mistakenly and what it takes to try to get off of the list.

I still think you are naive to think that giving them UBCs would stop their desire to ban guns. They do it every chance they get, in every manner they can can up with in places in this country already.

 

[churchmouse]

Question, which of your example shooters would have been denied a gun with UBCs? Didn't both of them pass a background check? The issue with the case in TX was the Air Force never reported the guys domestic violence to the NICS, so he passed. The one in FL had a lot of issues with the police leading up to his day, but they never did anything about it. In fact, the only idiot I can think of that didn't pass a BC off of the top of my head was the schmuck in Sandy Hook. He killed his mom and took hers. I don't think he was going to call in for a BC when he took possession.

You don't see a problem with someone being stripped of their rights without due process? Because there is none when it comes to putting people on that watch list. The watch list in general is a travesty that needs to be done away with when it comes to US citizens. Go search for articles about people being on there mistakenly and what it takes to try to get off of the list.

I still think you are naive to think that giving them UBCs would stop their desire to ban guns. They do it every chance they get, in every manner they can can up with in places in this country already.

Well said and on point. To even believe we can appease these left leaners with UBC's is a fools dream. Every inch we give will stack up to a mile eventually and that is the end game.

The system is failing. Across the board.

 

[hopper68]

Once I bought a gun and the system was down so I had to wait to pick up my gun, thankfully my LGS is less than 20 minutes away. There have been a few threads on INGO where a person buys a gun only to be delayed at a place over 100 miles from home. Then what are the options if you have paid for the firearm already? Drive back after the govt says yes. Or have the gun shipped to one's LGS and pay shipping and other fees on top. There is no penalty for the govt being wrong only headaches for the innocent.

 

[2A_Tom]

To the point of denying those on the no fly list, it is not only a problem of innocent citizens being denied, but the fact that the FBI didn't want them denied.

It seems that the FBI

• didn't want people that they were watching alerted to the fact.
• Most likely are alerted when someone on the list submits a 4473.
• at which point they can step up their investigation.

 

[actaeon277]

Canada had UBC.
Indiana had UBC.
A lot more places had UBC.

All it accomplished, was waste money that could have been used for law enforcement.

 

[luger fan]

I may be indeed in error BUT I have a REAL strong feeling the OP has NEVER donated to anyone or any cause. I am a Christian though do NOT agree with how they treated EVERYONE else they encountered in the last 400 years.

Sorry OP. Your life may be 100% peaches and cream but for 99.9% of the rest of us life is give and take.

Congratulations on your perfect life.

 

[Jimb]

Question, which of your example shooters would have been denied a gun with UBCs? Didn't both of them pass a background check? The issue with the case in TX was the Air Force never reported the guys domestic violence to the NICS, so he passed. The one in FL had a lot of issues with the police leading up to his day, but they never did anything about it. In fact, the only idiot I can think of that didn't pass a BC off of the top of my head was the schmuck in Sandy Hook. He killed his mom and took hers. I don't think he was going to call in for a BC when he took possession.

You don't see a problem with someone being stripped of their rights without due process? Because there is none when it comes to putting people on that watch list. The watch list in general is a travesty that needs to be done away with when it comes to US citizens. Go search for articles about people being on there mistakenly and what it takes to try to get off of the list.

I still think you are naive to think that giving them UBCs would stop their desire to ban guns. They do it every chance they get, in every manner they can can up with in places in this country already.

Both of those shooters did pass background checks yes....background checks that could be made much more comprehensive and functional. Would it have stopped the bad from happening...maybe not, but that's the thing about prevention; no way to track something that doesn't happen.....so then all your left with that's tangible are the failures or the nothing at all, which is then used to prop the waste of time and money argument. Indiana has this "red flag" thing, which I am skeptical of(because yes, I do see a problem with people getting screwed by someone that has the authority to manipulate the system), but this is the level at which nutbags could be identified and delt with...hopefully before spraying crowds of humans. I am leery of any program like this, but in reality our due process is determined in real time on a daily basis from a local law enforcement perspective....they are given that authority, and it is scary to think about the consequences when it is abused. But, the folks in the field, in the cop cars, hospitals, and schools are the ones in place to spot the jacktard....this is where the due process should start. It should be no less difficult for someone that is obviously threating or planning damage, after reasonable process of determination, to legally purchase one or another firearm, than it is for someone with a DUI to reinstate their drivers license. I understand the consequences involved, not naïve, just not sure doing nothing and hoping for the best is the answer.
As far as the watch list goes, I agree, it should solely focus on non-citizens. I'm not aware of any issues regarding US citizens and the watch list. So then, should there really be an issue with restricting non-citizens on the list from legally purchasing a weapon?
Agreed....maybe I am being too optimistic(naïve) in thinking that if concessions were made to make a program, currently in place, work better would prevent the desire for a ban. Of course it wouldn't for all. But, for the majority of common sense, independent minded folks that don't reside in the extreme partisan fringes.....that may or may not own guns....it would.