Please read what was in the Indy Star today

[ATM]

LOL HELL YES

OK, maybe the ones doing time in prison.

I just figured any felon with $100 already had one and could easily get another with no ID.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
The solution is to punish them for possessing guns. Federal law provides for 5 years no parole federal time for possessing a gun during a crime, yet local prosecutors REFUSE to refer the cases. Answer why that is, make them punish criminals, and stop punishing the law abiding with laws that prevent no crimes.

With respect, I have to disagree with you here. The answer is not to punish ANYONE for simply possessing a firearm. No one. Not a child, not a former, no-longer-incarcerated felon, not a non-incarcerated mentally-ill person. The answer IS to train the child, teach them how to handle the gun safely. The answer is for the responsible person to ensure that the mentally ill person is either incarcerated if s/he is too dangerous to be "on the outside" and to take care of them if not, and the answer is to punish ANYONE, whether former felon or current Supreme Court Justice or anyone in between who commits a violent crime whether with or without a firearm.

Example: Jon at 18 is young and stupid, but responsible under the law for his actions. Jon decides to go with some friends and even participates in a robbery of a convenience store. No one injured, but the crime is done and Jon is caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced. Let's just say that as a first-time offender, he gets house-arrest. OK, now it's three years later and Jon, at 21, has completed his sentence, no longer wears an ankle bracelet, no longer reports to an officer or has any other restrictions on his actions. Jon's house gets robbed and the person robbing him is armed and his new bride is home.

Question:Why should Jon be penalized if he uses deadly force to stop the robbery and possible impending rape?

The point here is that the possession of a gun should no more be a crime than possession of a paring knife, a chain saw, a hammer, or a baseball bat, all lethal objects. It's like a very serious version of the old joke: It's not what you have, it's what you do with it.

Blessings,
B

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
Ok, say tommarow you wake up and the background check is gone. Do you think any felons will try to go buy a gun from an FFL?

Thats what you have to overcome to have any chance of repealing the background check.

I don't like the background check either. I would much rather see a database of felons that could be crossed referenced. To think we could get them to drop the check without something else to give them is a fantasy. You can debate and throw around stats all you want the left does not deal in facts they are all about the preception.

Actually, no, I don't think felons would go and try to buy at a FFL. I think they can get what they already get, either that they steal for themselves or that they buy from someone who did, much cheaper.

Finding out those "street prices" would help to overcome the background check.

The list is good. How do you prevent ID theft from making a bad sale happen? How does the present system do that?

No, the left will not give up on the background check until there is no more America, no more BATFE, no more FBI. Hell, they're presently suing to get gun bans back in nat'l parks, they're still heavily infringing in DC, and Daley thinks the Heller decision applies only to the Federal District housing our capital, not to any state and certainly not his personal feifdom to our north.



Blessings,
B

 

[prebanlady]

pretty funny how it's another black person making comments about the "swastika" and "confederate" flag....... if they didn't like it, they should have saved their money and done something else. and the Indiana/Kenya partnership...... what's that about. Funny he didn't make any comments about the black expo.... the most racist event in Indiana

 

[StarKing]

How do we prevent the people who have no business owning a gun from buying one if a background check is not legal? You know there out there. This has got to be answered before we can really justify no checks.

The answer to this is:

We don't.
We can't.
They (the gun control gang) didn't have that as their goal anyway.

Background checks have never effectively served this purpose, regardless of their intent, nor has any other law of this nature.

This and similar laws have no real effect beyond harassing legal gun owners.

 

[dburkhead]

The answer to this is:

We don't.
We can't.
They (the gun control gang) didn't have that as their goal anyway.

Background checks have never effectively served this purpose, regardless of their claimed intent, nor has any other law of this nature.

This and similar laws have no real effect beyond harassing legal gun owners.

FTFY

Personally, I don't see getting rid of the background checks as being politically achievable at this time, nor do I see it as the most pressing issue. Just like our gun rights have been largely taken away in incremental small steps, so will regaining them require many incremental small steps.

 

[StarKing]

He is neither ignorant, nor dumb. The manner in which he uses Goebbel's like tactics and language to describe the gun show, his use of language, the facts he did choose to portray accurately show that he is not ignorant. He knows what he is talking about. That he then goes on to talk about $100 fully automatic Glock 23s shows that he is willing to deliberately depart from the truth to smear guns, gun ownership, and the exercise of Constitutional rights in as ugly a light as possible. Those whom he seeks to convince are ignorant, and perhaps dumb. He is neither. He is a smart, conniving enemy, a man who plays fast and loose with the facts, judging by this article, but to dismiss him and other enemies of Constitutional rights as ignorant or dumb is a mistake.

Absolutely right, and I tend to suspect that his deliberate departure from the truth is as much to infuriate gun owners as it is to mislead the ignorant. The more angry he can make us, the more likely we are to go off half-cocked (pun intended) and say or do something he can use against us. A significant minority of the public already thinks we're all a bunch of dangerous nut cases, the last thing we need to do is reinforce that illusion.

 

[StarKing]

He did not base his statement on facts. He simply stated "common sense" way of thinking. I know we all are on the same side on this, nobody hear likes the BC. You tell us about these facts and what they indicate. You say they are insignificant. I guess we take your word for it. Like I said its all in the interpetation.

I have found that sense is generally not common, and what IS common is generally not sense.

 

[StarKing]

FTFY

Personally, I don't see getting rid of the background checks as being politically achievable at this time, nor do I see it as the most pressing issue. Just like our gun rights have been largely taken away in incremental small steps, so will regaining them require many incremental small steps.

