Correct ne uf I'm wrong

[Bunnykid68]

Thank you, I agree, but I'm not arguing with you, I'm trying to have a polite discussion, and won't hold your lack of intelligence against you

But most of your post are still wrong

 

[Caleb]

Thank you, I agree, but I'm not arguing with you, I'm trying to have a polite discussion, and won't hold your lack of intelligence against you

 

[Caleb]

 

[SideArmed]

WRONG! As ALREADY stated several times, an FFL transfer involves a monetary cost, AND the serial number, make, and model of the weapon are recorded, which could eventually lead to registration and confiscation

Wow I guess someone is just in this for the argument factor of it. Not actual "reasonable" discourse.

Again I will ask, who do you think is going to pay those people on the other end of the phone?

 

[echoagain]

In theory, universal checks sound appealing, but in practice, not so much. Yes, I think it is one more way for the government to get further 'weaved' into the process making registration or something akin to it easier to accomplish at some future point. In addition, would I have to clear a background check for the rifle I inherited from my grandfather, or maybe a family friend? Do we really need government getting involved in this way? Further, who would do the checks....would I be forced to pay an FFL each time I wanted to make a private sale? Finally, do I think it would actually make anyone safer....no. It would be just one more 'feel good' piece of legislation on the books that politicians could boast about, law-abiding citizens would be inconvenienced by, and criminals would scoff at.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Let's be fair to Hkindiana. He clarified that he wants the availability of a free, DIY NICS check available to use without giving any other information if we so choose in order to do a private sale knowing absolutely that the person he is selling to is on the level. He has good intentions that are flawed with failure to account for the facts that the .gov is NOT going to do anything free, nor are they going to let us use it anonymously when they could be gathering data instead. As I have thought about it for a few hours there would also be resistance from those who would take issue with running a background check for other reasons, like hiring for example. There would also be a problem with the false positives NICS is known for throwing at people. That said, his intentions are honorable even if loaded with unintended consequences for which he did not account.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I scream that it is unreasonable to legally deny an 18 year old the purchase of alcohol.

If you're old enough to vote you decide the fate of the republic. Old enough to decide the fate of the republic, old enough to buy booze.

Nothing is more important than the right of self determination, except the right of self defense.

 

[Racechase1]

All I know about this subject is this warning,"Trust me, I'm from the government". This phrase and guns NEVER belong together.

 

[Jack Burton]

Let's be fair to Hkindiana. He clarified that he wants the availability of a free, DIY NICS check available to use without giving any other information if we so choose in order to do a private sale knowing absolutely that the person he is selling to is on the level. He has good intentions that are flawed with failure to account for the facts that the .gov is NOT going to do anything free, nor are they going to let us use it anonymously when they could be gathering data instead. As I have thought about it for a few hours there would also be resistance from those who would take issue with running a background check for other reasons, like hiring for example. There would also be a problem with the false positives NICS is known for throwing at people. That said, his intentions are honorable even if loaded with unintended consequences for which he did not account.

Taranto from the Wall St. Journal pointed out the other day that this "free service" is perfect for finding out which of your neighbors, co-workers, and other assorted people are eligible for gun ownership. Just pop their name in and you'll know in seconds that something is wrong if if comes back denied.

 

[Hookeye]

If the OP is so worried about who he sells guns to, and he doesn't want to spend any of his coin running a check, why not just limit his sales to those with proper ID and LTCH permit?

 

[darrent]

Drinking is not a right. Nuff said.

Should be

 

[Hookeye]

Drinking is a right, for married guys.

 

[jbombelli]

Drinking is a [STRIKE]right[/STRIKE] necessity, for married guys.

FIFY.

 

[Hookeye]

Thanks, I was drinking

 

[2tonic]

The obvious solution here is to never, ever, sell any of your guns. It's like trading away your children.....Yeah, you appreciate getting the couch to yourself for a while, but then you start to miss 'em.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Thanks, I was drinking

21st Amendment

 

[jwh20]

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.

Please don't fall for this "argument" that I have heard thrown about by the anti-gun forces. It's an attempt to change the argument to a different focus that is IRRELEVANT!

Similar arguments:

1) It's harder to get a drivers license then a gun.
2) It's harder to get a cell phone then a gun.
3) It's harder to buy a car...

Etc... there are no end to these.

But NONE of these are rights protected against infringements by the Constitution. And for those of us in Indiana, the IN Const. Also!

Be prepared and ask more relevant questions:

- Shouldn't people have a licence and background check to vote?
- What about a permit to post on the internet?
- Shouldn't your church be approved by the government to ensure it's "safe" for your kids?
- Why should a well known crook be allowed to take the 5th, when everyone knows he's guilty?

Etc.

ALL rights are vital and if any one is infringed, the rest are not going to stand. The Constitution is simply a piece of paper representing an idea. If people and their elected representatives disrespect it, there will be no rights in the future.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Please don't fall for this "argument" that I have heard thrown about by the anti-gun forces. It's an attempt to change the argument to a different focus that is IRRELEVANT!

Similar arguments:

1) It's harder to get a drivers license then a gun.
2) It's harder to get a cell phone then a gun.
3) It's harder to buy a car...

Etc... there are no end to these.

But NONE of these are rights protected against infringements by the Constitution. And for those of us in Indiana, the IN Const. Also!

Be prepared and ask more relevant questions:

- Shouldn't people have a licence and background check to vote?
- What about a permit to post on the internet?
- Shouldn't your church be approved by the government to ensure it's "safe" for your kids?
- Why should a well known crook be allowed to take the 5th, when everyone knows he's guilty?

Etc.

ALL rights are vital and if any one is infringed, the rest are not going to stand. The Constitution is simply a piece of paper representing an idea. If people and their elected representatives disrespect it, there will be no rights in the future.

Just because it is not listed in the Constitution does not mean it is not a Right.

 

[MG77]

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.

It builds a data base for a confiscation......The wrong person comes into power it gives them limitless options to take things to the next level. Look up Germany in the late 1930's and what legislation they put into place to "Save the Children". The "Unknown" is a huge deterrent to those that seek power and as Thomas Jefferson has stated.. "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." Read up on how Lewis and Clark traveled through Indian Country without a scuffle, fear of the "Unknown" will keep those that have leverage in check. You can what if.... could we.... this topic to death but the only people you are "keeping in check" are the ones that obey the law. Criminals will always have the ability to harm it is in our best interest to be prepared for the criminal, whether it is your neighbor or your government.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Just because it is not listed in the Constitution does not mean it is not a Right.

Ninth Amendment for the win!