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.
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
Some will die in hot pursuit
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
Thanks for responding. It's good to understand the views that support your typing. I am glad to see, and I support, your concern for the public welfare.
I am getting to be more Libertarian each day, it seems. I think we need to focus on the reason for the 2A. We need to be able to at least provide a token resistance to government oppression. Personally, I would only buy a full-auto for the fun of chasing pop cans around the range. As I mentioned, unless you are talking about keeping the enemies' heads down, a bunch of semi-autos work as well or better than than a full-auto.
My concern is that any time we agree to be 'reasonable' about firearms ownership, we get 'reasonable' shoved up our behinds. It's 'reasonable' in your mind to restrict full-autos. OK, that's not what the 2A says. Do you support the US Constitution or not? This is not supposed to be a pick-and-choose deal here. Maybe it's OK to restrict Joe-Bob's church, as long as we leave the snake-handlers alone?
The above was not intended to be an attack on your beliefs, it is simply my personal view of the whole mess. Freedom is really messy sometimes.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
The laws have changed over time through gradualism, or incrementalism.
Why do you think that cannot change by the same type of process, in the other direction ?
Because the 'progressives' are in power! As long as they are in control it will not be changed by legislation, only our 'action' will change it.
We have our backs against the wall right NOW! I have given all I am going to give! [:(!]
"If you give them an inch they will take a mile"! This has been proven time and time again and it MUST STOP NOW! [xx(]
Regardless of how we stand on the 'way it should be' we must all refuse to 'go to the back of the bus'. Once we STOP this erosion of our rights we can have the conversation of how to 'rebuild' them![:)]
After attending shows for many years I. Have to admit that some of the "buyers" at shows make me nervous.
some I would not trust with a bag of pretzels.
I have noticed that many sellers are attuned to this and will refuse to sell if they fell hinky about someone.
at the same time I have to defend and extend them the same rights that I expect for myself.
Even if they have on a bandanna and have their pants down around their knees and have gang tats.
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
The laws have changed over time through gradualism, or incrementalism.
Why do you think that cannot change by the same type of process, in the other direction ?
Why do you think that I think that it cannot?
Some will die in hot pursuit
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 Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
The laws have changed over time through gradualism, or incrementalism.
Why do you think that cannot change by the same type of process, in the other direction ?
Why do you think that I think that it cannot?
Because it seems to me from reading your posts that I see nothing much suggesting that you do.
Which is why I was asking.
Is that not a correct appraisal ?
Not even remotely.
Some will die in hot pursuit
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 Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
The laws have changed over time through gradualism, or incrementalism.
Why do you think that cannot change by the same type of process, in the other direction ?
Because the 'progressives' are in power! As long as they are in control it will not be changed by legislation, only our 'action' will change it.
We have our backs against the wall right NOW! I have given all I am going to give! [:(!]
"If you give them an inch they will take a mile"! This has been proven time and time again and it MUST STOP NOW! [xx(]
Regardless of how we stand on the 'way it should be' we must all refuse to 'go to the back of the bus'. Once we STOP this erosion of our rights we can have the conversation of how to 'rebuild' them![:)]
I support the idea, only on the grounds that penalties resulting in loss of firearms rights aren't increased. It's to the point where an argument with your room-mate or calling your wife stupid for filling every single room of the house with child related toys can possibly result in loss of firearms rights. That has to be a large portion of the population from time to time I imagine. If every instance were reported to police practically no-one would have a right to a gun.
The text of Lautenberg amendment directly implies that just one instance of verbal abuse between spouses or roomates can result in loss of firearms rights. The text is rather vauge and I'm unsure if my interpretation is the correct one. So basically I can't call my room-mate a stinky dumb*** who doesn't take a shower without him possibly reporting me and having me arrested for verbal abuse under the Lautenberg amendment. Applies to both men and women as well.
On a related note aswell the ATF should be required to destroy their records at the end of each month to prevent possible abuse of the background check. With all fairness too the Lautenberg amendment and violence against women act literally give women the legislation necessary to eviscerate their husbands and the potential for abuse is high. Statistically men normally don't even report abuse they've suffered.
