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.
What else can be done to stop the AWB?
Waco Waltz
Member Posts: 10,836 ✭✭
I wrote many reps and my own. I did the Ruger thing. What else? Do you guy write your reps once a week or daily?
Comments
quote:What else can be done to stop the AWB?Make sure they're sighted in, loaded, cocked, and the slack out of the trigger.
Thinking that far ahead, you know the arab spring armed conflicts, they were small countries where you could drive to the capital in a day's time or less.
I wonder what kind of challenges the large expanse of the United States will bring. I wonder if it will help or hamper the rebels or government forces. That is if it goes there.
Letters went unanswered, but sometimes these take weeks.
Gabby Giffords has never responded to any of my emails, though I did get one from her this week. I don't think I'm going to be able convince her that the proposed restrictions would not have prevented here injury. Apparently there's money in whoring a tragic situation.
I'm a life member of both the GOA and SAF, and have sent additional donations to both this year.
The bottom line is that if elected officials believe the polls that 80%+ of Americans support universal background checks, it will happen. Appeals to the obvious 10th Amendment violation are ignored, as both the Democrats and Republicans no longer feel constrained by the Constitution.
Enough Republicans believe in Universal Background checks that absent a significant change in the reported polling data, it will probably pass. At that point, a court challenge, based upon 10th Amendment limitations upon the Federal Government will be necessary.
Brad Steele
People believe in better background checks, we all do. But that is not really what we will end up with it will be registration in some form and they are not telling the buyers, that's the voters about that BS.
Not all of us, Mr. Waltz.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
People believe in better background checks, we all do. But that is not really what we will end up with it will be registration in some form and they are not telling the buyers, that's the voters about that BS.
Not all of us, Mr. Waltz.
What Don said.
I find that hard to believe.
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
People believe in better background checks, we all do. But that is not really what we will end up with it will be registration in some form and they are not telling the buyers, that's the voters about that BS.
Not all of us, Mr. Waltz.
What Don said.
You don't support background checks that are not blocked by Hippa law? You don't care if a total nut case is cleared to buy a gun? You believe Adam Lanza should have been able to buy guns?
I find that hard to believe.
I do not support mandated background checks, period.
If a person cannot legally own a firearm, it is his responsibility not to buy one. It is a seller's responsibility (IMO) to be selective as to whom he sells.
The improvements to the background checks contemplated seem to be treading very close to if not infringing upon HIPAA privacy protections. What we have now doesn't work. Expanding it will not do anything absent severe inroads into individual privacy.
I am strongly in favor of scrapping the entire NICS, the Form 4473, and the entire FFL program.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
You don't support background checks that are not blocked by Hippa law? You don't care if a total nut case is cleared to buy a gun? You believe Adam Lanza should have been able to buy guns?
I find that hard to believe.
I do not support mandated background checks, period.
If a person cannot legally own a firearm, it is his responsibility not to buy one. It is a seller's responsibility (IMO) to be selective as to whom he sells.
The improvements to the background checks contemplated seem to be treading very close to if not infringing upon HIPAA privacy protections. What we have now doesn't work. Expanding it will not do anything absent severe inroads into individual privacy.
I am strongly in favor of scrapping the entire NICS, the Form 4473, and the entire FFL program.
Don, I agree with you 100% on this but sadly it'll never happen. For one, the 4473 gives the goverment a defacto data base already. The fact it's held at the dealers location is immaterial since the ATF can have access to them anytime it wants. Same with the NCIC system. While NCIC data is supposed to be deleted/destroyed after a specified period of time the goverment has been caught holding onto it for much longer. It's all about control and the one thing the goverment, all levels of goverment, are loathed to let go of is control.
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
You don't support background checks that are not blocked by Hippa law? You don't care if a total nut case is cleared to buy a gun? You believe Adam Lanza should have been able to buy guns?
I find that hard to believe.
I do not support mandated background checks, period.
If a person cannot legally own a firearm, it is his responsibility not to buy one. It is a seller's responsibility (IMO) to be selective as to whom he sells.
