Correct ne uf I'm wrong

[Hookeye]

A poor argument delivered in a civil tone is still a poor argument.
Repeatedly not accepting proper counter points tends to p*ss people off.
Don't like "yelling", then start listening.
Anything less is being a troll.
8 pages now, get with the program or drop it.

 

[Birds Away]

This is an old game. Beware everyone. Be wary when someone continues an argument without regard to common sense responses. It is likely that he is simply attempting to get people so fired up that they will post something that will get them banned. Don't fall in the trap.

Don't feed the troll.

 

[Shootsforfun]

Again, so you think you have the right to give a felon a gun?

No I did not say that at all but I do have the right to buy or sell something to a friend or relative who is not a felon without anyone's permission. The felons are going to get theirs no matter what laws are in place.. please get that through your head...

 

[IndyDave1776]

I actually expected this before post #68. Yes, I am for real, and maybe I am playing the devil's advocate. My point has been to see if we, as fellow gun owners, and strong advocates of our second amendment rights, could have a rational discussion without name calling, blind faith, and finger pointing. it seems like this is like a discussion about religion where someone is always right because their particular book tells them so.

What exactly is YOUR cause?

Since you insist on being obtuse:

1. The Second Amendment is a right. It is not negotiable. Simple as that.

2. There will be no discussion rational to your satisfaction other than dropping our pants and grabbing our ankles for the left. You have made that abundantly clear. Further, giving up less than they really want while gaining nothing is not a compromise but a capitulation, even if a smaller one that it might have been.

3. I don't know where in the universe you are getting this blind faith s**t, but the Constitution is quite clear. Previous violations do not justify future violations. You are right to an extent about the similarity between the Constitution and a religious text. The critical difference is that the Constitution was drafted by men who operated in the recent memory of history and deliberately created a binding contract between the government and the governed which limited the authority and power of the government in order to prevent the very situation we now have as a consequence of ignoring it. It has a very specifically established process for amendment and aside from that is not negotiable. Period. Your ignorance does not change that.

4. Even if this nonsense passed constitution muster (which it doesn't) it still signally fails to accomplish anything toward its ostensible purpose while doing much toward the creation of a police state, and PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO INSIST ON OPERATING IN IGNORANCE MAKE THIS POSSIBLE. Only a fool is willing to give up something of great value while receiving nothing in return. I am sorry, but being considered 'reasonable' by leftists and statists is NOT something of value.

5. Your insistence on not using the Constitution as an argument is very similar to expecting someone in court to present his case without using favorable evidence. It is predestined to failure. This is especially true when you replace evidence with the standard of making people's tummies feel good. You wouldn't know reason or logic if either one appeared in tangible form.

 

[sepe]

Is it REALLY yout RIGHT to give a convicted felon a firearm?

A convicted felon that has served his or her time should have the right to protect themselves. I'm not going to give them anything though, just as I'm not going to give you anything. Is it better that they buy from an individual or from Mexican gun runners that the government has supplied?

How would a seller know if the buyer is not a violent felon? Take his word for it?

Yep.

 

[Hkindiana]

I did not find your discussion on these questions in the thread. I must have missed it.

What i am proposing is NOT going to stop a "bad guy" from getting a gun, nothing can do so. IF only the police had guns, a bad guy could walk up behind a policeman and hit him in the back of the head with a brick and take his gun.
What I am advocating is a simple, free, way for us to make sure that the person we deliver a firearm to is a "proper person". Right now, there s NO WAY to do this. A non FFL cannot do a NICS check. If we go through a dealer, there is a cost of $20-$50, AND the serial number and make/model of the firearm IS recorded, which could lead into a national database and eventual firearms confiscation.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I have a Right to bear arms and drink alcohol, leave em alone.

 

[IndyDave1776]

How would a seller know if the buyer is not a violent felon? Take his word for it?

You are getting into negative proof, which is an impossibility. According to the law, you can't sell, give, or otherwise cede possession of a firearm to someone you know to be a felon, but you do not have a burden to prove that the recipient is not an 'improper person'.

