Here is an intelligent proposal about guns, page 6

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 04:41 PM by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by Honor93
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

It sounds like your debating the logic of even having the basic background check run for criminal history, outstanding warrants or active domestic violence/restraining orders at time of a retail purchase. If that's the case....I don't have anything to really debate here. I mean, it's just a plain statement. Debate would suggest room to give or compromise and a purpose to that give and take. On the concept of the criminal/mental health check we have now? I see no room whatsoever in the idea that we MUST have that in place. The requirements of buying a gun in a retail outlet or from a licensed dealer have been in place since I got my first gun shortly after my 18th birthday. Nothing has changed except they ENDED the waiting period (in my state anyway...that's never been Federal) and made that check a handy instant telephone one (when the stupid things work... Mine delays every time ..another story)

So... Back to the confusion. The argument that the background checks don't stop everyone from getting a gun is NO rational basis to say we should just turn the retail gun industry into a wide open free-for-all that doesn't even use them anymore.

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 04:47 PM by Honor93

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

If you're saying the background fee would be charged PER WEAPON in a single transaction

it already is depending on which state your purchase originates.

any state already performing background checks (ie Colorado) is a per transaction endeavor/fee.

unless you purchase multiple weapons in a single transaction, let's say you just bought a handgun, did the paperwork, paid the fee and got a 'conditional approval' ... on your way out the door, a rifle catches your eye and you decide to buy it too (same visit) ... you MUST complete the BG and fee all over again.

it is ridiculous, it is already being paid (twice for a single purchase - state via taxdollars and consumer vis existing fee) and they want more ... i and many others say ... NO freakin' way.

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 04:59 PM by Wrabbit2000

reply to post by Honor93

Hmmm... Thats an interesting situation there. I mean, you've bought one gun. So...The transaction has been initiated, background check run, cleared and closed as an active question (pending something popping up later..and how often does that ever happen?)

As a buyer, I can see where it's insane to say that turning around at the door to go buy another that caught my eye on the way out makes for another charge....but on the other hand, if it wasn't the same transaction? It's a new case, new check and new 'investigation', so.... stupid and insane..but how would you differentiate and how much more would it surely cost to program in that capability?

That's a rather odd example in saying there is an issue with the charge for a check per buy though. How often does it happen that someone does "impulse buy" a 2nd gun in the same visit to a store like a candy bar in the checkout isle? I don't know about you, but i don't normally have the money to buy quality firearms on an impulse. If I did? I suppose the second fee wouldn't phase me much either.

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 05:13 PM by Honor93

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

i am not debating the logic behind why we do BG checks.
i would debate the efficiency and cost effectiveness of decades of complete failure tho.
{BGs have done nothing to keep guns from criminals}

it's no secret that i don't support BG checks.
however, i really can't support the idea of being charged additionally for information demanded by the State, especially on a repetitive basis.

you already said, if we were private citizens, you wouldn't want a BG, so what's the big deal ?

who turned this into a 'debate' anyway ?
from what i read, it's being considered as proposed legislation or did i miss something?

personally, i found this statement rather telling ...

"The argument from a lot of people, including law-abiding gun purchasers, is the issue is mental health," Court said. "So let's ask them to be part of the solution."

Read more: Colorado lawmaker eyes imposing fee on gun buyers - The Denver Post www.denverpost.com...
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: www.denverpost.com...

i don't quite follow how she correlates paying a fee with 'being part of the solution' ... but it's a twisted web they weave.

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 05:32 PM by Honor93

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

pending something popping up later..and how often does that ever happen?

not sure about % or stats, never looked.
however, i've know it to happen to at least 2 different ppl, one of which was medically discharged from the service.

as for the scenario presented, i found out the hard way.
and i cancelled the second purchase.

part of it was my fault for not knowing any better.
part of it was my fault for wanting to be 'approved'.
however, the biggest part of it denied the retailer additional revenue and that ain't good business.

see here's the thing.
for fun, let's just say i'm a CCW approved buyer who has recently been arrested and released for an unrelated 'assault'.
(smacked someone with a dead fish

)

now, when or if i'm convicted of the prior mentioned 'assault', i could potentially be deemed a felon. however, in between now and then, i can still go to any gun show, any gun dealer, any garage crafter and buy a weapon, without so much as a 30 minute wait.

given the above, how is the bureaucracy of this discussion helping 'mental health' in any way, shape or form ?

as for your last question, that depends.
i had enough funds to buy 3 that day (under $300 each) but, the point is ... many buyers save up for such purchases and as a 1st time buyer, i was more interested in getting "approved" than anything and that isn't what retailers are in business to do.

last i checked they were titled "salesman" for a reason.
forgot to add ... it is also the last firearm i will purchase from a 'dealer'.
so what's that tell ya ?

edit on 4-1-2013 by Honor93 because: add txt

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 06:01 PM by Wrabbit2000

reply to post by Honor93

I suppose the fundamental disagreement here would just be on the effectiveness of background checks then. It doesn't stop a criminal from getting a gun. That's true. That can steal one. They can buy one privately, as you note. For that matter, they can go overpower and put down a 100lb cop in a police station in New Jersey and shoot them in their own office. There is no argument that a background check makes it physically impossible in reality for anyone with money and determination to become armed. Nothing ever will ..laws or no laws..when we have hundreds of millions of firearms in the nation with ammo and spare parts to last hundreds of years in regular use.