FTFY?

I posted before the long debate about whether it was politically achievable at this time.
I agree it is not.
I was just answering the question.
I stand by my answer.

 

[Bill of Rights]

FTFY?

I posted before the long debate about whether it was politically achievable at this time.
I agree it is not.
I was just answering the question.
I stand by my answer.

FTFY=Fixed That For You

David was pointing out his minor correction where he added the word "claimed"

Background checks have never effectively served this purpose, regardless of their claimed intent, nor has any other law of this nature.

The antis say they want background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, knowing fully well that the checks are not applied to criminals who do not buy guns from FFL dealers. Since they know this, their claimed intent is not their actual intent. It's like trying to keep the horse in the corral by closing the lid on the laundry hamper. That works to keep the cat out of the laundry, but if you want the horse in the corral, you have to close the gate.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Ashkelon]

Fran Quigly

According to his article I can find an Uzi, a Glock, or an Anaconda for less than a hundred?What a piece of ****. He ran a legal clinic when I was in law school and I refused to sign up then and I refuse to acknowledge his existence beyond this post. Screw him.

 

[StarKing]

FTFY=Fixed That For You

David was pointing out his minor correction where he added the word "claimed"


The antis say they want background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, knowing fully well that the checks are not applied to criminals who do not buy guns from FFL dealers. Since they know this, their claimed intent is not their actual intent. It's like trying to keep the horse in the corral by closing the lid on the laundry hamper. That works to keep the cat out of the laundry, but if you want the horse in the corral, you have to close the gate.



Blessings,
Bill

Ahhhh....
I didn't see the correction.
I should have said it that way in the first place, I'm not so foolish as to believe these folks are even slightly concerned with unimportant things like facts & truth.

 

[hornadylnl]

I agree with you when you say. Hell I agree with everthing you say.

"The root philosophy and what I believe are politically achievable are two different things."

I am interested in what is politcally acheivable, sorry I did not make that clear. I like your perfect world much better. I can handle protection for my family and myself so if a criminal wants to try to bring it on. Thats why I said I don't care about crime rates.

How about my idea of a list or a database of who can't have a gun. I know any system is prone to human error and corruption. Any thoughts?

Terrorist watchlists at airports anyone? Haven't there been actual politicians that were on the list preventing them from flying til they got it cleared up? Seemed to me there were accusations of partisan political politics as to why certain people were on the list. Have a disagreement with the county sheriff? Better hope he doesn't add your name to the list.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'll give you an example of how the whole system is broke. I got this information first hand from the ffl dealer involved. I won't get every detail right and I'm paraphrasing what was said but the point is real. I have no reason to not believe this guy as he's a respected local business man and involved in community service.

He sells a gun to a guy before call in background checks. It's a bolt action rifle. The guy takes it home and the sights are so far off that he has to move them all the way over to get it close. He takes it back the dealer. Dealer sends it back to the factory for repair. Factory sends it back to the dealer, dealer gives it back. Guy comes back again. This time the sights are all the way off to the other side. Sends it back in to the factory. In the meantime, dealer has a casual conversation with a leo relative about all the problems with this rifle as he's never had to send a gun back in for repair before. He just happened to mention the name of the owner and the leo relative about had a fit. He proceeds to tell the dealer about the owner's long criminal history and tells him not to give the gun back to the owner once he gets it back.

Dealer now involves the county sheriff and the sheriff is standing there with the dealer while he calls the atf to report the owner. The agent immediately tells the dealer that if he gives the gun back to the owner, the dealer will go to jail. At this point the dealer gets perturbed. He tells the agent, hey, I'm the one who called you. Were on the same side here. Agent says something to the effect of what do you want me to do. Dealer says I want you to prosecute the owner for falsify the 4473 sworn affidavit. Agent says they don't have room in jail for everyone who falsifys the form. Dealer tells agent, you had room for me just a minute ago, give him my spot. At this point, I don't know how much more back and forth their was but the agent asked the dealer if there was anything he could do for him. He said to print 4473's in a 4" roll so he could hang them in his bathroom because that is all they were worth. Conversation ends and the sheriff tells the dealer, you know you will get audited now.

Some time later, the owner became the likely suspect of a high profile crime against a government building in a neighboring county. Atf contacts dealer and wants 4473 for the owner. Dealer says no way you are getting form.

Some time later, atf audits dealer. They (a different agent this time) found a descrepency in books. Dealer failed to log in the 2 returns to factory for rifle of the now suspect owner. Having never had this happen before, the dealer didn't know he had to log it in and out each time. Dealer told agent to prosecute him to the fullest. Agent was dumbfounded. Dealer then told the agent that he will make copies of the 4473 and go to every local news station with the story that if the atf would have done their job, the suspect would have been in jail and the crime would not have been commited. Agent arrives at an understanding with dealer and tells him to never lose that form as it was essentially his get out of jail free card.

Next time his ffl comes up for renewal, he sent it in months before expiration and was getting nothing but the run around. He remembers second agents name and calls her. He explains the situation to her and she says, you're that guy with the (his primary business) store aren't you? She had his renewal to him the next day. They have since left him alone to the best of my knowledge.

Here is a case of a good dealer trying to do the right thing by the law and got nothing but grief from the atf and they let a guy go who they could have prevented from causing a serious crime if they had done their job. I know this is kind of long winded buy I hope you are able to follow it.

 

[nicklilnova]

Gun Show

I have a Colt Anaconda and if you can get them for $100 bucks I would be all over it. This guys is a water head and has no idea what he is talking about...

 

[Shadowbeach]

.