You are, or course, free to decline to sell to someone about whom you have misgivings for whatever reason. I wouldn't sell one of my guns to someone I wouldn't want to meet in a dark alley and would anticipate that you would deal with that situation in a similar way. Similarly, when selling a car, I wouldn't demand to see someone's driver's license before being willing to sell. It simply isn't my job to make sure he complies with the law.

 

[Shootsforfun]

Do convicted felons & mentally unstable people have a RIGHT to own firearms? If so, would you feel comfortable giving them one?

You keep referring to this often do you want to sell to Mentally Ill and Felons...It appears to be projection on your part... No where in this thread does anyone advocate the sale of firearms to this group of people. To answer you ? about what to do with the current laws.

1. Don't sell to anyone that You don't already know.
2. Has proper ID as in LTCH, Drivers license Etc.
3. If your worried beyond that have them meet you at a gun shop and do a transfer, most will do this for small fee...

Point being again this should not be made mandatory by any government.

 

[gunowner930]

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf


HKindiana- Go to section D of form 4473 provided in this link. Model, Serial Number, type, caliber. Now do you see why some of us are a little bit concerned?

 

[eldirector]

What i am proposing is NOT going to stop a "bad guy" from getting a gun, nothing can do so. IF only the police had guns, a bad guy could walk up behind a policeman and hit him in the back of the head with a brick and take his gun.
What I am advocating is a simple, free, way for us to make sure that the person we deliver a firearm to is a "proper person". Right now, there s NO WAY to do this. A non FFL cannot do a NICS check. If we go through a dealer, there is a cost of $20-$50, AND the serial number and make/model of the firearm IS recorded, which could lead into a national database and eventual firearms confiscation.

There is ALREADY a simple, free way to be sure you don't sell a gun to a felon.

If you are selling to someone you don't know, tell THEM to pay the FFL for a NICS check and transfer.

You do NOT need to force ME to do the same. I can already choose not to sell to felons. So can anyone else. It is already illegal for me to choose otherwise.

We DO NOT NEED THIS.

It is proven TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE.

 

[IndyDave1776]

What i am proposing is NOT going to stop a "bad guy" from getting a gun, nothing can do so. IF only the police had guns, a bad guy could walk up behind a policeman and hit him in the back of the head with a brick and take his gun.
What I am advocating is a simple, free, way for us to make sure that the person we deliver a firearm to is a "proper person". Right now, there s NO WAY to do this. A non FFL cannot do a NICS check. If we go through a dealer, there is a cost of $20-$50, AND the serial number and make/model of the firearm IS recorded, which could lead into a national database and eventual firearms confiscation.

OK, you have presented a sensible question. If you are concerned beyond your legal burden to ensure that the person to whom you are selling a gun passes NICS standards, it would be nice if there were a non-traceable vehicle for doing so, preferably without getting charged for it. I could support having such a service available in the event a person chose voluntarily to use it for their own peace of mind. Unfortunately, it will never happen.

First, the government never does anything 'free'. You can rest assured that if such a service were available there would be a charge. This is one area in which the government loves privatizing and socializing simultaneously--using tax money to support a given service and also directly charging the actual users of that service.

Second, the government never gives you anything without getting its hooks into you--they would never establish a system in which the only thing preventing compilation of a de facto registry is the honor system. I don't believe I need to address the fact that the .gov is generally less than honorable. As you said, there is no way other than a completely blind private sale to avoid having a paper trail. This is by design and will not change.

Third, if something like this were to be made available on a voluntary basis, it would be only a matter of time before it became mandatory. Unfortunately, that is the way government operates. With incrementalism being the standard in infringing upon and eliminating rights, we harm ourselves by giving even that much.

Now that you clarified, I will give you credit for being proactive on a voluntary basis, even if with something not likely to happen on your terms which would open the door to future problems if it were introduced on the government's terms.

