300BlkTalk

so wait... how is a nics check by dealers a bad thing? what the hell exactly is wrong with not selling guns to felons, drug addicts and people with restraining orders?

frankly speaking there are people out there who SHOULDNT have firearms, and there has to be some kind of method for filtering them out.


how would you suggest to improve the system?

plant.one wrote:so wait... how is a nics check by dealers a bad thing? what the hell exactly is wrong with not selling guns to felons, drug addicts and people with restraining orders?

frankly speaking there are people out there who SHOULDNT have firearms, and there has to be some kind of method for filtering them out.


how would you suggest to improve the system?

Numerous felons are arrested every day with "felon in possession of a weapon" charge added on. Criminals could give a crap about NICS because they don't buy through legal channels.

Now Oregon leftanistas require background checks between private citizens with their new Law - to the objection of masses of citizens as well as several County Sheriffs. The urban scum legislators use the usual lie to support their hobama/bloomberg law of "to keep guns out of the hands of criminals". Jerk offs - criminals don't buy guns legally - THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CALLED CRIMINALS! Regardless of the endless gun laws that are only burdens to law abiding citizens. Ask Chicagoans.

I don't believe the leftist legislators are that stupid. So it is clear that their rhetoric is cover for "Full Registration".

Solution? Enforce laws on the books that target criminals and have proven successful to find and arrest criminals. Rather than abusing the rights of law abiding citizens.

Some feel that the 2nd Amendment is absolute and universally applied to all.
Just like other rights such as voting, the 2nd Amendment can and should be revoked in specific situations.

In regards to NICS checks, the only argument that I can rationalize is that it can be used as a tracking and defacto registration system for firearms.
However, it is specifically setup and by law is not permitted to be used that way.
Those with distrust in the US Govt feel that they cannot trust that these checks are not being used is such a manner.
With the revelations publicized by the Edward Snowden leaks, it is certainly understandable.

IMO, mandatory firearms training should be given to not just gun owners, but everyone.
This training should be provided in High School and cover several topics.
First, it would teach the history and meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
That way people would know that it doesn't have anything to do with protecting your right to hunt.
It would also teach the racist history of gun control.
(The majority of initial gun control legislation was designed to keep guns out of the hands of freed slaves.)
Next, the basic handling of firearms would be taught.
Even if people are not "Pro Gun" it is important to the safety of everyone that they know how to at least "Clear and Make Safe" a firearm in case one is ever come across.

I would like to see advanced training required for actual gun ownership, but that one is a bit more difficult to do.
The expense and protection of gun owners identities becomes an issue.
That being said, who hasn't come across someone at a gun shop or gun range that is dangerously ignorant to the point where safety becomes a concern.
Mandatory gun training for gun ownership will never happen however.
Quite simply because the comparison would be drawn to poll tests in order to vote.

Forgive me for a moment, but I will make one tangent.
I was listing to an NPR Podcast the other day and had a "Light Bulb" moment.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a ... act=1#play
In this segment of the Podcast, it was described how gay political canvassers were able to change peoples minds on gay marriage in CA.
Essentially, when people with a personal connection to the issue were able to connect on a personal level with people that disagreed on the issue,
they were able to actually change the other's position on it by relating how the issue impacted them.
In short, I realized that if this approach worked for gay marriage, it most certainly could work for gun rights.
All you would need is people well educated on gun control speak with Anti-Gun individuals and convey a personal story of how the gun issue has impacted their lives.
(Edited to add: I did not capitalize gay in this post. Somehow or another, the BBS software did it on its own.)

Anyhow, there are a couple tidbits to chew on.
Cheers...

The sheriffs permission thing sounds like it may have been put in place to exclude a class or ethnicity from participation in a Constitutionally enumerated right...The fed says no handguns to convicted felons, the sheriff says no handguns to anyone he deems unworthy.

There are folks out there who ought not breed, vote or drive but where do you think we ought t to entrust the authority to make that determination based on an opinion of what they may or may not do in the future? A convicted felon has by definition demonstrated his or her disdain or apathy for society in general or a specific person.

Who decides?

Reminds me of "I support the Second Amendment but..."

i dont have a problem with NICS, nor mental health checks. i do have a issue with putting my 2A rights in the hands of a sheriff. A single person should not be allowed to deny an entire Amendments provisions. i do not believe in blanket 2A rights either. i think the system needs huge man power(jobs created). "felony" needs to be extrapolated(non violent/violent). the rules that ARE in place need to be enforced, as others have said.

I'm all for background checks for purchasing firearms. Working in LE, I see the system work quite a bit. Several times a month, CBI calls us when a gun store submits info on a person trying to buy a gun, and they have a warrant. We go and hook them up. Occasionally we see the $50 fishing without a license warrant......most of the time its a $5k felony assault warrant. Someone with an assault warrant buying a gun means trouble in my eyes. As for training, I'm all for mandatory training. We just had a guy put himself through a local police academy, take the POST test. Two nights ago, he pointed his gun at her, thinking it was unloaded and pulled the trigger. Neck shot, and she's paralyzed. Yes.....some people should just not have guns.

I wouldn't have a problem with expanding back ground checks if I thought it would actually do any good. If anybody wants a gun they're gonna get one. It may stop a few of the really stupid ones but not enough to matter. AND with at least half of the government wanting and trying their best to outlaw them all,IMO I don't think we should give them one single iota of a inch. Because hidden in that inch or the final "amended " version will be some little detail that they will use to f_€£ us without even the common courtesy of a reach around,and the day that happens is the day it's time to fight it out.
WHAT I DO THINK WILL HELP IS MORE ARMED LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. SURE THERE WILL BE ACCIDENTS AND SOME PROBLEMS ARE GOING TO ARISE BUT THE COST WILL BE NOTHING COMPARED TO FULL BLOWN CIVIL WAR TO TAKE OUR RIGHTS BACK.

Shall not be infringed. I vote for must carry open carry. The perps will soon be eliminated.

As far as "arms" go I define those as the type our government sells to other governments as a bare minimum. I would say that any "arm" the government orders or builds shall be kept and borne by the people.

the problem is the article posted is about the nra fighting against the LOCAL leo having the power to ya/nay pistol permits, and still TTAG is b!tching about them supporting NICS.


while i appreciate that criminals buy guns from other than at the gun shops, its BECAUSE of NICS, not in spite of it. and it DOES stop bad people from getting their hands on (some) guns.


unfortunately you cant have it both ways - because if (god forbid a miracle happen) and Brady does manage to get repealed, all it's going to take is ONE gunshop selling a gun to a felon (unknowingly - because there is no more NICS system) who goes on a shooting rampage for the anti-gunners to go absolutely shit ballistic and be able to trumpet "SEE WE TOLD YOU SO" and we'll be in worse situation than we are now.

so while the system isnt perfect and we wish there was a better answer, the NRA is supporting the right stuff and trying to keep as much from happening as possible. because unfortunatly thats the world we live in today.


you dont have to like it, but thats where reality sits, and we need to deal with it as its given to us - and fight to keep what we have already.