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
OK, let's make it more interesting: Tulsa show a non-ffl seller is offering me a Walther, not C&R. He is not from Oklahoma, nor am I. I did not buy it.
Gunshow loophole?
OK to buy?
Is the Walther a handgun? Lets assume it is. If you have an FFL you can buy it. Or you can have the seller legally transfer it to an FFL in your state and you can buy it there from the FFL. Any other transfer from 2 private parties out of their states is a crime. I have heard it happens in Tulsa and other gun shows, and it is a serious Federal crime, not really a loophole.
I'm against background checks, period. They only inconvenience the law-abiding, they don't work for the most part but, most importantly, why do I need a background check to exercise a my 2nd Amendment right, essentially my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don't need a background check to exercise my right of free speech but words have started wars. I don't need one to exercise my religion though more people have died in the course of human history in the name of one God or another that from any other cause. I don't need one to peaceably assemble or petition the government. I certainly don't need one to be given due process or to invoke my 5th Amendment rights.
Freedom isn't free. When we are truly free, sometimes bad people can abuse that liberty and do bad things. Franklin said it best, and I paraphrase, when we give up essential rights to purchase a little temporary security, we deserve neither.
A lot of this is moot anyways. Private sales are unenforceable. I don't plan on committing armed robbery... So the odds of me being stopped and detained with an illegal firearm are low.
I believe private sales shouldn't be subject to mandatory background checks. I'm Ok with dealer sales being subject to checks so long as the ATF isn't collecting data on who is buying what. Also Ok as long as checks are quick and don't burden the buyer. A quick phone call is sufficient.
Prosecute those who attempt buying guns that criminals.
The only reason to identify the firearm on a background check is back door registration. All you should have to do is run the check on the guy to see if he is ok. Keep the background check with your records on the gun and it's sale and the seller can keep it can keep it also. If there is ever a problem with the gun, you have the proof that you sold it to so and so and he passed a background check reference #xxxxxx on that date. Most people do not know or care that federal law now and has for years required individuals to keep record of every private gun sale for 10 years. I do. I need to be able to tell the powers that be if a gun is ever traced to me that I sold it to Joe Smith on a particualr date and to go talk to him. It is called CYA.
quote:Originally posted by slumlord44
The only reason to identify the firearm on a background check is back door registration. All you should have to do is run the check on the guy to see if he is ok. Keep the background check with your records on the gun and it's sale and the seller can keep it can keep it also. If there is ever a problem with the gun, you have the proof that you sold it to so and so and he passed a background check reference #xxxxxx on that date. Most people do not know or care that federal law now and has for years required individuals to keep record of every private gun sale for 10 years. I do. I need to be able to tell the powers that be if a gun is ever traced to me that I sold it to Joe Smith on a particualr date and to go talk to him. It is called CYA.
Can you give a link that requires private citizens to keep record of firearms sales for ten years? I'll admit I don't know all of the federal firearms laws, but never heard of that one.
quote:Originally posted by torosapo
Can you give a link that requires private citizens to keep record of firearms sales for ten years?
I would like to read that LAW as well.
Please provide the U.S.C. for that.
I was surprised that some bad guys try to buy guns "legally". I strongly doubt the numbers ar emore than a small fraction of what the anti-gunners claim. Just the same, making the system acceptable to me is likely not possible because people care more about getting their way than about solving a problem.
What would make Background Checks acceptable to me - -
1. No holding onto info about people that pass. That info shall last no longer than required to complete the sale.
2. All cases of a prohibited person trying to buy a gun shall result in a 911 dispatch to investigate. All cases found to be criminal must be prosecuted.
3. Open the system up for all Citizens to use it online or over the phone.
3. Non-government oversight of the system to make certain no records of private gun buys are maintained. The NRA, GOA, SAF or others to provide computer experts and accounting specialists. They shall have the authority to walk unscheduled into any ATF or FBI facility and inspect records, destroy records at will.