 

[Hkindiana]

I, for one, value ALL of my constitutional freedoms, and do not want ANY of them to be infringed, reduced, or lost. If my discussions have appeared otherwise, I apologize for offending you. We are all open to our own beliefs, and I am just trying to figure how to keep from breaking current laws without enacting new ones. All too often a politician feels it his his/her job to propose new laws and regulations, and that is one reason we are buried under the current avalanche of laws and regulations that the police, with their limited manpower & time, do not/cannot enforce. It is the politicians job to do what we the people ask of them, and as I see it, really nothing more. After all, WE are their constituents, and not visa-versa. We DO NOT need more gun control laws, including UBC's but we do need a way to help enforce what are already on the books, OR work with our elected politicians to REMOVE those that the MAJORITY of us feel are unjust.

 

[SideArmed]

What i am proposing is NOT going to stop a "bad guy" from getting a gun, nothing can do so. IF only the police had guns, a bad guy could walk up behind a policeman and hit him in the back of the head with a brick and take his gun.
What I am advocating is a simple, free, way for us to make sure that the person we deliver a firearm to is a "proper person". Right now, there s NO WAY to do this. A non FFL cannot do a NICS check. If we go through a dealer, there is a cost of $20-$50, AND the serial number and make/model of the firearm IS recorded, which could lead into a national database and eventual firearms confiscation.

There it is again. How in the wide world of sports do you expect this service to be free?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I, for one, value ALL of my constitutional freedoms, and do not want ANY of them to be infringed, reduced, or lost. If my discussions have appeared otherwise, I apologize for offending you. We are all open to our own beliefs, and I am just trying to figure how to keep from breaking current laws without enacting new ones. All too often a politician feels it his his/her job to propose new laws and regulations, and that is one reason we are buried under the current avalanche of laws and regulations that the police, with their limited manpower & time, do not/cannot enforce. It is the politicians job to do what we the people ask of them, and as I see it, really nothing more. After all, WE are their constituents, and not visa-versa. We DO NOT need more gun control laws, including UBC's but we do need a way to help enforce what are already on the books, OR work with our elected politicians to REMOVE those that the MAJORITY of us feel are unjust.

That is the best statement you have made

 

[Hkindiana]

That is the best statement you have made

Thanks, i agree

 

[IndyDave1776]

I, for one, value ALL of my constitutional freedoms, and do not want ANY of them to be infringed, reduced, or lost. If my discussions have appeared otherwise, I apologize for offending you. We are all open to our own beliefs, and I am just trying to figure how to keep from breaking current laws without enacting new ones. All too often a politician feels it his his/her job to propose new laws and regulations, and that is one reason we are buried under the current avalanche of laws and regulations that the police, with their limited manpower & time, do not/cannot enforce. It is the politicians job to do what we the people ask of them, and as I see it, really nothing more. After all, WE are their constituents, and not visa-versa. We DO NOT need more gun control laws, including UBC's but we do need a way to help enforce what are already on the books, OR work with our elected politicians to REMOVE those that the MAJORITY of us feel are unjust.

The fundamental problem here is that you cannot solve a problem situation by trying to add new problems to cancel out the old ones. If we were to go old school and simply declare that anyone too dangerous to be trusted with all of his constitutional rights (which shouldn't be negotiable in the first place) should not be roaming free, the problem would be solved since there is little possibility of smuggling a weapon to an inmate being done accidentally. The best solution would be that either you are free our you are not without having second-class citizens among us.

Although you are right about the more than sufficient laws, if it takes a deliberate and diligent effort to avoid breaking the law, the problem is with the law and not with us. My only disagreement with your concern about being able to avoid supplying guns to prohibited persons is that the only thing you are likely to gain by personally picking up the burden of enforcement is ulcers.

You touched on the relationship between the people and the government becoming inverted. This is a great argument for not giving up an inch. We have already given up far too much and are on a very dangerous precipice as a result. With the laws already on the books, we have an instant police state, just add water. I am given to believe the only reason they don't act on this is the fear of the unknown weapons in circulation which outnumber the ones they can reliably locate.

I will commend you for good intentions with the caveat that it cannot realistically be done without critically compromising our already damaged rights.

