SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Background checks, and a national data base< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
ol-zeke Search for posts by this member.
Clear Creek
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 12898
Joined: Sep. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 9:38 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I see where 2 of the first suggestions revealed by the Biden team are 100% gun sales subject to a background check, and a national data base for those checks.

Since we cannot seem to agree on how to limit the capacity of the firearm for public safety, I was wondering how those on the other side felt about these recommendations?  How about registering the serial # of the weapon being purchased?  Once tied into the data base, any LEO or Game Warden could verify the person standing in front of them was the authorized owner of that firearm.  Confiscating weapons that were in the wrong hands, until the proper owner could verify the firearm was on loan for that particular purpose.

I know registration is a touchy subject, but keeping firearms out of the hands of those who do not qualify to own them ought to be an enforceable goal.  


--------------
Everything I know, I learned by doing it wrong at least twice.

"I would rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on earth."  Steve McQueen
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 10:40 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Where does the constitution " qualify" gun ownership?

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Land Rover Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sep. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 10:41 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The words "well regulated" may give you a clue there.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43763
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 10:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Would go along nicely with the uncompromisable biometric national identification card I support. It would take a long time to have the information flow far enough through the legacy inventory to have a significant impact but it would catch the serial straw purchasers right away and that would be an important step.

I'm skeptical of "authorized" owner: anything legal is an individual's personal choice as I view it. But "owner of record" for the purposes of the registered transfer requirement would suit.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43763
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 10:49 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Jan. 10 2013, 7:40 pm)
QUOTE
Where does the constitution " qualify" gun ownership?

There's a supportable compelling government interest in keeping firearms out of the possession of a variety of people for various reasons: convicted felons in some jurisdictions, people with restraint warrants against them, people who've been deemed a violent risk to themselves or others through due process of judging their psychological state are some.

Which might mean "qualify" in the negative sense I agree in that all people for whom a specific to them personally compelling government interest against their possessing firearms had not been established would "qualify" by default. I think that may be the distinction highlighted by the importance of "may issue" regulations versus "must issue": shifts the burden.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 10:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Oh, we'll we discussed this before. The bill of rights doesn't speak to that but yeah, those on psychotropic drugs, as in the case of most of these  outrages gun crimes lately, sure, their not qualified.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43763
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 11:04 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Jan. 10 2013, 7:56 pm)
QUOTE
Oh, we'll we discussed this before. The bill of rights doesn't speak to that but yeah, those on psychotropic drugs, as in the case of most of these  outrages gun crimes lately, sure, their not qualified.

But it's an important distinction to be reminded of. The government not getting to decide who does qualify for possession but rather only those who do not. That shifts the burden of proof as I see it.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7129
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 11:17 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

As long as the same standards are applied to access to alcohol, which kills 2˝x as many innocent people every year in the US as guns do. Plus another 30,000 who basically commit suicide through chronic alcohol abuse.

--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 11:28 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Oh god! Ban everything.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 11:33 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 10 2013, 11:04 pm)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Jan. 10 2013, 7:56 pm)
QUOTE
Oh, we'll we discussed this before. The bill of rights doesn't speak to that but yeah, those on psychotropic drugs, as in the case of most of these  outrages gun crimes lately, sure, their not qualified.

But it's an important distinction to be reminded of. The government not getting to decide who does qualify for possession but rather only those who do not. That shifts the burden of proof as I see it.

Sure, as long as that government is truly representative, most of these threads being about guns, and the second of ten amendments, established to protect us, the people, from an overreaching government!


--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 10 2013, 11:41 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

All ten of the amendments of the bill of rights are protection of the people from a tyrannical government. Why would only the second be for hunting or something else. Get a grip people. The second amendment is my permit to CHL!

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
justwalkin Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 494
Joined: Nov. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 12:33 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Land Rover @ Jan. 10 2013, 10:41 pm)
QUOTE
The words "well regulated" may give you a clue there.

Bone up on history and get back to us.  You are the clueless one.

--------------
If a day in the mountains is better than a week at work, why aren't I working in the mountains?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 12:38 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 10 2013, 10:49 pm)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Jan. 10 2013, 7:40 pm)
QUOTE
Where does the constitution " qualify" gun ownership?

There's a supportable compelling government interest in keeping firearms out of the possession of a variety of people for various reasons: convicted felons in some jurisdictions, people with restraint warrants against them, people who've been deemed a violent risk to themselves or others through due process of judging their psychological state are some.

Which might mean "qualify" in the negative sense I agree in that all people for whom a specific to them personally compelling government interest against their possessing firearms had not been established would "qualify" by default. I think that may be the distinction highlighted by the importance of "may issue" regulations versus "must issue": shifts the burden.