The improvements to the background checks contemplated seem to be treading very close to if not infringing upon HIPAA privacy protections. What we have now doesn't work. Expanding it will not do anything absent severe inroads into individual privacy.
I am strongly in favor of scrapping the entire NICS, the Form 4473, and the entire FFL program.
Well while I would agree with you in a sane world, the problem is half the country is infected with Liberalism. Your ideas only lead to a complete ban when considering "Politics".
I was trying to live in reality here.
Well while I would agree with you in a sane world, the problem is half the country is infected with Liberalism. Your ideas only lead to a complete ban when considering "Politics".
I was trying to live in reality here.
Reality is fine, but it is a double-edged sword.
If one advocates for 'better background checks' now, the actual reality is that they will be more intrusive and still accomplish nothing. In this case, the politics suggest that any effort towards better background checks will do nothing but result in increased loss of privacy and freedom.
The total elimination of background checks is not a near-term possibility, I agree. Increasing the layers of the onion that will require peeling, however is a huge step in the wrong direction.
I have been trying to convince my Senators that Federal mandates towards this end violate 10th Amendment restrictions on Federal Power. One made an attempt to answer, the other ignored me. The danger in this approach, obviously, is that pointing out 10th Amendment restrictions on the Federal Government gives tacit acceptance that this power is reserved to the states. Obviously letters to my state representative and Senator are more focused upon 2nd Amendment limitations.
Brad Steele
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
Right now their Dr. May know they are a problem around weapons but he can't say anything to the police.
OK lets start from scratch. How do you control either access to gun by the Criminally insane or control the criminal before they are realized to be a problem?
Right now their Dr. May know they are a problem around weapons but he can't say anything to the police.
'Control the Criminal before they are realized to be a problem?'
Wow.
Are you suggesting preemptive punishment and/or restriction prior to the commission of a crime?
Direct answer is we shouldn't control people out of worry of potential transgression, and as a free society cannot take a step down that road. Removing the rights of an individual based on the word of another individual and not their actions sets up a tremendous risk of abuse.
Bad things are going to happen. Disenfranchising folks because someone thinks that the may have the potential to do a bad thing destroys much of the individual liberty that is the center-piece of the Bill of Rights.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
OK lets start from scratch. How do you control either access to gun by the Criminally insane or control the criminal before they are realized to be a problem?
Right now their Dr. May know they are a problem around weapons but he can't say anything to the police.
'Control the Criminal before they are realized to be a problem?'
Wow.
Are you suggesting preemptive punishment and/or restriction prior to the commission of a crime?
Direct answer is we shouldn't control people out of worry of potential transgression, and as a free society cannot take a step down that road. Removing the rights of an individual based on the word of another individual and not their actions sets up a tremendous risk of abuse.
Bad things are going to happen. Disenfranchising folks because someone thinks that the may have the potential to do a bad thing destroys much of the individual liberty that is the center-piece of the Bill of Rights.
I think we should control people on the same drugs that the mass shooters were on.
You and many here agree stupid and dangerous shooters at ranges should be controlled. Many get booted from the clubs and no one disagrees with that. NO one was shot, should we wait till they actually shoot someone?
But do all the psyche drugs you want and it's just fine?
Think about what you are advocating.
I think we should control people on the same drugs that the mass shooters were on.
You and many here agree stupid and dangerous shooters at ranges should be controlled. Many get booted from the clubs and no one disagrees with that. NO one was shot, should we wait till they actually shoot someone?
But do all the psyche drugs you want and it's just fine?
Think about what you are advocating.
I strongly disagree.
I don't pretend to know the percentage of folks on these medications that are a risk, and am uncomfortable having government come in and disarm an entire group of citizens because of the actions of a few.
These horrific mass shootings are a nearly insignificant percentage of firearms crimes committed in this country. While I guess I would support any State that, with the agreement of their citizens, works to improve treatment options, I do not see where disarming them is going to make a big difference (Obviously it would make a difference if it were a family member).