4. Cost of the Background Check system goes entirely on the Taxpayers. No hit to gun buyers or sellers. As a Constitutionally protected Right, any regulatory cost is an infringement.
The only way to make UBC system work is for universal registration.
The criminals will still get guns without checks, they will not register their guns, they are by definition law breakers.
quote:Originally posted by andrewsw16
An alternative would be to open the NICS system to FREE use by the general PUBLIC as a web site. Even as an optional use system, I think a lot of sellers in a FTF deal would make use of it.
This option would exclude the critical component of registration of all firearms which is of course the true intent of all such Uni-Back scams.
I beleive NICS background info is to be purged from their records within like 72 hours of the request for a background check........but EXACTLY WHO CHECKS TO SEE IT HAPPENS???
I think it should be purged as soon as the phone is hung up. I beleive they are kept a lot longer than they are supposed to.
Now we can see why this information You kind of wonder why this information
never makes the papers or TV news.....
Read this very carefully....
The "most popular" part of the proposed Senate gun control bill (background
checks) sounds like a good idea at first but is more restrictive than anyone
knew and will have significant unintended consequences.
There is a huge push to get it through Congress before the public has a
chance to consider its contents.
Common activities that we take for granted will become federal crimes. These
are not irresponsible exaggerations.
Please take a moment to review the
requirements of the bill.
Here are a few examples of the restrictions in the bill:
EXAMPLE #1
Loaning your buddy a shotgun for a duck hunting trip will be considered a
transfer. If the following requirements are not met, YOU HAVE BOTH COMMITTED
A FEDERAL CRIME.
1. He must have already purchased his hunting license
2. Season is already
open (and will not close before he returns it)
3. He cannot travel with the
firearm through a county where season is not yet open or any area where
hunting is prohibited and certainly not across a state line.
He CANNOT stop by your house on the day before season opens, pick up the
shot gun, go to the sporting goods store to buy a license and shells then
drive out to the hunting lease. In this scenario,
YOU BOTH WOULD HAVE
COMMITTED MULTIPLE FEDERAL CRIMES, YOUR WEAPONS WILL
BE FORFEITED
AND YOU WILL LOOSE YOUR RIGHT TO BUY OR OWN A FIREARM.
EXAMPLE #2
It appears that only you may relocate your weapons. If your weapon leaves
your home without you, the new legislation considers it a transfer of
possession. ALL transfers require going through a firearms dealer, paying
the transfer fee and a background check for the transferee.
Putting the weapon, even temporarily in someone else's possession, requires
a transfer through a dealer. There is no exception for putting them in a
friend's truck while moving to your new house or packing them unloaded,
locked in a gunsafe into a moving truck.
Any scenario in which your weapon leaves your home without you is considered
a transfer. Failure to properly transfer the weapon is a federal crime which
can result in a prison term AND WILL RESULT IN THE FORFEITURE OF YOUR
WEAPON.
In the scenario above, your buddy's truck was used to commit a federal crime
and WILL BE CONFISCATED just like with current Fish and Game violations.
EXAMPLE #3
Infractions as above which involve 2 guns of any type are considered weapons
trafficking. You will be prosecuted under the same federal laws as a
terrorist arms dealer.
EXAMPLE #4
Any of the infractions above (or hundreds of other routine
scenarios) may result in federal charges, confiscation of ALL your weapons
and being prohibited, like all felons, from ever owning a weapon again.
Please read the text of the bill yourself. Most of it is boring legalese but
the sections on transfers and trafficking are critical.
Take a minute to think about all the routine activities like those above
that will make you a federal criminal and result in prison time plus the
confiscation of your weapons and other property.
A link to the bill is included below on the official Senate website. See
Section 122 "Firearms Transfers".
Read it and call your congressman's office. Talk to their staff. Tell them
how you feel about this.
