Gun Talk

[nsplayr]

I oppose it.

Welcome to the 8%. You can freely oppose it, just realize that the vast majority of citizens, and gun owners, and NRA members, don't share your view.

What other "property" do I own, that I have to get government permission to transfer to someone else?

What other "property" of yours is specifically prohibited to certain individuals depending on their background? If you're a convicted violent felon, if you're mentally ill, I don't want you owning a gun and I certainly don't want to sell you mine.

Enforcement: do I have to keep some sort of paperwork now, for each weapon I own?

NICS is a point of sale check that's meant to prevent people specifically prohobited from owning weapons from buying them. It can and should be improved, but that's all it is...no "show me your papers" requirements and there need not be any with any new laws. Make everyone submit to a background check at the time of sale, if they pass, great, have a nice day. If they don't, no sale. Hell, if you don't want to involve FFLs make it a 1-800 number and a website that anyone can access, fine by me. You don't even need a bill of sale or other record of the transfer as I indicated previously, although if I was a seller I'd insist on one personally.

If the Dems can pass a law that criminals and crazies will FOLLOW, then I might change my mind.

By your logic we should have no laws because law-breakers (by definition) don't follow them. Just be honest and admit you won't change your mind.

So let me get this straight...under your plan, I would have to carry a piece of paper with each firearm I have (ie similar to that of Class 3 Firearms...that are, by the way, nationally registered)?

Not sure how this became part of what I said. Take NICS, improve it to include more data (from all the states, include more mental health records and all felony convictions, etc.), require that private sales must use the system first before proceeding. Involve FFLs if you want or make it open to the public, doesn't matter to me.

Now...to the Constitutional argument--I find what you propose as being extremely hypocritical (go figure). You said that requiring somebody to have an ID to vote infringes on the Right to vote...especially when it comes to the poor/minorities, but yet you have no problem making it illegal to own a firearm without an ID?

The hypocrisy cuts both ways...you want to require an ID and registration ahead of time (already a requirement in many places) to vote but nothing at all for purchasing a firearm? My argument is that voting is the most fundamental political right you have in a representative form of government and so it should be as open and free as possible within the bounds of reason (i.e. 1 person, 1 vote, citizens only, etc.). While I find gun ownership rights important and clearly protected under the Constitution, I just don't find it at the same level as voting rights and therefore I'm more willing to accept some limits in liberty for additional security.

Seems like you're views are the opposite...you want less liberty and more security in voting (worried about fraudulent elections more than me?) but not in gun ownership (less worried about violent crime committed by people who no longer have the right to own firearms?).

Edited March 20, 2013 by nsplayr

[Vetter]

So you think some rights are more important than others. Copy. I don't. My Gun rights are equal to my voting rights are equal to my free speech rights.

[nsplayr]

So you think some rights are more important than others. Copy. I don't. My Gun rights are equal to my voting rights are equal to my free speech rights.

What do you do when rights come into conflict? If "all rights were equal" being a judge would be fairly easy (or impossible?) wouldn't ya say?

It's all about the balance between liberty and security...absolute liberty or absolute security are not desirable, so finding the right balance is generally what laws like this are supposed to attempt to do.

[Fuzz]

nsplyr, you missed the point how are police going to enforce the private sales restriction? there's no record of of the sale or background check? so what happens when a cop stops someone who is legally carrying a firearm (legal in certain states) and asks for ID and carry license, how am I or this cop going to prove I underwent a background check for my firearm if I purchased it privately.

[FreudianSlip]

Welcome to the 8%. You can freely oppose it, just realize that the vast majority of citizens, and gun owners, and NRA members, don't share your view.

Woooo dude. I don't come here that often and when I do I mostly lurk but I'm jumping in here. So let me get this straight, you throw out a news article and tell me that I'm in an 8% minority and then say that NRA members also overwhelming support background checks all within the same line of text.

Please let it be heard I am an NRA member and don't support universal background checks. All the NRA members that I hang with, shoot with and know, don't support universal background checks. Would you like to know why....because they're are the ones that I hang out with are educated on the subject AND we loan each other our guns on occasion.

Last week I made a kydex holster form my O-6 Department Head (hey, I know I'm kissing ass here). Borrowed his Glock 17 for a week and turned out this for him:

Made this for an AMT here at the zoo:

(note shameless plug if you are in C Springs and want a holster)

Guess what, borrowing his gun to mold the kydex=illegal in CO soon. My buddy has some free time and wants to borrow my AR so he can take his kid shooting in the woods=illegal now.

So I know what you are thinking, "oh, well, you'll have to give up your little side business hobby so that rest of us can live in a safe society."

As a former LEO, let me educate you a bit about how criminals work: THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT LAWS!

The problem with this very slippery slope is that we used to live in a society where you were innocent until proven guilty. While I have no issues with background checks when I'm buying from a store and they don't know me, selling a gun to a friend who I've known from years, or someone from my local shooting forums who has a CCW permit and is vouched for is reversing that philosophy. Now, I must presume all my friends, coworkers, fellow USPSA, IDPA shooters as guilty until they are proven innocent at our cost and our time.

Dems are winning the catch phrase war. Universal BCG is easy to say, but impossible to enforce.

Theory, meet reality; reality, meet theory. Guess who wins.