What it has done is block ONE major and what is the primary market for buying a gun. Anything retail. That's all we CAN do as a society and it's the least we should do. Now, some would argue we CAN put the State right into people's living rooms and garages to stand between Father selling to son or friend selling to friend. That is where I draw the line on outright liberty and my right to live free of Government intrusion into my private affairs.

Retail sales outlets, in my mind fall into a whole different category as they already do for everything from OSHA to taxes to health and fire code. That's where I see it different between the two.

*BTW... I've heard people now repeatedly say gun shows don't background check. I'll note I haven't bought a gun in all 50 states to know for certain in practice. However, there are no exceptions to following the federal requirement for a check to a firearms purchase made from a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder......which is who makes up about 99.99% of the people at the gun shows I've been to here and across the line in Oklahoma. Private citizens can walk individual guns around .... but a dealer at a table is going to prison if they sell one firearm without a NICS check and I've watched them perp walk one out of our show where I KNOW that was the reason. Not sure how many other times it may happen with. (I also buy private party whenever possible...less headache)

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 06:35 PM by ajay59

In case anyone missed it:

Originally posted by ajay59
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?

To put it simply;

Many, if not the majority of us (patriots), in this great nation believe that our forefathers did a splendid job of setting up this country as a collective of sovereign people. The documents they produced to enable us to remain sovereign were obviously well thought out based on their trials and tribulations. We have the means to be sovereigns based on those documents AS WRITTEN. If you disagree with these documents and ideals in general, then you are not meant to be the residents of this nation that our ancestors built for us. In other words, if you do not like it you are welcome to start your IDEAL nation elsewhere!

edit on 4-1-2013 by ajay59 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 06:55 PM by Honor93

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

with or without BG checks, i am still disputing any additional fees for such nonsense.

we can debate their worth all day, you'll have your opinion and i'll have mine but that doesn't touch the subject of this thread ... MORE FEES.

gun shows and BG checks depend entirely on location and seller.
i've been a witness/party to both.
private sale w/no check and dealer sales with multiple checks (same visit/FL gunshow)

there are no special rules and there shouldn't be.
about the only way to circumvent the w/o BG checks would be to eliminate "private sellers" from participating ... (although i can readily see that being the goal) ... ^^^^^^^^^

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 07:01 PM by okiecowboy

I have no problem with a background check, but see thats where we slipped up...we let that horse out of the barn and now you can't get it back in.... why did we ever let the background check get started? We should have stood our ground on that one....how many drunk drivers kill people each year on our roads? How many 2nd and 3rd time dui offenders are out there behind the wheel?...and yet where is the background check when they buy a car?

I can live with the background checks....not that it has ever stopped one felon from owning a gun...it just stopped him from buying it at wal mart...but Don't ask me to pay another tax on top of the tax I am already paying for regulation you wanted to enforce on me..

edit on 4-1-2013 by okiecowboy because: Typo

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 07:15 PM by Wrabbit2000

reply to post by Honor93

Fair enough.... Frankly, I respect your opinion and your posting on topics in general. For that reason I figure it's probably the best thing here to agree to disagree as I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this. I've certainly made my points across the thread from page 1 up...and your points are also well made and logical. We just don't have agreement. Oh well... This place would be boring if we agreed on everything, eh?

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 07:31 PM by Honor93

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

that it would be my friend, i agree

i don't really see us differing, do you ?
we can disagree about the usefulness of BG checks, but, do you really support paying more for them than we already are ?

please, at least clarify that point for me cause it's coming across like you support it

i always enjoy exchanging opinions with you

it's just an opinion and you seldom engage in personal attacks

one can't ask for more than that.

agreement is subjective.
we agree on a lot of issues ... but isn't the devil always in the 'details' ??

and, i guess that's my whole point.
details shouldn't be up to the Feds, ever.
that isn't how this country was designed.

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 07:43 PM by Wrabbit2000

reply to post by Honor93

Well, I'm wondering if the difference in states may be an enormous difference in procedures and how this works. That could be it? I can say here in Missouri as well as Nevada, Texas and Oklahoma (I've bought rifles in those states) I've not seen any itemized or noted charge for the NICS check. It's always run of course but never at a charge to me that I was made aware of at any level.