Keep in mind, none of the above would have stopped the tragedy's in
Columbine or Newtown . The proposed law makes you a criminal and opens the
door for confiscation of your weapons and property for otherwise routine
activities.
Think and act. Congress is hoping that you will do neither.
If you found the patience to read the entire text, you also learned that
exactly $100 million per year of your tax money is set aside to enforce
these restrictions.
We all need to read and control this bill and prevent it from becoming law!
Finally, please forward this to your friends who may be affected.
Comments
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
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
Thanks for responding. It's good to understand the views that support your typing. I am glad to see, and I support, your concern for the public welfare.
I am getting to be more Libertarian each day, it seems. I think we need to focus on the reason for the 2A. We need to be able to at least provide a token resistance to government oppression. Personally, I would only buy a full-auto for the fun of chasing pop cans around the range. As I mentioned, unless you are talking about keeping the enemies' heads down, a bunch of semi-autos work as well or better than than a full-auto.
My concern is that any time we agree to be 'reasonable' about firearms ownership, we get 'reasonable' shoved up our behinds. It's 'reasonable' in your mind to restrict full-autos. OK, that's not what the 2A says. Do you support the US Constitution or not? This is not supposed to be a pick-and-choose deal here. Maybe it's OK to restrict Joe-Bob's church, as long as we leave the snake-handlers alone?
The above was not intended to be an attack on your beliefs, it is simply my personal view of the whole mess. Freedom is really messy sometimes.
Terry
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
The laws have changed over time through gradualism, or incrementalism.
Why do you think that cannot change by the same type of process, in the other direction ?
Because the 'progressives' are in power! As long as they are in control it will not be changed by legislation, only our 'action' will change it.
We have our backs against the wall right NOW! I have given all I am going to give! [:(!]
"If you give them an inch they will take a mile"! This has been proven time and time again and it MUST STOP NOW! [xx(]
Regardless of how we stand on the 'way it should be' we must all refuse to 'go to the back of the bus'. Once we STOP this erosion of our rights we can have the conversation of how to 'rebuild' them![:)]
some I would not trust with a bag of pretzels.
I have noticed that many sellers are attuned to this and will refuse to sell if they fell hinky about someone.
at the same time I have to defend and extend them the same rights that I expect for myself.
Even if they have on a bandanna and have their pants down around their knees and have gang tats.
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
The laws have changed over time through gradualism, or incrementalism.
Why do you think that cannot change by the same type of process, in the other direction ?
Why do you think that I think that it cannot?
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 Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
The laws have changed over time through gradualism, or incrementalism.
Why do you think that cannot change by the same type of process, in the other direction ?
Why do you think that I think that it cannot?
Because it seems to me from reading your posts that I see nothing much suggesting that you do.
Which is why I was asking.
Is that not a correct appraisal ?
Not even remotely.
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 Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by cat66hat
Mr. Rau,
Re:
"I do not support ANY background checks for the purchase or transfer of any weapon which is not FULL AUTO!!!"
Why do you exclude select-fire firearms? The founders likely knew of the 'plunger' automatic/gatling-type firearm and they chose not to exclude it.
In my time with the US Army and the Army National Guard, I shot and qualified with both the old full-auto M-16 and the M-60 machine gun.
I found that semi-auto in a man-portable rifle was much more lethal and it wasted less ammo. That became much more important when Uncle Sam stopped buying the ammo.
We used to be able to buy full autos. Except for prohibition gangstas (the root cause of that was more laws) there was no carnage.
My guess is that an 18 Y.O. with a full load of crazy and a full-auto rifle would make the intended target the safest person.
What's the reason for your prejudice against full-auto? Am I missing something?
Terry
Because I have 30++ years in law enforcement I know how the real world works. In an 'ideal' world you are correct, BUT realistically, if any one could walk in a buy any select fire (full auto) weapon the primary buyers would be the 'gangs' in the big city's. When it was legal for all to buy these weapons VERY FEW every day people bought them, it was the gangsters, thus NFA. I do not think it would be wise (common sense) to allow this to happen. It would hurt our cause to see even more gang violence in the 'full auto' mode. I know this is not a 'perfect/ideal' world, but to flood the market with 'full auto' true 'assault weapons' would do more real and political harm then good even though those who are 'purest'when it comes to the Constitution will have a fit about this.[;)]
Cue the violins!
The laws have changed over time through gradualism, or incrementalism.
Why do you think that cannot change by the same type of process, in the other direction ?
Because the 'progressives' are in power! As long as they are in control it will not be changed by legislation, only our 'action' will change it.
We have our backs against the wall right NOW! I have given all I am going to give! [:(!]
"If you give them an inch they will take a mile"! This has been proven time and time again and it MUST STOP NOW! [xx(]
Regardless of how we stand on the 'way it should be' we must all refuse to 'go to the back of the bus'. Once we STOP this erosion of our rights we can have the conversation of how to 'rebuild' them![:)]
Did that answer your question???[?]
The text of Lautenberg amendment directly implies that just one instance of verbal abuse between spouses or roomates can result in loss of firearms rights. The text is rather vauge and I'm unsure if my interpretation is the correct one. So basically I can't call my room-mate a stinky dumb*** who doesn't take a shower without him possibly reporting me and having me arrested for verbal abuse under the Lautenberg amendment. Applies to both men and women as well.
Screw the Lautenberg amendment!
OK, let's make it more interesting: Tulsa show a non-ffl seller is offering me a Walther, not C&R. He is not from Oklahoma, nor am I. I did not buy it.
Gunshow loophole?
OK to buy?
Is the Walther a handgun? Lets assume it is. If you have an FFL you can buy it. Or you can have the seller legally transfer it to an FFL in your state and you can buy it there from the FFL. Any other transfer from 2 private parties out of their states is a crime. I have heard it happens in Tulsa and other gun shows, and it is a serious Federal crime, not really a loophole.
No, but I support, in depth background checks for Senators.
How about background checks for presidents???
Freedom isn't free. When we are truly free, sometimes bad people can abuse that liberty and do bad things. Franklin said it best, and I paraphrase, when we give up essential rights to purchase a little temporary security, we deserve neither.
I believe private sales shouldn't be subject to mandatory background checks. I'm Ok with dealer sales being subject to checks so long as the ATF isn't collecting data on who is buying what. Also Ok as long as checks are quick and don't burden the buyer. A quick phone call is sufficient.
Prosecute those who attempt buying guns that criminals.
The only reason to identify the firearm on a background check is back door registration. All you should have to do is run the check on the guy to see if he is ok. Keep the background check with your records on the gun and it's sale and the seller can keep it can keep it also. If there is ever a problem with the gun, you have the proof that you sold it to so and so and he passed a background check reference #xxxxxx on that date. Most people do not know or care that federal law now and has for years required individuals to keep record of every private gun sale for 10 years. I do. I need to be able to tell the powers that be if a gun is ever traced to me that I sold it to Joe Smith on a particualr date and to go talk to him. It is called CYA.
Can you give a link that requires private citizens to keep record of firearms sales for ten years? I'll admit I don't know all of the federal firearms laws, but never heard of that one.
Can you give a link that requires private citizens to keep record of firearms sales for ten years?
I would like to read that LAW as well.
Please provide the U.S.C. for that.
What would make Background Checks acceptable to me - -
1. No holding onto info about people that pass. That info shall last no longer than required to complete the sale.
2. All cases of a prohibited person trying to buy a gun shall result in a 911 dispatch to investigate. All cases found to be criminal must be prosecuted.
3. Open the system up for all Citizens to use it online or over the phone.
3. Non-government oversight of the system to make certain no records of private gun buys are maintained. The NRA, GOA, SAF or others to provide computer experts and accounting specialists. They shall have the authority to walk unscheduled into any ATF or FBI facility and inspect records, destroy records at will.
4. Cost of the Background Check system goes entirely on the Taxpayers. No hit to gun buyers or sellers. As a Constitutionally protected Right, any regulatory cost is an infringement.
The criminals will still get guns without checks, they will not register their guns, they are by definition law breakers.
An alternative would be to open the NICS system to FREE use by the general PUBLIC as a web site. Even as an optional use system, I think a lot of sellers in a FTF deal would make use of it.
This option would exclude the critical component of registration of all firearms which is of course the true intent of all such Uni-Back scams.
I think it should be purged as soon as the phone is hung up. I beleive they are kept a lot longer than they are supposed to.
The Gun Battle Is Just Starting !!
Now we can see why this information You kind of wonder why this information
never makes the papers or TV news.....
Read this very carefully....
The "most popular" part of the proposed Senate gun control bill (background
checks) sounds like a good idea at first but is more restrictive than anyone
knew and will have significant unintended consequences.
There is a huge push to get it through Congress before the public has a
chance to consider its contents.
Common activities that we take for granted will become federal crimes. These
are not irresponsible exaggerations.
Please take a moment to review the
requirements of the bill.
Here are a few examples of the restrictions in the bill:
EXAMPLE #1
Loaning your buddy a shotgun for a duck hunting trip will be considered a
transfer. If the following requirements are not met, YOU HAVE BOTH COMMITTED
A FEDERAL CRIME.
1. He must have already purchased his hunting license
2. Season is already
open (and will not close before he returns it)
3. He cannot travel with the
firearm through a county where season is not yet open or any area where
hunting is prohibited and certainly not across a state line.
He CANNOT stop by your house on the day before season opens, pick up the
shot gun, go to the sporting goods store to buy a license and shells then
drive out to the hunting lease. In this scenario,
YOU BOTH WOULD HAVE
COMMITTED MULTIPLE FEDERAL CRIMES, YOUR WEAPONS WILL
BE FORFEITED
AND YOU WILL LOOSE YOUR RIGHT TO BUY OR OWN A FIREARM.
EXAMPLE #2
It appears that only you may relocate your weapons. If your weapon leaves
your home without you, the new legislation considers it a transfer of
possession. ALL transfers require going through a firearms dealer, paying
the transfer fee and a background check for the transferee.
Putting the weapon, even temporarily in someone else's possession, requires
a transfer through a dealer. There is no exception for putting them in a
friend's truck while moving to your new house or packing them unloaded,
locked in a gunsafe into a moving truck.
Any scenario in which your weapon leaves your home without you is considered
a transfer. Failure to properly transfer the weapon is a federal crime which
can result in a prison term AND WILL RESULT IN THE FORFEITURE OF YOUR
WEAPON.
In the scenario above, your buddy's truck was used to commit a federal crime
and WILL BE CONFISCATED just like with current Fish and Game violations.
EXAMPLE #3
Infractions as above which involve 2 guns of any type are considered weapons
trafficking. You will be prosecuted under the same federal laws as a
terrorist arms dealer.
EXAMPLE #4
Any of the infractions above (or hundreds of other routine
scenarios) may result in federal charges, confiscation of ALL your weapons
and being prohibited, like all felons, from ever owning a weapon again.
Please read the text of the bill yourself. Most of it is boring legalese but
the sections on transfers and trafficking are critical.
Take a minute to think about all the routine activities like those above
that will make you a federal criminal and result in prison time plus the
confiscation of your weapons and other property.
A link to the bill is included below on the official Senate website. See
Section 122 "Firearms Transfers".
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.649:
Read it and call your congressman's office. Talk to their staff. Tell them
how you feel about this.
Keep in mind, none of the above would have stopped the tragedy's in
Columbine or Newtown . The proposed law makes you a criminal and opens the
door for confiscation of your weapons and property for otherwise routine
activities.
Think and act. Congress is hoping that you will do neither.
If you found the patience to read the entire text, you also learned that
exactly $100 million per year of your tax money is set aside to enforce
these restrictions.
We all need to read and control this bill and prevent it from becoming law!
Finally, please forward this to your friends who may be affected.