The CONSTITUTION!! Where does the CONSTITUTION suggest qualification?


--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43763
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 12:39 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Jan. 10 2013, 9:38 pm)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 10 2013, 10:49 pm)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Jan. 10 2013, 7:40 pm)
QUOTE
Where does the constitution " qualify" gun ownership?

There's a supportable compelling government interest in keeping firearms out of the possession of a variety of people for various reasons: convicted felons in some jurisdictions, people with restraint warrants against them, people who've been deemed a violent risk to themselves or others through due process of judging their psychological state are some.

Which might mean "qualify" in the negative sense I agree in that all people for whom a specific to them personally compelling government interest against their possessing firearms had not been established would "qualify" by default. I think that may be the distinction highlighted by the importance of "may issue" regulations versus "must issue": shifts the burden.

The CONSTITUTION!!

THE SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES!

MARBURY v MADISON!
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 12:42 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

The SCOTUS  says that corporations are people and that you don't have a fourth amendment right! The SCOTUS can KMA!

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43763
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 12:45 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Jan. 10 2013, 9:42 pm)
QUOTE
The SCOTUS  says that corporations are people and that you don't have a fourth amendment right! The SCOTUS can KMA!

Then you can wipe that kiss off with the vellum of the Constitution for that's all it will be good for. Some old faded marks on a piece of old, dead, animal hide.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3946
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 6:08 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

zeke,

I've mostly stayed out of the political gun threads and it's made me happier to do so.  I'll probably regret getting in to this one, but you asked an honest question and I think you deserve an honest answer.

I do not mind an instant background check being performed, provided it is no more intrusive than what a patrol officer would do by running a driver's licence.  If the subject isn't wanted and not an otherwise prohibitted person, go on your way.  Cost would have to figure in and a feasible way to complete these transactions where we don't have to go into a police station or gun shop during a narrowly selected period of hours.

It should be noted that I don't hink it will do much, since illegal sales will still happen but I would support draconian penalties on those found to be buying and selling illegally.  I think the real fight would be as anti-gun politicians try to expand the defenitions of what should disqualify someone from being able to own a weapon, but that's speculative at best.

As to a national database, no, on principle I don't like it.  I feel like once it's cleared it shouldn't be the government's concern anymore.  That said, I won't lose my mind as long as it's applied only to new purchases and not a retroactive "come register everything you have".  For those worried about confiscation by a future tyrant, I would suggest that the arms we're currently holding would make it quite feasible to secure the ones we'd have registered since then.

Gun control laws are exactly like abortion control laws.  We on this side do not trust anyone on the other side when they start talking about "reasonible, common sense" controls.  Years of experience have taught both groups that the other side may begin reasonable, but they ALWAYS have a bigger goals and we are therefore reluctant to allow any new restrictions without a tooth and nail fight.  Just like Planned Parenthood would view a parental notification law as a step down the slippery slope towards banning abortion, I view registration as a step towards eventually banning everything.  I know that there are politicians on the other side that want to remove all guns from private hands so you can understand my reluctance to deal with them at all when any deal simply means me giving them more control and them giving me nothing but more rules.


--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 7:31 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 11 2013, 12:45 am)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Jan. 10 2013, 9:42 pm)
QUOTE
The SCOTUS  says that corporations are people and that you don't have a fourth amendment right! The SCOTUS can KMA!

Then you can wipe that kiss off with the vellum of the Constitution for that's all it will be good for. Some old faded marks on a piece of old, dead, animal hide.

Ha. We're going to have to do something about that HSF.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5282
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 8:36 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

How about this....the govt issues a national FOID card like we have in Illinois.

One time background check and one time nominal fee for the card

Then they create a website where anyone can go to check that the card is still valid and has not been rescinded. (just like they have for ffl's right now)

That way if I want to sell a weapon to my neighbor I can "run his card" and be certain that he is a "good guy"

Of course criminals will not be affected....but it will stop the whining about the dreaded "gun show loophole" and actually make life easier for law abiding gun owners


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3946
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 8:51 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Jan. 11 2013, 8:36 am)
QUOTE
How about this....the govt issues a national FOID card like we have in Illinois.

One time background check and one time nominal fee for the card

Then they create a website where anyone can go to check that the card is still valid and has not been rescinded. (just like they have for ffl's right now)

That way if I want to sell a weapon to my neighbor I can "run his card" and be certain that he is a "good guy"

Of course criminals will not be affected....but it will stop the whining about the dreaded "gun show loophole" and actually make life easier for law abiding gun owners

The trick would be tying it into NCIC so that NCIC would flag the cards when the person is no longer qualified.  I'm sure it could be done but getting access into that system is very tightly restricted.

