Universal Background Checks... What do they accomplish? - Page 13
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Universal Background Checks... What do they accomplish?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-12-2013, 02:35 AM   #121
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21585 Times on 12248 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker View Post
No, do get started on that. THATS the issue. We don't need UBCs, we need to stop letting the bastards out. That would lower the crime rate MUCH more than a UBC ever could.
the problem is that most prisons these days are overcrowded and for the most part seem to have revolving doors in them. then our justice system is also for the most part, let's make a deal! another problem is there is not any incentive or a true deterence in not committing a crime an going to prison.

a person gets 10 years and with good behaviour and having a job and going to school in prison, he gets out in about 2.5-3 years instead of the ten he was sentenced to. my theory is a person gets 10 years, he serves 10 years, doing hard labor and they make prison a place that people don't want to do a repeat performance!

and the prosecuters and lawyers start the whole lets deal before sentencing even begins! because most prosecuter would rather make deals than prosecuting criminals. much easeir than actually having to do the job they were elected to do and with a high conviction rate they look good to the voters. so how is justice truly served? it's not.
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 02:39 AM   #122
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,056
Liked 2851 Times on 1689 Posts
Likes Given: 1879

Default

gentlemen,

thanks for the lively and respectable debate. i think i have stated my position on this. i always consider and take a good argument to heart and think about it. although, i may disagree with some of you....gaining perspective from others is always a valuable endeavor.

i'm leaving this one, not defeated or angry. it has just run its course for me...thanks again for all parties remaining civil. good discussion.

hawkguy out

__________________
hawkguy is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 02:52 AM   #123
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Tackleberry1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,001
Liked 4791 Times on 2317 Posts
Likes Given: 1482

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
ok, i agree...they likely won't. i'm throwing out some simple ideas our moron representatives should be working out. i really wish these jerk offs could sit across a table and work out the solution. "so..what effective laws could we pass while respecting the nature of the second amendment?" and come up with some solutions that will not give everybody THEIR WAY, but both sides can LIVE WITH. that is the basic nature of a compromise.
you can get good things done this way, make a difference.

and i still think many of you guys overall arguments seems to be "criminals will break laws, so don't bother making laws.." would you apply this basic idea to every aspect of society? or does it only apply to firearms?
It applies to civil rights partner.

We don't require a background check to buy gasoline because someone "might" misuse it to star a fire... and we don't regulate speech because someone "might" shout "fire" in a crowded theatre.

Both actions are illegal and prosecution after the fact is enough deterant.

The gun problem is not our problem. Its a problem of the State because the State willfully and negligently fails to do it's job... and everytime it fails, it blames it's failure upon our liberty and demands we "compromise"... FOOG of course.

I have endeavored to explain this to you several times so I guess we will simply agree to disagree.

Tack
__________________

Last edited by Tackleberry1; 04-12-2013 at 02:55 AM.
Tackleberry1 is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 02:59 AM   #124
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
JoshH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 158
Liked 43 Times on 21 Posts

Default

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

__________________
JoshH is offline  
14
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 03:07 AM   #125
The Apocalypse Is Coming.....
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 28,735
Liked 21585 Times on 12248 Posts
Likes Given: 53672

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshH View Post
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".
Damn! very well said and a very to the point unique analogy of our gun rights. that was an awesome post!
__________________
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 03:07 AM   #126
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
towboater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewares,Ky
Posts: 3,587
Liked 1726 Times on 897 Posts
Likes Given: 3651

Default

Great way to put it Josh.

__________________
towboater is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 03:17 AM   #127
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6563 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshH View Post
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. I received it from the 2nd amendment and the Dick act of 1902.
...
Along you come and say, "Give me that cake." I say, "No, it's my cake." You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

You say, "Let's compromise once more." What do I get out of this compromise? I get to keep one eighth of what's left of the cake I already own?

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Machine gun ban of 1986 -- and I'm left holding what is now just an eighth of my cake.

I sit back in the corner with just my eighth of cake that I once owned outright and completely, I glance up and here you come once more.

You say nothing and just grab my cake; This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".
Very well said, it gets the point across pretty much perfectly.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 11:21 AM   #128
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Vincine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Adirondack Mts.
Posts: 3,337
Liked 1740 Times on 899 Posts
Likes Given: 1338

Default

Lots of posts on this thread about rights & compromise & what’s right & violent crime and stuff. Hardly anything about here about resisting actual tyranny.

I don’t mean requirements to do bureaucratic paperwork tryanny.
I mean actual:
limit your livelihood, mobility, seize your assets, and/or haul your ass off to sleepover camp tyranny;
because you’re left handed, or blue eyed, or Latin, or tall, or whatever;
which I believe was the point of the 2A.

The right to keep and bear arms isn't in place to protect the right to keep and bear arms. It’s about preventing the federal government interfering with your life, liberty & and the pursuit of an extra large soda.

Anybody have any thoughts on whether this is even viable in an age of drones, cybertrails, centralized power grids & antibiotic production, etc. Perhaps this is another thread.

Other thoughts more directly related to UBCs:

There’s a BIG difference between Depression, OCD, Kleptomania, inability to perform ADLs, etc., and Paranoid Schizophrenia.

Without securing the straw purchase procedure, UBCs aren’t going to make an appreciable dent in criminal use of firearms. I think only execution of violent career criminals would do that.

__________________
"Sometimes I pretend to be normal, but it's boring and I go back to being me."
"You might as well be yourself, people won’t like you anyway."
Vincine is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 11:36 AM   #129
Supporting Member
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
drvsafe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,636
Liked 212 Times on 169 Posts
Likes Given: 116

Default

If background check requirements are already jn place what will another law requiring them do?
Felons don't go to the gun shops to buy their guns, they go to a back alley or similar. And the seller or the buyer at that back alley are neither filling out nor submitting a background check form. So i don't know what the eff they are trying to do other than pile more useless laws that no one is going to enforce in the event some felon or mentally ill, or domestic abuser will fail.

__________________
SIG 1911 .45 ACP
SIG P229R 9mm
Beretta BU9 Nano 9mm
Beretta 84FS .380 ACP
Ruger MKIII 22/45 Target .22LR

PWS (Primary Weapons Systems) MK114 5.56
drvsafe is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 12:32 PM   #130
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Vincine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Adirondack Mts.
Posts: 3,337
Liked 1740 Times on 899 Posts
Likes Given: 1338

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by drvsafe View Post
. . . Felons don't go to the gun shops to buy their guns, they go to a back alley or similar. . .
Why do you suppose that is? Is it because they like not being able to go into any gun shop, look the guns over, buy or order any one they want, and that they'd rather pay a premium for a gun bought in a back alley? Or is it because they want to avoid a BGC?
__________________
"Sometimes I pretend to be normal, but it's boring and I go back to being me."
"You might as well be yourself, people won’t like you anyway."

Last edited by Vincine; 04-13-2013 at 12:08 AM. Reason: making more better English.
Vincine is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
The Case Against Background Checks Rentacop Legal and Activism 0 03-24-2013 12:37 AM
History of Background Checks Sniper03 Legal and Activism 4 03-14-2013 02:51 PM
Background checks kirbinster Legal and Activism 2 02-23-2013 02:10 PM
Universal Background Checks? Tackleberry1 Legal and Activism 6 01-12-2013 12:09 AM
CCW bypasses background checks blucoondawg Legal and Activism 35 05-01-2012 02:08 AM