In order to seriously consider this preemptive dis-arming of these folks, you would first have to prove to me that, statistically, disarming them would result in a net measurable reduction in innocent life being taken. Disarming these folks will leave them vulnerable obviously.
A private group removing an idiot from a private range is a totally different animal than a government disabling an entire segment of the population. We need to be careful, IMO, how cavalier some of us tend to get simply because a proposed restriction or two has no direct personal impact.
Brad Steele
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
SO disarming Adam Lanza would have needed a study done before hand? I don't think I am the one with ridiculous ideas here.
Of course not. A study would be too easy. What is required is a thorough individual vetting through the legal system.
Removing the rights of any individual should be a difficult process. Once the removal of rights becomes an administrative exercise, we have opened a door that will be impossible to close, and will open ever and ever wider with each passing crisis.
It is far too easy to simply say 'It's for the children.' after the fact, but absent adjudication, I just don't see how a free society can strip the rights of any of its citizens.
Your ideas are not ridiculous in the current liberty-adverse atmosphere of the U.S. body politic. They are simply yet another case of the majority desiring to impose its will upon a minority without due process. It is anti-freedom, anti-liberty and stands fully against our founding.
Brad Steele
SO disarming Adam Lanza would have needed a study done before hand? I don't think I am the one with ridiculous ideas here.
You want to lock up someone or otherwise restrict their rights without due process and you don't think you're the one with ridiculous ideas? Please explain.
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
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
SO disarming Adam Lanza would have needed a study done before hand? I don't think I am the one with ridiculous ideas here.
Of course not. A study would be too easy. What is required is a thorough individual vetting through the legal system.
Removing the rights of any individual should be a difficult process. Once the removal of rights becomes an administrative exercise, we have opened a door that will be impossible to close, and will open ever and ever wider with each passing crisis.
It is far too easy to simply say 'It's for the children.' after the fact, but absent adjudication, I just don't see how a free society can strip the rights of any of its citizens.
Your ideas are not ridiculous in the current liberty-adverse atmosphere of the U.S. body politic. They are simply yet another case of the majority desiring to impose its will upon a minority without due process. It is anti-freedom, anti-liberty and stands fully against our founding.
Don, whenever I read "for the children", I understand the "children" part to equate with "liberal/progressive/emoters/leftist/collectivist/etc. ideologues that infest this fine country. And it seems to me to be a fitting description of them![8D]
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
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
SO disarming Adam Lanza would have needed a study done before hand? I don't think I am the one with ridiculous ideas here.
You want to lock up someone or otherwise restrict their rights without due process and you don't think you're the one with ridiculous ideas? Please explain.
I think if you went back to say the 1950's the people who I am saying are the current problem would be locked up already and there would not be any discussion on their rights. We let them roam free today because they cost to much to house like in the past say before Reagan let them all out. I am not advocating we just strip their rights willy nilly, medical professionals should be involved in the process.
I can't even smoke Dope and buy a gun why should anyone whacked out on psyche meds be able to? Seriously.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
SO disarming Adam Lanza would have needed a study done before hand? I don't think I am the one with ridiculous ideas here.
You want to lock up someone or otherwise restrict their rights without due process and you don't think you're the one with ridiculous ideas? Please explain.
I think if you went back to say the 1950's the people who I am saying are the current problem would be locked up already and there would not be any discussion on their rights. We let them roam free today because they cost to much to house like in the past say before Reagan let them all out. I am not advocating we just strip their rights willy nilly, medical professionals should be involved in the process.
I can't even smoke Dope and buy a gun why should anyone whacked out on psyche meds be able to? Seriously.
Stabilized by psyche meds is significantly different than 'whacked out' on psyche meds.
The vast majority of these folks can become productive members of society, going to work, owning homes, having children that require protection.
The word of a medical professional is insufficient to keep them from exercising the same rights as any other American who is also just doing the best that he can.
