Here is an intelligent proposal about guns

reply to post by Honor93


Roger-o

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by CranialSponge
reply to post by macman

 

Like I said: IF your government is already running background checks whenever somebody is purchasing a firearm, then you're already paying for it, aren't you ? If they're not running background checks, then my point is moot, isn't it ?

But you've got people ranting about "free government" background checks in this thread, therefore why should they "pay for a right"...

Hence my point.

The purchaser is paying the fee, which is unlawful to begin with.
And yes, it is a right, that we are being taxed on.

Well then, if you guys are already paying a fee every time you purchase a firearm, what's the point of this thread and all the whining for ?

And yes, you are paying taxes in one way shape or form for every single "right" you have... the "right" to drive on a road, the "right" to purchase a home, the "right" to purchase milk at a conveniently located store, the "right" to have streetlights so you can see at night, etc etc...

Absolutely nothing is "free" just because it's a "right".

Where and how those tax dollars get allocated at the end of the day is what keeps the country running.

This is silly as it implies that gun owners are somehow responsible for mental health issues and the supported treatment of it...which is asinine.

The law mandates that you get a background check to legally purchase a firearm ergo forcing you to pay for mental health care to own a firearm...

I'm failing to see how one is responsible for the other???

Originally posted by Sly1one
This is silly as it implies that gun owners or owners of guns are somehow responsible for mental health issues and the supported treatment of it...which is asinine.

The law mandates that you get a background check to legally purchase a firearm ergo forcing you to pay for mental health care to own a firearm...

I'm failing to see how one is responsible for the other???

Okay, so then your tax dollars are already paying for these background checks.

So would it not be preferable to have these tax dollars go towards aiding a fellow countryman to get the help they need rather than having your tax dollars get allocated to some government employee's pension fund pool ?

This is all about a simple reallocation if the fees are already being paid currently, is it not ?

Anyways, the context of my original point has been completely lost in translation because apparently you guys are bound and determined to believe that you should not have to pay for anything that's a "right".

So I'll end it there.

If the true intent is to help raise funds for the mental health issue..why tie it to gun sales at all? I am sure if you were to look at money from beer sales it would be alot more money than from gun sales...why not an extra tax or fee on beer sales or anything else? Why guns?

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Originally posted by Sly1one
This is silly as it implies that gun owners or owners of guns are somehow responsible for mental health issues and the supported treatment of it...which is asinine.

The law mandates that you get a background check to legally purchase a firearm ergo forcing you to pay for mental health care to own a firearm...

I'm failing to see how one is responsible for the other???

Okay, so then your tax dollars are already paying for these background checks.

So would it not be preferable to have these tax dollars go towards aiding a fellow countryman to get the help they need rather than having your tax dollars get allocated to some government employee's pension fund pool ?

This is all about a simple reallocation if the fees are already being paid currently, is it not ?

Anyways, the context of my original point has been completely lost in translation because apparently you guys are bound and determined to believe that you should not have to pay for anything that's a "right".

So I'll end it there.

People have always payed for their rights in blood...to suggest they are free is insulting. I'm willing to pay for my rights with my life...Are you?

The government isn't meant to provide people with everything they need...the government does't GIVE you rights...the idea that, that is its job is what births the nanny state where were all DEPENDENT on the government in order to be free...which is contradictory to being free...

If you have to buy/work your rights from a government its not a right...its a privileged for those who can afford it.

I work for the government mental health system...~30% of my paycheck pays my paycheck...were robbing peter to pay Paul here and making gun owners fit the bill for mental health simply doesn't make sense to me...it almost seems like discrimination in a sense.

And to imply that gun owners don't care about others because we aren't willing to be the cash cow for mental health isn't true either.

Here is an idea. Once and for all this country was started to make it's inhabitants SOVEREIGN! There were documents drawn to guarantee this. If you have a problem with any of these ideas, YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE! If you live in another country, STAY THERE and do not worry about us and do not communicate with us! Is that simple enough for the slow to learn?

