In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
74% of NRA members support background checks
Waco Waltz
Member Posts: 10,828 ✭✭
That is what a lady on the phone told me when I called her about her anti gun letter.
Who are those NRA members?
I asked her if she was aware of the pro gun rally Sat. she said yes. I asked if there was going to be a counter protest. Not that she was aware of. I asked then how she could feel the majority of Americans were for gun control when there are pro gun rallies but little to no counter protests?
That's when she cited the 74%
Who are those NRA members?
I asked her if she was aware of the pro gun rally Sat. she said yes. I asked if there was going to be a counter protest. Not that she was aware of. I asked then how she could feel the majority of Americans were for gun control when there are pro gun rallies but little to no counter protests?
That's when she cited the 74%
Comments
I wonder if politicians have to have background checks.
The background checks are not the problem. It is the record keeping the goverment does with the background checks that is the problem.
I wonder if politicians have to have background checks.
Speak for yourself!! The Government needs to keep their hands off private transactions.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
There are reasonable people controls. Some people need to be controlled. Criminal types, bad crazy people, people killer people, child rapers, dog rapers, father rapers....
I have no objection to instant and free back ground checks that result in no data record lasting longer than it takes to make the check. But only if there is a mandated list of what crimes and bad behaviors get reported and that all stopped sales result in a rapid response to investigate.
Stop crazies - YES
Stop criminals - YES
Burden the Honest Citizen - Nope.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
Every yayhoo that showed up to date my daughter would get an instant background check. (I'm planning on taking blood and seeing their report cards, so this isn't a big step for me).
And before I hired someone, I'd like to know their past mental state(s).
Oh. And layoffs are coming. Might as well round up the crazies and get them out the door first. It only costs a couple of bucks on the Internet. [;)]
That is what a lady on the phone told me when I called her about her anti gun letter.
Who are those NRA members?
I asked her if she was aware of the pro gun rally Sat. she said yes. I asked if there was going to be a counter protest. Not that she was aware of. I asked then how she could feel the majority of Americans were for gun control when there are pro gun rallies but little to no counter protests?
That's when she cited the 74%
if the buyer is a stranger, looks and acts like a criminal, or brags about what stores and banks he knocked off, and what prisons he was in...
then yes I'd want a background check/transfer
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
No surprise there. The NRA's position has been for reasonable gun control since its inception.
Yep.
Maybe they should concentrate on getting the list they already have fixed, before they try try expanding the process.
How about if we forget about more red tape on the front end and increase penalties for violent crimes where guns are used? Wouldn't affect a single legal gun owner.
Penalties do not stop crime. They punish crime. I agree with punishment, but see rare opportunities where laws halt criminal behavior.
One of the few is the criminal or violent nut case trying to buy a gun via lawful channels. I never thought they would when I first heard about back ground checks, but it does happen.
I want the system fixed so it does not burden us but assures that prohibited persons get a law enforcement response every single time.
I have heard this slander about the NRA for a long time, but not directly from the NRA. If they do support reasonable anything then the NRA must feel that "Universal Background Checks" (UBGC) are not reasonable.
Why else would they send all their NY members (And I'm sure others) an urgent message warning them about the dangerous pitfalls of falling for this misleading, benign sounding, and confusing phrase the Gun Grabbers are using in order to garner support for this legislation?
Bottom line, any legislation that criminalizes private transfer of a legally owned firearm between law-abiding gun owners is an infringement on the second amendment. Further, the only way to enforce UBGC is to create a national registry of all gun owners, and we all know what that leads to.[V]
Trinity +++
No surprise there. The NRA's position has been for reasonable gun control since its inception.
"reasonable"
i despise that word when it comes to "gun control talk", the liarberals feeeeel it means abolish all guns..,
"reasonable" to me means i can have any weapon/gun i want.
Universal background checks are universal registration.
That is the thing most people don't realize. The only way to background check all firearm transactions, first all firearms must be registered.
That is what a lady on the phone told me when I called her about her anti gun letter.
Who are those NRA members?