Again: If you really believe this is a problem, find the statistics that prove it. We simply cannot look at the last three group shootings and change the laws of the land to disenfranchise a segment of the population because of these three small events.
Our Republic is designed such that it is difficult for the majority to oppress a minority. I would only ask that you exercise caution prior to seeking out a minority to oppress just because it makes you feel good.
Let's be honest. If we want to reduce the murder rate in America, we should just ban all African Americans and Mexican Americans from owning firearms. It would save one hell of a lot more lives than disenfranchising those with mental and/or emotional issues, would it not?
Why then do we not advocate for this ridiculous disenfranchisement rather than one that is statistically insignificant, and thus even more ridiculous?
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
SO disarming Adam Lanza would have needed a study done before hand? I don't think I am the one with ridiculous ideas here.
You want to lock up someone or otherwise restrict their rights without due process and you don't think you're the one with ridiculous ideas? Please explain.
I think if you went back to say the 1950's the people who I am saying are the current problem would be locked up already and there would not be any discussion on their rights. We let them roam free today because they cost to much to house like in the past say before Reagan let them all out. I am not advocating we just strip their rights willy nilly, medical professionals should be involved in the process.
I can't even smoke Dope and buy a gun why should anyone whacked out on psyche meds be able to? Seriously.
Back in the 1950's many people were held against their will and tortured, in various ways, in psyche wards, a small percentage of that population was actually deemed a threat to society. It sounds like you'd like to return to that. Wonderful. Can I sign you up?
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
When you guys can come up with something that would stop the adam lanza's of the world you be sure to let us know.
Will do, and I hope you will too.
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
When you guys can come up with something that would stop the adam lanza's of the world you be sure to let us know.
Of course, though I don't see my self spending a whole lot of time on such an historically trivial issue.
Brad Steele
eliminate gun free zones. Problem solved.
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
http://www.infowars.com/democrats-republicans-and-nra-work-together-on-gun-confiscation/
And when you come up with a way to stop the left from exploiting the shootings also let us know. And I would prefer you do this before they ban all the guns. I see them marching on.
Now you want restrictions on the first amendment?! Wow.
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
And when you come up with a way to stop the left from exploiting the shootings also let us know. And I would prefer you do this before they ban all the guns. I see them marching on.
I agree that this is a problem, Mr. Waltz. Even though, as emotions wind down, the impetus for passing 'common sense gun control' is fading, there remains a very real risk of something being done primarily for the sake of doing something. It is my belief that stopping the mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans from implementing a system of Universal Background Checks should be the primary goal, as this appears to be the only national restriction that appears to have any staying power.
Every time it is brought up, one need only to point out two things:
1. A system of Universal Background Checks, had it been in place, would not have stopped any of the recent group shootings.
2. Legislation to implement this is Constitutionally impossible. Such legislative power is obviously not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and if Constitutional at all, is obviously a power that is reserved to the States via the 10th Amendment. The commerce clause cannot be invoked to provide legitimacy, as it has already been stretched to provide justification for the Federal Transfer Laws already on the books.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
And when you come up with a way to stop the left from exploiting the shootings also let us know. And I would prefer you do this before they ban all the guns. I see them marching on.
Now you want restrictions on the first amendment?! Wow.
I don't follow you Mr. Perfect. Where did you infer that?
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
And when you come up with a way to stop the left from exploiting the shootings also let us know. And I would prefer you do this before they ban all the guns. I see them marching on.
I agree that this is a problem, Mr. Waltz. Even though, as emotions wind down, the impetus for passing 'common sense gun control' is fading, there remains a very real risk of something being done primarily for the sake of doing something. It is my belief that stopping the mainstream Democrats and mainstream Republicans from implementing a system of Universal Background Checks should be the primary goal, as this appears to be the only national restriction that appears to have any staying power.
Every time it is brought up, one need only to point out two things:
1. A system of Universal Background Checks, had it been in place, would not have stopped any of the recent group shootings.