I hadn't even thought about it until this thread. It never even crossed my mind ..and it should have ... that hey, someone is putting time into this which is costing money somewhere. States don't print money so, money spent here IS coming OUT of something else. It's 0 sum at the state level (unlike Congress who can ask Santa at the Fed to bring them more presents..lol)

^^ With that in mind and that as my basis of logic on both the lack of seeing it charged before and the fact someone IS paying for this somewhere now and it's not me as the guy initiating the action to cost the money in the first place .... It just seemed reasonable that I ought to pony up the cost. The original article when this thread started stated $10.50 is what it runs in the state of Colorado for the BG with other people as I recall. Well... I've paid a whole lot more for background investigations in things like my commercial Haz-Mat endorsement and TWIC card for entry into restricted transportation facilites.....and those charge on a renewing basis. (at least they did when I got off the road in Nov. 2010)

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 08:21 PM by okiecowboy

First I want to thank all the posters on this thread, this has been the most civil gun related thread and I have enjoyed reading all your comments..

My question is this.. why is the state charging for this service anyway? I know here in oklahoma and in many other states when you go buy a gun from a ffl dealer, you fill out the paperwork, the dealer then contacts The National Instant Criminal Background Check System by phone or computer, This Ncis system is ran by the FBI, who then checks the ncic and state database for a record of the person buying the gun..

Now I can see charging at the local level for background checks for a ccw or the like at due to being fingerprinted, but how did the state get involved on a federal system for gun buying bg checks?

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 08:25 PM by cavtrooper7

reply to post by okiecowboy

Our checks are also run by the state at point of purchase by the Colorado Bureau of Investigations for local issues, that is what they want to charge a fee for,that and the system is swamped and they could use the money.
Its for the state.

reply posted on 4-1-2013 @ 08:39 PM by okiecowboy

reply to post by cavtrooper7

Okay gotcha now...sounds like the state should maybe switch over to the national system to reduce the backlog a bit?? Or maybe if the money is the issue find some other way to fund it....sticking mental health and guns together creates a bad stigma for both don't you think?

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 12:13 AM by cavtrooper7

reply to post by okiecowboy

See that's what I'm thinking here.If mental health is the cause,and we all know it is,then I just want to stick a finger in the dam.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 12:18 AM by badgerprints

Yeah,
Hunting and fishing licensing fees have a large portion of proceeds given to anti hunting and fishing organizations.
I can see where this will go.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 08:15 PM by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by okiecowboy

See that's what I'm thinking here.If mental health is the cause,and we all know it is,then I just want to stick a finger in the dam.

The problem lies with WHO is determining who is mentally "healthy" and who is not! I know people that talk to themselves and answer the voices in their head, that wouldn't hurt a fly!

I also know people who can pass a background check and hold a valid CWP who I can't for the life of me, understand why they haven't been caught killing someone, yet! (Not saying they have, but it wouldn't surprise me, if they found bodies in their basement)

It's not the "crazy" part that makes someone dangerous! It's the lack of regard for another human's life, with a general contempt for the law, or a feeling superiority to it, that makes someone a legitimate threat!

The problem with stricter mental health guidelines, is that there is NO line to be drawn. We can't possibly determine who just gets mad, and who exhibits no clues, and just goes on a rampage! How would we?

Science has been trying for decades, to find a sure way to predict violent tendancies, but even those are just indicators of a potential to kill, and in no way are absolute proof that someone will carry it out! There is no "Pre-Crime Division" like from Minority Report.

So, do we need MORE research? Do we need to address the flaws inherent, in our current society that dehumanizes the population? Where do we stop with THAT, though? Video games? Rap music? Hollywood?

What about liberal US Senators, who sweep the room with her finger on the trigger of an AK, while posing for her photo op???

What exactly is the cause for the downward spiral of our morality?

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 08:31 PM by cavtrooper7

"I also know people who can pass a background check and hold a valid CWP who I can't for the life of me, understand why they haven't been caught killing someone, yet! (Not saying they have, but it wouldn't surprise me, if they found bodies in their basement)"

I give that vibe if I don't speak,because I am a former army scout . I have no tickets or record with law enforcement.

reply posted on 5-1-2013 @ 09:08 PM by GoOfYFoOt

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
"I also know people who can pass a background check and hold a valid CWP who I can't for the life of me, understand why they haven't been caught killing someone, yet! (Not saying they have, but it wouldn't surprise me, if they found bodies in their basement)"

I give that vibe if I don't speak,because I am a former army scout . I have no tickets or record with law enforcement.

Is there something in the way you talk that's disarming? (no pun intended) Or do you mean in general, that the quiet ones usually are the ones that snap?

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 >> ^^TOP^^