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

No,few enough vote as it is and they would just kick up the fee so you couldn't vote.

You just explained exactly why the fee to have a background check is a horrible idea.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by Honor93

 

The "professionals" have abandoned people here.
I want to help them as I can.CBI is getting nuked with checks as we speak.
The left is as immovable as you.I prefer thinking around such locked debates and hit them sideways.
Gun free zones aren't going anywhere either.
Legislation is coming down on magazines, military style guns and God knows what else.I see they are going after knives in England.
I see people who don't understand that are scared sh##less when they see these guns anywhere.
Loss of our community and family structure has destroyed America because we don't connect any more.
Now TPTB are exploiting this to attack these firearms by using crazies, so stop the crazies as you can.

edit on 4-1-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

I think you do see the problem relatively clearly. However, I also think you are falling for the strategy used to gradually get people to comply with a much larger agenda. Each tiny increment is one further step toward totalitarianism. Sure, it's just a small fee for an ostensibly "good" purpose. And they know that we can't possibly fight every single small step they try to impose. But, eventually, there are enough of them to lead us where they want us to go. And they never stop.

By saying that this is sensible, you are contributing to our collective journey into oppression. At what level do our principles kick in? Ten bucks? A hundred bucks? Is it stealing if someone takes the change off a counter in a diner? We would probably do something if we saw someone holding someone up for their wallet. But, a couple of quarters on the counter? Unlikely do more than just shake our head and move along. This is just the government taking all the change off every counter they can find, and financing our own enslavement.....after of course, we've already paid for it several times through the threat of prison. When will it get bad enough to say enough? This isn't even a camel's nose in our tent. It's more like an eyelash. But, once we become desensitized to the tiny little things, they know that if they go slow enough, one more straw won't be noticed and therefore is unlikely to break the camels back. But, once they've finally worn it out, they just offer us newer better government-spec camels. For "free"!

If you added up all the various "fees" that people grudgingly but willingly cough up, because it is simpler to just go along, you will find that your hidden taxes are just as high as your state "taxes", in most cases. Seemingly "Reasonable" fees are just tacked onto everyday things we all need to live. Most people just don't realize it and it's too much trouble to raise a fuss. After all, if your principles are only for big things, life is just easier...right?

reply to post by CranialSponge

well, alrightly then, no more defending you.
for someone who does not know the difference between a right and a privilege, there is limited hope.

yes, taxes make the machine run ... they don't provide rights of any kind.

and, why this thread ??
because some acquiescence is never enough ... give a little, they demand more.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

It looks to me like they're just saying the people buying a gun ought to pony up the cost of Colorado running their NICS/State check. Sounds fine to me. Why should my tax dollars go to fund EVERYONE'S required check to buy a gun from a retail outlet??

VERY SIMPLE!

If the GOVERNMENT wants to run a check on people prior to buying a gun then the GOVERNMENT should pay for it. Where in the second amendment does it say you have to pass a background check to bear arms?

I'm just confused and baffled by the whole thread here. Cav, the OP, is anything but anti-gun but he gets dumped on at points here like he's the head of the Brady Campaign or something.

Now I hear all the arguments here about 'The gov wants it, the gov pays it..' but .. wait a minute. Have we taken TOTAL leave of our senses and basic logic??? That is saying WE don't want background checks on ANY weapons sales??

Wait a sec.... So we're GOOD with someone going from the release gate at San Quentin State Prison, direct to a gun store and buying a gun in a retail counter purchase?? We're okay with, say, John Hinckley Jr. buying himself a gun if he gets furloughs to see his family? That's cool? Without a background check at point of a retail sale...there is absolutely nothing to prevent it.

I'm 100% AGAINST requiring checks between two private citizens. That's getting into the direct lives of private citizens and commerce at the ultimate micro level. However, RETAIL outlets are licensed and regulated entities no matter WHAT they sell. In the case of selling guns... I want a background check. You bet your tail I do.. which is why the reactions to the idea of (gasp) charging someone the same for the gun check that a cabbie or teacher pays for their check sounds reasonable. I'm SURE that money doesn't directly feed the paycheck of the cop running the checks either.........but just the same, they want the job, they pay the check required to get it. Whats the difference?