2. Legislation to implement this is Constitutionally impossible. Such legislative power is obviously not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and if Constitutional at all, is obviously a power that is reserved to the States via the 10th Amendment. The commerce clause cannot be invoked to provide legitimacy, as it has already been stretched to provide justification for the Federal Transfer Laws already on the books.
As much as I would like to say the solution is to simply take the hard line and oppose ALL new proposed gun laws I feel that even if we win all we will be doing is getting set up for the next one with the backlash being blamed on the hard liners. It's almost as if the media and government are channeling things this way.
This is about getting the people in the middle on our side. Committing political suicide won't help us.
So I guess your job here is to come up with the magic political solution.
As much as I would like to say the solution is to simply take the hard line and oppose ALL new proposed gun laws I feel that even if we win all we will be doing is getting set up for the next one with the backlash being blamed on the hard liners. It's almost as if the media and government are channeling things this way.
This is about getting the people in the middle on our side. Committing political suicide won't help us.
So I guess your job here is to come up with the magic political solution.
You are correct in your assessment, I believe, Waco, and I agree that swaying the masses is a necessity.
I cannot agree with, however, throwing one group of Americans under the bus to satiate the masses.
The hard line is principled. Sacrificing our fellow Americans for a short-term gain is without principle, is immoral, and will do more to feed the flames of regulation than standing firm.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
And when you come up with a way to stop the left from exploiting the shootings also let us know. And I would prefer you do this before they ban all the guns. I see them marching on.
Now you want restrictions on the first amendment?! Wow.
I don't follow you Mr. Perfect. Where did you infer that?
You want the left to stop their expression of shootings. Sounds like an infringement to me.[xx(]
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
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Waco Waltz
And when you come up with a way to stop the left from exploiting the shootings also let us know. And I would prefer you do this before they ban all the guns. I see them marching on.
Now you want restrictions on the first amendment?! Wow.
I don't follow you Mr. Perfect. Where did you infer that?
You want the left to stop their expression of shootings. Sounds like an infringement to me.[xx(]
I think you totally missed the point of my statement. You and Don don't agree with my views and Don pointed out how my views are cross ways with the philosophy of freedom to which I agree and yet we still have the anti gun problem don't we? I was simply dumping that problem back into your laps to deal with you know? As if to say If you have a better idea I was all ears.
Should we, if we even had the power and we don't, limit the lefty's first Amendment right to
spew their ideas in the press? That is a complex question.
Today 96% of all media print, radio, TV and internet is controlled by only 6 large corporations. There is a shell game of ownership that can be pointed to as a means to say the press is free but if you follow the money it all leads to a mere six corporate owners that just happen to have the same editorial policies and liberal view points.
Obviously the press is far from free or fair. If I somehow managed to find myself as a dictator being put in power by some coup or strange and extraordinary events do I think it would be a good idea to Limit the Progressives in this country? If I had the power you bet your sweet Bippy as my Dad used to say. But I don't nor never will have that power.
Do you think it's a good policy to allow those on the left to use the freedoms we have under the constitution for the express purpose to destroy those freedoms and the Country as we know it? I sure don't. Would I use my power as a dictator to forever control and suppress any opposition? NO at some point the country would be saved and the Constitution would again be the law of the land and I would of course step down and go into retirement. I should think no more then 5 years would be needed.
We will not recognise it as it rises.? It will wear no black shirts here.? It will probably have no marching songs.? It will rise out of a congregation of groups and elements that exist here and are essential components of Fascism.? The essentials of Fascism are: (1) corporatism; (2) government-created purchasing power as a substitute for private investment; (3) production of government funds by bank credits; (4) militarism; (5) dictatorship.
? ? It will be at first decorous, human, glowing with homely American sentiment.? But dictatorship cannot remain benevolent.? To continue, it must become ruthless. When this stage is reached we shall see that appeal by radio, movies, and government-controlled newspapers to all the worst instincts and emotions of our people.? The rough, the violent, the lawless men will come to the surface and into power.? This is the terrifying prospect as we move along our present course.
John T. Flynn1941