I asked her if she was aware of the pro gun rally Sat. she said yes. I asked if there was going to be a counter protest. Not that she was aware of. I asked then how she could feel the majority of Americans were for gun control when there are pro gun rallies but little to no counter protests?
That's when she cited the 74%
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/12/17/frank-luntz-gun-control-sandy-hook/
A small poll taken by Frank Luntz, universally hated by folks on the left, except in this case, and taken 3 days after Newtown. But I'm going to bet the lady calling didn't know that and if asked would have just had no answer.
Polls are very sensitive to wording. "Should a person be allowed to sell a gun to anyone even if they don't know him?" gets a different responsee than "Should a father be prohibited from giving his son a rifle for XMas?".
Clouder..
Obama threatening veterans' gun rights
Posted on: February 22nd, 2013
The Obama administration has launched into a campaign that threatens the Second Amendment rights of American military veterans, sending out letters that say their competency to handle their own affairs is being reviewed, and if determined by government bureaucrats to be unable to handle their affairs, they would be barred from having any weapons.
The issue is being raised by officials with the United States Justice Foundation, which takes up cases involving civil and religious rights.
In a statement posted on the organization's website, Executive Director Michael Connelly said his organization is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act demand to the Department of Veterans Affairs to "force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights."
sent or called into authorities, especially
concerning firearms gets purged from the system.
DOJ could put the Prohibited Persons data base online & allow anyone with a computer to access it. ATF could put the query right under FFL EZ-Check. You would only need to enter a name & date of birth. It would be a minor project that could be implemented within 2-3 months.
Neal
"A prophet is a pariah in his own time."
This is what scary the hell out of me, the sorry sob will try anything
Obama threatening veterans' gun rights
Posted on: February 22nd, 2013
The Obama administration has launched into a campaign that threatens the Second Amendment rights of American military veterans, sending out letters that say their competency to handle their own affairs is being reviewed, and if determined by government bureaucrats to be unable to handle their affairs, they would be barred from having any weapons.
The issue is being raised by officials with the United States Justice Foundation, which takes up cases involving civil and religious rights.
In a statement posted on the organization's website, Executive Director Michael Connelly said his organization is pursuing a Freedom of Information Act demand to the Department of Veterans Affairs to "force them to disclose the criteria they are using to place veterans on the background check list that keeps them from exercising their Second Amendment rights."
There are a couple of other threads running on this topic. It is not true, it's another made up scare.
There has long been a need for those judged to be mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others to be barred from buying guns. This is not new, but including the names of people so adjudicated in NICS is spotty at best.
That is what a lady on the phone told me when I called her about her anti gun letter.
Who are those NRA members?
I asked her if she was aware of the pro gun rally Sat. she said yes. I asked if there was going to be a counter protest. Not that she was aware of. I asked then how she could feel the majority of Americans were for gun control when there are pro gun rallies but little to no counter protests?
That's when she cited the 74%
That "74%" number comes from Mayor Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" -- they don't have access to NRA membership rolls, so they simply cannot conduct an accurate survey of NRA members to determine opinions of the membership.
Or to put it in simpler terms: That 74% number is a bald-faced lie people seeking to violate your rights are telling. (Is it really surprising that people who wish to violate your rights would be willing to tell lies to achieve their more vicious goals?)
Of course, there is also a difference between the "criminal background checks" some members of the NRA support as an effort to try to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the "universal background checks" as proposed by the (socialist) left.
The "universal background checks" being proposed is about banning any private sale/transfer of a firearm. Every firearm would need to be transferred through a Federal Firearms Licensee. Since all records of a Federal Firearms Licensee are open to ATF inspection -- and those records are turned over to the ATF when the FFL goes out of business -- the "universal background check" is universal registration of all firearms.
I expect, for many of the NRA members who support "background checks" (with the idea that it may help keep firearms out of criminal hands), the idea is simply one where they are thinking of opening up the NICS for private transfers of firearms.
If there was only a call by a private seller to NICS to check the background of a private buyer -- at the time of the sale -- with no Form 4473 being filled out and retained by a Federal Firearms Licensee, one could have "background checks" without the universal registration the political left is seeking with their proposal of "universal background checks."