 

[jbombelli]

Because it cannot work without registration. And I'm not registering my guns. I'm not telling the government who I sold guns to, or who I bought them from, or what guns I have. And without that, they can't force any private seller to actually do a background check. Otherwise, how would they know we didn't do it? I *look* at a buyer's ID to make sure he's an Indiana resident. I *ask* him if he's a prohibited person. I don't tell him my name, and I don't show him my ID, and I don't make him sign anything and I don't give or ask for a receipt.

So without complete registration and required reporting to the government on a regular basis, regarding what guns we own and who we bought/sold them from/to, with criminal penalties for non-compliance, how would the government ever know I sold a gun to someone without doing the check? Even if they catch the guy with the gun I sold him, all he can say is "I bought it from some guy." So how would they know?

They won't. This is simply a step to mandatory universal registration, and we all know THAT is a step toward confiscation.

 

[ModernGunner]

I believe I can help with this:

Before you start the hate mail, pease read this entire post, and offer rational suggestions. My point is that by law, we must verify that an individual is 21 before we can give or sell them alcohol, and no one screams that this is an infringement of our rights. What is wrong with a NICS check (with no weapon information conveyed) requirement for the sale of a firearm? This would not be a "firearm registry" as some fear, because there would be no record of the weapon OR the serial number. It would simply be to verify that the person you are transferring a weapon to, is not a criminal or disqualified individual. You and I both know that ANYONE can walk into a gun show and walk out with any number of handguns, rifles, and "assault weapons" without ANYONE verifying that they are not a criminal, mentally insane, an illegal, etc, simply by purchasing from individuals or those selling from "private collections". I know the term "disqualified individual" is open to discussion, and CAN be changed by government whim. However, if we agreed to a simple background check, and the government later decided that redheads and blondes would now be "disqualified individuals", we could use common sense, and just go back to what we do now. In the interim, just maybe, we might stop some crazy from obtaining a firearm.

Unlike the '21 drinking age' which DOES, in fact, stop the majority (NOT all) of underage drinking, the UBC will NOT stop ANY criminal activity.

In FACT, the NICS check we have NOW does NOT stop or deter crime to any statistically significant degree.

Why is that? Because, for one, the check does NOT include mental health information, as that is prohibited from being provided under citation of 'privacy'. Therefore, the question on the existing form is useless, as there is no way to verify the information, unless (for whatever reason) it shows up on criminal / court record.

For another, not sure if people notice, but criminals do not obey they law. That statement appears 'shocking & appalling' to some folks. The current NICS provides NO deterrent to criminals buying guns illegally because criminals do not fill out and submit 4473 forms, in the 'hope' the criminal gets an okay to buy a gun. They simply buy their guns 'at midnight in the alley'.

The record would be that if I sell a firearm to raptrbreth on 3/30/13, I have a NICS transaction number, on that date, to show that they said it was OK to transfer a firearm to him. I wouldn't be required to keep your address or the firearm information. Then if raptrbreth turned out to be a criminal and said "hey, I got the pistol from hkindiana", I would be covered because I did the check. If I did not do the legally required check, I could be held jointly liable for any infraction done with said firearm.

That is NOT how the current NICS check works, nor how any UBC would work. The specific firearm information is provided along WITH detailed information on both Buyer and Seller: name, address, SSN, etc. FFL Licensees ARE required to keep that information, for 2 decades, I believe.

NOR would this, absolutely, absolve you, personally, from civil liability or criminal culpability if that firearm would be used for improper reasons.

Therefore, there is NO useful benefit derived even from the CURRENT NICS check. Any further UBC's would be even more intrusive to law-abiding citizens, but equally as useless in preventing crime or preventing criminals from obtaining firearms illegally.

Further, BOTH the current and proposed UBC's do NOTHING to prevent the mentally deranged from even being scrutinized, let alone from obtaining a weapon.

NO form, no law perpetrated against law-abiding citizens will stop the criminal. Murder has been against the law for centuries, has it stopped murders? Has it even reduced them? No, statistically speaking.

Existence of a law will not prevent an action breaking it. It only makes breaking it punishable after the fact.

Hope this helps.

 

[EvilleT]

Your thread says correct me if I'm wrong. You Have Been Corrected. This thread is done..