I normally agree with a number of people who've commented on the thread here..but on this? I feel like I'm in a parallel world that logic just doesn't apply in anymore. The radicalism of the whole debate is out of control, IMO.

reply to post by Honor93


That's my point.

There is no longer a difference between a right and a privilege anymore.

We're all being taxed to death for every damn thing we have and do in our modern day society... we all have the right to purchase and own a home and yet we all have to pay land taxes every year to keep that right. How is it any longer a right ? Hence my point.

We're paying taxes for the friggin' air we breath and the land we walk on.

There are no "rights"... that's why I keep putting the term "rights" in quotation marks.

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

No,few enough vote as it is and they would just kick up the fee so you couldn't vote.
So do nothing,give nothing and attack anyone who disagrees are your only recourse?
My local government is FULL of progressives I will grant you that,but this state won't vote for funds in the way of new taxation. This IS reasonable and that is what I agree with,not adding more(which would require a vote so it wouldn't happen )
Not any other hair brained assault on Gun ownership or rights ,just a modest fee for the background check.
Crap are you guys politically shell shocked or what?A small amount of money no to change grow or be used for any other purpose.That is all.
I'm not in favor of gun control. This isn't control, it's support.

I didn't attack anyone. I just made a very important point. If one accepts payment of a fee for the exercise of one civil liberty, then, in order to be consistent , they must accept fees for other civil liberties. If paying a fee is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, then paying a fee to vote is not an infringement on the right to elect representatives. After all, you can still vote, just pay a fee.

A better idea is no background checks or fees for voting or owning a firearm and we put our efforts into punishing criminals and those who vote illegally (or twice or both, depending on which Democrat is running for office).

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

I normally agree with a number of people who've commented on the thread here..but on this? I feel like I'm in a parallel world that logic just doesn't apply in anymore. The radicalism of the whole debate is out of control, IMO.

You can say that again.

Now even us gun owners are getting attacked for daring to input any kind of rationale and/or logical concessions into an ATS gun thread.

Originally posted by CranialSponge
reply to post by Honor93

 

That's my point.

There is no longer a difference between a right and a privilege anymore.

We're all being taxed to death for every damn thing we have and do in our modern day society... we all have the right to purchase and own a home and yet we all have to pay land taxes every year to keep that right. How is it any longer a right ? Hence my point.

We're paying taxes for the friggin' air we breath and the land we walk on.

There are no "rights"... that's why I keep putting the term "rights" in quotation marks.

Sadly, I have to agree with you and give you a star for that. You are quite right. Over time we have let our rights be watered down into "privileges" and thus we have a constant struggle to preserve them.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

In the case of selling guns... I want a background check. You bet your tail I do.. which is why the reactions to the idea of (gasp) charging someone the same for the gun check that a cabbie or teacher pays for their check sounds reasonable. I'm SURE that money doesn't directly feed the paycheck of the cop running the checks either.........but just the same, they want the job, they pay the check required to get it. Whats the difference?

The difference is...The cabbies and teachers only have to pay the "fee" once! Gun buyers are required to pay the same fee for the same BG check, each and every time they purchase a firearm. Does that make sense?

Think about it...How many of the 1,000's of backlogged requests in CO, are for folks who have already had MULTIPLE backgrounds done, year after year after year? It isn't about paying for the "free" service they already receive. If it was about the costs of the govt. employees who facilitate the checks, the FIRST thing they should do, is reduce the workload by cutting out all of the redundancies!!!

But, that's NOT it. It IS about the money. Mo' money, Mo' money!!!!