Right now, the "universal background check" is just a term the political left is using for universal registration of all firearms.
If they call it what it is (i.e. "registration"), they know people won't support it, but by changing it's name -- and making it sound like something a "reasonable" person would support -- they are hoping to implement it. They know getting records about all the people who own firearms is a key element in getting the population disarmed so they can achieve their final goal of socialism. They have to make sure those "pesky individualists" cannot have powerful tools to use against the socialist mob; finding out what individuals have what tools is the first step in getting them disarmed so they can be easily forced into obedience.
I decide who I want to sell a gun to.
Good advice...[^]
"No surprise there. The NRA's position has been for reasonable gun control since its inception."
I have heard this slander about the NRA for a long time, but not directly from the NRA. If they do support reasonable anything then the NRA must feel that "Universal Background Checks" (UBGC) are not reasonable.
Why else would they send all their NY members (And I'm sure others) an urgent message warning them about the dangerous pitfalls of falling for this misleading, benign sounding, and confusing phrase the Gun Grabbers are using in order to garner support for this legislation?
Bottom line, any legislation that criminalizes private transfer of a legally owned firearm between law-abiding gun owners is an infringement on the second amendment. Further, the only way to enforce UBGC is to create a national registry of all gun owners, and we all know what that leads to.[V]
Trinity +++
quote:
"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
-NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22
quote:
"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."
-NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
(source)
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
We should implement background checks on far more products than just guns. Cars, knives, rope, hammers, hamburgers... I see no reason to limit them to just guns. You never know who's going to buy that rc helicopter!
back ground checks are done to get to license, so thus why buy a car if you do not have a license?
Felons dont need weapons sorry never going to buy that one. Question is how do you sort that one out? If its private check or public check and there is no record of it, I have no problem with it.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
We should implement background checks on far more products than just guns. Cars, knives, rope, hammers, hamburgers... I see no reason to limit them to just guns. You never know who's going to buy that rc helicopter!
back ground checks are done to get to license, so thus why buy a car if you do not have a license?
Felons dont need weapons sorry never going to buy that one. Question is how do you sort that one out? If its private check or public check and there is no record of it, I have no problem with it.
keep felons locked up or make them dead. It's a simple solution that keeps being overlooked.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
They never called me.
Me either.
[/quote]
Exactly, if a person is that bad that he cannot be trusted, why is he out in society. Prison overcrowding would not be a problem, if the death penalty was used more, and faster. No more 20-30 years on death row. Rape, especially with a child, no appeal.
Even the Canadians realized registration didn't work and did away with long gun registration(except Quebec), so why should we even start down this raod.
Rape, especially with a child, no appeal.
Getting a little off topic here, but do you mean to suggest that there have never been cases of false (or mistaken) accusations with rape?
The appeals process helps to insure that injustices don't happen -- unfortunately they do happen in rape cases too frequently due to people (prosecutors, police and jurors) becoming too wrapped up in emotion to examine the facts rationally.
I'm sure you are aware of the cases where innocent people have spent decades of their life in prison before technology progressed to a point where it cleared them of the false charges/conviction? (I'm thinking about people convicted before DNA evidence, who are then cleared years later when the DNA evidence proves they didn't do it.)
You would actually say to people, "You had your day in court so new evidence proving your innocence can ever be presented to a court because the appeals process is closed to you."?
I'm thinking I wouldn't want to see the sort of "justice" system you are wanting.
Young punks like the one suspected in the Vegas shooting, need to be put down, if he was the one to pull the trigger or even if he was just driving. That is what should be done.
But noooo someone will point out he was raised by a single mother. So what, my dad died when I was 13, I was 2nd oldest of 6. None of us went to prison or became criminals. Two of us served in the military.
Why should us law abiding citizens pay for what criminals do?
Rant over
That way you can still sell to people you know, but will have an option of getting a background check if you're nervous about a sale?
How about make it illegal to sell a gun to a felon (which it is), and provide citizens the option of using a background check to guarantee they aren't.
That way you can still sell to people you know, but will have an option of getting a background check if you're nervous about a sale?
on your honor systems never work.