--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 9:25 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Jan. 11 2013, 8:36 am)
QUOTE
How about this....the govt issues a national FOID card like we have in Illinois.

One time background check and one time nominal fee for the card

Then they create a website where anyone can go to check that the card is still valid and has not been rescinded. (just like they have for ffl's right now)

That way if I want to sell a weapon to my neighbor I can "run his card" and be certain that he is a "good guy"

Of course criminals will not be affected....but it will stop the whining about the dreaded "gun show loophole" and actually make life easier for law abiding gun owners

Yes, register yourself, not your firearm. Good point.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5282
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 9:35 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

If it is really about keeping bad people from getting guns then that is all that matters.

If it is about registration (with intent to eventually confiscate) then it will be less effective

If you are a "good guy" the govt should really not care what you own


--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 9:42 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I love it. That's essentially the point some of us have been trying to make.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7129
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 10:14 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Jan. 11 2013, 6:36 am)
QUOTE
How about this....the govt issues a national FOID card like we have in Illinois.

One time background check and one time nominal fee for the card

Then they create a website where anyone can go to check that the card is still valid and has not been rescinded. (just like they have for ffl's right now)

That way if I want to sell a weapon to my neighbor I can "run his card" and be certain that he is a "good guy"

Of course criminals will not be affected....but it will stop the whining about the dreaded "gun show loophole" and actually make life easier for law abiding gun owners

Montana allows concealed carry anywhere in the state outside city limits and open carry (anywhere it is not otherwise prohibited) without any permits required. But I got a CWP for several reasons, one of which is being able to buy a gun without a background check since a far more extensive one was made to get the permit.

--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
BillBab Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5282
Joined: Sep. 2008
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 11:38 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

My plan would likely save money.....would not need all those NICS people

--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."

Thomas Sowell
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43763
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 11 2013, 11:19 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Jan. 11 2013, 4:31 am)
QUOTE

(High_Sierra_Fan @ Jan. 11 2013, 12:45 am)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Jan. 10 2013, 9:42 pm)
QUOTE
The SCOTUS  says that corporations are people and that you don't have a fourth amendment right! The SCOTUS can KMA!

Then you can wipe that kiss off with the vellum of the Constitution for that's all it will be good for. Some old faded marks on a piece of old, dead, animal hide.
Ha. We're going to have to do something about that HSF.

Point being to be real the Constitution has to be interpreted, which is what was established with Marbury v Madison. Otherwise it's just marks on an old animal hide. Somebody has to measure laws against the Constitution, because there's no "everybody" knowing what it determines in any and all legislative circumstances, at least not now over two hundred years after the discussion surrounding its acceptance.  Heck look at all the fuss and confusion over that comma in the Second Amendment!

You want The President all alone determining what's consistent with The Constitution? Or just as bad The Congress?

I like the independent judiciary model. Far from perfect but what human institution isn't?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
markinOhio Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 625
Joined: Feb. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 7:14 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Although I don’t think it would have any impact on the illegal sale of guns, I would support a personal ID for gun ownership based on an individual’s prior criminal history (based on NCIC database). Since the FBI did 2.8 million checks in December, It would probably save the taxpayers some money, and the legal gun purchasers some time.

However, it gets slippery when the government wants to prohibit firearm ownership based on a database comprised solely of suspicion:

NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin....e22078:

I’m even more concerned that some type of mental health records database will eventually come into play.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
Drift Woody Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6598
Joined: Feb. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 8:03 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montanalonewolf @ Jan. 10 2013, 10:17 pm)
QUOTE
As long as the same standards are applied to access to alcohol, which kills 2˝x as many innocent people every year in the US as guns do. Plus another 30,000 who basically commit suicide through chronic alcohol abuse.

There you go again with that specious argument.

--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Montanalonewolf Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 7129
Joined: Mar. 2010
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 8:56 am Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Your believing that is why DUI/DWI drivers are still murdering innocent people.

--------------
If you are free to be a Liberal- Thank a person with a gun.

Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
HighGravity Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 4489
Joined: Oct. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 10:21 am Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(BillBab @ Jan. 11 2013, 9:35 am)
QUOTE
If it is really about keeping bad people from getting guns then that is all that matters.

If it is about registration (with intent to eventually confiscate) then it will be less effective

If you are a "good guy" the govt should really not care what you own

In a Roy Rogers movie the good guys wear white and the bad guys wear black. The real world doesn't work that way Bab.  Murderers are often "good guys" by your definition just seconds before committing their first murder. People who live in the real world know that accountability is a powerful tool in controlling behavior. In our country there is little accountability for gun crimes because criminals know how damn easy it us to use an untraceable gun.

Why is this such a difficult concept for all you "good guys" to understand?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
51 replies since Jan. 10 2013, 9:38 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Background checks
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions