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.
New gun owners
Mr. Perfect
Member, Moderator Posts: 66,437 ******
On the heels of the report that March set a record for NICS checks for gun purchases comes this lovely article. Whatever the motivation, I love seeing folks arm themselves and take responsibility for their own defense and safety.
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
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
Comments
I agree.
Interesting article, thanks.
Good.
Excellent
Some speculation and bull cookies in the article, but the part about how many women and single mothers are joining us is encouraging.
I do not believe for a minute that there is any significant difference between the motivation of the vast majority of first time black vs. white firearm purchasers.
I do believe that there may be some white store owners that might have a little trepidation. Hopefully, this is a unifying moment, and as we see minority gun ownership increase without a commiserate increase in shootings, those who have doubts will be open minded enough to see that those doubts are unfounded.
As Charles Barkley has recently stated, the vast majority of Blacks and Whites are good people. Common ground, including something as simple as firearm ownership, is always a good thing.
Thanks for posting this Randy.
Brad Steele
A lot of white gun store owners/employees treat me that way. They don't get my business either. We've discussed this more than once.
Which way, I missed it?
Let's be polite and say less than courteous and helpful.
A lot of white store owners/employees treat ME less than courteous and helpful too. Also, black ones, hispanic ones, indian ones, etc etc. Not sure why EVERYTHING these days has to point out race. There are a LOT of idiotic/dumb/mean/lazy people in this world. Those should NOT be involved with customers, but they are. That doesn't mean they are that way because of their skin color, it's in their raising(some people's children, and the GROW up)!
On a better note, I am GLAD more people are buying guns. Good for the 2nd, no matter their race. More RESPONSIBLE gun owners is exactly what we need!
BUT.............there are some people who should never have guns.
I agree with that too! Some people shouldn't even have cars LOL
The question is- who decides?
Well, unfortunately we don't have a good answer for that. As long as the Feds don't PROHIBIT you from having one, then you can get one. That is a slippery slope if we try to decide who SHOULD have a gun.
Kind of like in my town, you have to have a license to have a dog, but anyone can have a child. A couple just arrested last week for killing their 2 year old daughter. I think it was quite some time (maybe weeks) before the police were called to the house and found the child. Sickening!
Hard to know where to draw the line sometimes.
Exactly what I was getting at.
I disagree. We have a good answer for that. No person should be deprived of any of their rights without a fair trial.
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
100% agree, Mr. P. While there may be differences of opinion following the serving of a sentence, it is imperative that an open and fair trial occurs first.
Brad Steele
Ok, that may be a good answer BUT that is not what we have as a law. The Feds are what we use, I agree....in a perfect world then we would rely on the courts to decide. But then, this is NOT a perfect world. Judges and juries do not even get it right a LOT of times.
I'm not sure what you mean. It's codified in the highest law of the land.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
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
That's exactly my point. There is no clear cut way to KNOW who should not have a gun. We do our best, but that is not always good enough. IF we try to figure out who doesn't need one, then THAT is a slippery slope. Right now, if you can pass a background check then you get a gun. That is currently the best we can do. I am by NO means saying that we need to restrict gun owners. Simply pointing out that it is impossible to be 100% correct everytime. Some people go before a judge and jury and lose their gun rights for a non violent, totally separate cause, and that is NOT correct. BUT that is what we depend on, and is currently the best way that we have. Everyone has the right, until removed by a trial. But even then, some trials remove a person's right to own a firearm when it should not.
I think we are in agreement, but I'm just trying to point out the complications that arise when we try to decide who should NOT own a firearm.
Just sayin, it's really difficult decision to remove a RIGHT, but as said above....."there are some people that should never have guns."
I do not agree with one of your points Mike. Back ground checks are an infringement that can be utilized as controlling leverage such as was done with Jim Crow laws in the past. If the local sheriff didn't want someone to have a gun they couldn't legally buy one, no matter the reason. Background checks are an unconstitutional infringement and are not the best we can do.
There may be a little more violent crime were all restrictions on on firearm ownership to be removed, but I doubt it would be statistically significant.
There should be no adult on the streets who is unable to purchase and own a firearm. This works two ways.
The first is that the nanny state ninnies cannot pass laws restricting the rights of free citizens; those not under the control of law enforcement.
The second is that the 'law abiding gun owner' crowd will have to accept in their midst a few people who made a mistake in their past.
There are way too many people who commit crimes while illegally possessing a firearm for anyone to seriously consider that the fact that possession was illegal had much effect at all.
Brad Steele
I agree, that's why I said nothing is 100%. I could be wrong, but doesn't the FBI conduct the background checks now? That would alleviate the "bad" sheriff. There is no great way to do it, we just do the best we can. I hope we never stop trying to IMPROVE the process, but it will never be perfect. We need to keep trying for perfection however.
The FBI conducts background checks for 30 states, DC, & 5 territories. It varies in the rest of the states.The FBI check is electronic, & they request information from your state police. If insufficient data is available, the customer may have to contact their local court system & request them to manually check their records.
It can get complicated. Some state laws make some crimes "misdemeanors", but they carry a sentence of more than one year in prison. So, the local police must identify the crime & when the penalty was codified, & when you were convicted of violating the law, even if you only pleaded guilty in a deal to avoid going to jail. In Maryland, illegal transfer of a hi-cap magazine (capacity >10 rounds) is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 2 years in prison; possession of CDS not marijuana is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 years in prison. A youthful mistake can mean that you lost the right to vote or possess a firearm for the rest of your life.
Neal