Who pays for the checks now? The State. Where does the state get that money? It's people. The people are ALREADY paying for the BG checks. They just don't have a handy little itemized receipt showing the charge.
But, now, this genius in office, wnats the people to "start" paying for something, that they are already paying for, in the first place??? WHAT??? So she can take the money that the people already paid, and are continuing to pay, and add what, 1.5% more to their mental health budget???

Am I the only one that can't stop scratching his head over this nonsense?

Now let me take it a step further...

Here in the State of Florida, a firearm background check goes to the Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement, by phone. They have officers that take the customer's 4473 information from the selling gun dealer, and punch it into a FCIC computer program. They charge $6.00 for this and in a few minutes, will tell the Dealer, "yes", "no" or "conditional yes" which means they have to wait an additional few days before they (the buyer) can take possession of the weapon. This must occur for EVERY firearm purchased, and the fee collected, for each call.

Now, If a customer, buys multiple weapons at the same time, he/she may list all guns on the same 4473 form, and just pay the $6.00 BG check fee, once! But, if a customer buys a gun, and right after the dealer completes the call-in, the customer decides to buy an additional gun, he/she must start the whole process over again, fees, separate paperwork and all.

Now, in our State, if a resident goes through the time, and expense, to get the training and apply for a Concealed Weapons License, upon receiving said license, the State says that the holder does not have to submit to the mandatory 3-business day wait, for a handgun purchase. The State doesn't consider you a threat, to buy a gun and immediately use your new purchase to go out and commit a crime!

BUT, you STILL have to fill out a 4473, pay your $6.00 and go through your call-in, to pass your criminal background check...Make Sense???

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

the fallacy of your hypothetical is that either of those criminal types are somehow "prevented" from acquiring said weapons by a background check, now

if you believe that, then why do we even bother prosecuting strawman purchases ?

and who said NO checks ? ... i believe the general gist of this thread is NO NEW FEES for what the state already provides for 'free' (in other words, included service for which taxes already provide)

then you go from one extreme to another ?

I'm 100% AGAINST requiring checks between two private citizens

???? why not ?

who's to say that the private citizen isn't a criminal from another region ... how are YOU gonna know ? besides, often times, background checks are wrong ... what then?

personally, i think we should do away with them all together since they haven't proven to be effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals ... but that's another issue for another day.

reply to post by CranialSponge

i understand your frustration but i cannot agree with your opinion.

if you are not an American, i wouldn't expect you to understand and yes, there are many similarities between the US and Canada, this is something i would never deny.

however, Canada does not have a violence-free society either.
they don't even have a society that is free of gun violence, so, why even offer advice when you haven't found the answer yourselves ?
your gun restrictions aren't reducing gun violence much, are they ?

rights are unalienable, not negotioable.
privileges are always negotiable, that is the biggest difference.

for you to lose sight of that is downright scary

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

The difference is...The cabbies and teachers only have to pay the "fee" once! Gun buyers are required to pay the same fee for the same BG check, each and every time they purchase a firearm. Does that make sense?

If you're saying the background fee would be charged PER WEAPON in a single transaction, then that is sure a detail to get corrected before such an idea would be implemented and I've covered that well in saying that a gun buyer should pay no more than the Cab driver or Teacher. Not one penny more for the same check.

Why have it run each time for entirely different purchases though?? Wow.. I'm shocked that would be a question. My CCW here is good for multiple years. If simply showing the CCW were good enough and didn't require a further NICS check to verify my good standing for criminal issues then I could have just come out on bail for a major felony and who'd know?? My CCW likely wouldn't be officially seized from me yet if I hadn't had it on me at the time of arrest. Only the NICS check could catch it at that point. (Even it may not catch that....but it's got the only chance and would catch a variety of other things that can happen over the course of a permit date range)

Things change. Records change. It's insane to think that simply holding a multi-year permit for CCW should give carte-blanche without a followup check to buy weapons until the face expiration on the permit expires?

This is the same check required today. Required. No new check....if we're on the same article this thread started with. If we've changed topics when I wasn't looking, then forgive me and my argument here may be entirely moot for that reason...I missed it if we had.