What other "property" of yours is specifically prohibited to certain individuals depending on their background? If you're a convicted violent felon, if you're mentally ill, I don't want you owning a gun and I certainly don't want to sell you mine.

automobile...that took about 1/2 second to think of!

house, depending on location...took me 2 seconds to think of that

(if you need me to explain that too you, feel free to ask)

NICS is a point of sale check that's meant to prevent people specifically prohobited from owning weapons from buying them. It can and should be improved, but that's all it is...no "show me your papers" requirements and there need not be any with any new laws. Make everyone submit to a background check at the time of sale, if they pass, great, have a nice day. If they don't, no sale. Hell, if you don't want to involve FFLs make it a 1-800 number and a website that anyone can access, fine by me. You don't even need a bill of sale or other record of the transfer as I indicated previously, although if I was a seller I'd insist on one personally.

This is a pie in the sky double speak. Did the Aurora shooter pass a BCG-yup. Did the mom of the Newton shooter pass a BCG-yup. I will say that the database should be more accurate, more up to date but BCG would not have prevented the above tragedies. Making private citizens jump through hoops won't solve this.

By your logic we should have no laws because law-breakers (by definition) don't follow them. Just be honest and admit you won't change your mind.

MIND BLOWN!!! There is a huge difference between having laws that are not enforceable and the fact that criminals don't obey laws.

I loan friend gun so he can go shoot. No BCG done.

He gets pulled over.

"Sir any weapons in the car."

"Why yes, officer, I have a handgun in the trunk, I'm going to the range."

"I the weapon yours?"

"Yes officer."

"move along, move along"

aka no ability to verify if the gun belongs to you, no ability to enforce

Option two (no gun)

Cop pulls you over,

"License and registration"

"Yes officer, actually officer, the car isn't mine."

"Really, who's is it?"

"It's a friend's. He is letting me borrow it while mine is in the shop."

Cop verifies that registration and license are different.

"Do you have the contact information for the owner."

"Yes officer it is......"

Car theft, it's enforceable.

Option three

You piss me off.

I punch you in the nose with witnesses.

You call 911

You tell officer I punched you in the nose

Witnesses agree

Assault, it's enforceable

WITHOUT REGISTRATION THIS IS PIE IN THE SKY.

Ask Canada, UK, Australia how that registration worked out for them...

This is why most Sheriffs in CO won't go along with this BS:

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/19/colorado-sheriffs-rebel-against-new-gun-control-laws/

Edited March 20, 2013 by FreudianSlip

[moosepileit]

There are always 1 or 2 of the ns "role" players on active boards. They serve a purpose, in a way.

My free rights lose some freedom when they interfere with yours.

How does owning any firearm interfere with you, unless it is used in a criminal act?

Is there a simple majority of firearms or their owners doing so? Have 51% of any type of legal weapon assaulted someone? If so, a vote might be in order. If not, our voted representatives have bigger fish left unfried.

I'd worry more about voting, as stated. There are lots of funny quotes on legalized theft of your hard earned money, when your side has the loss.

Registration begins a historically bad slippery slope. Doesn't mean the NICS can't be improved, for those that chose that route of purchase through an FFL dealer.

I guess you could tatoo some number on my arm showing anyone that needs to see it that I am "registered" properly.

Edited March 20, 2013 by moosepileit

[HeloDude]

Not sure how this became part of what I said. Take NICS, improve it to include more data (from all the states, include more mental health records and all felony convictions, etc.), require that private sales must use the system first before proceeding. Involve FFLs if you want or make it open to the public, doesn't matter to me.

Because yesterday you said this:

It doesn't take a genius to figure out a system where licensed dealers give you a receipt of the transaction showing you sold firearm X to person Y on date Z, there is no need to create some kind of national database in my mind and if you design the system that way, I'm not sure why anyone would be particularly opposed to it.

So again, would I have to keep this 'receipt' on me? What happens if I lose the receipt? If there is no further record of the transfer (ie no national database) then how can anybody enforce this action? Because if we don't need to keep the 'receipt' you mentioned, then everybody could just say that they 'lost it'...which defeats the entire point of your argument.

Again, you have to show how a 'universal background check' can be enforced without a national database.

The hypocrisy cuts both ways...you want to require an ID and registration ahead of time (already a requirement in many places) to vote but nothing at all for purchasing a firearm? My argument is that voting is the most fundamental political right you have in a representative form of government and so it should be as open and free as possible within the bounds of reason (i.e. 1 person, 1 vote, citizens only, etc.).

My argument made sense...you trying to make the opposite point does not. The Constitution does not say anything about how many 'arms' I can have...just that the Right to 'bear' those arms will not be infringed. Whether I have 0, 1, 10, or 100 arms does not do anything to anybody else--remember, they are inanimate objects. Now voting...every citizen of age (not counting released felons, which I would allow to vote after they serve their sentence) gets 1 vote for a specific race/election, and that's it. You can't vote multiple times for yourself, you can't vote for somebody else, you can't be registered to vote in 2 different places and vote in both locations. Voting is not an inanimate object...it's an action, that produces a result. My firearms produce no action until I choose to do something with them (which if then is 'suspected' to be illegal will cause me to be charged with a crime). So unless you're for a person being able to vote multiple times, vote for somebody else, vote in 2 different locations, etc...you have to have a way to ensure that is done properly. Else, what's the point of having an election?

Trust me...if it would be legal for me to purchase land in multiple areas and vote multiple times, vote for other people, etc hen I agree, we wouldn't then need any forms of identifying yourself and I would be happy to buy land in multiple places to vote multiple times.

See where your argument falls flat on its face? One Right if exercised can only occur once (per election/race) and the other Right if exercised has no Constitutional limit to how many inanimate objects that I can own.

While I find gun ownership rights important and clearly protected under the Constitution, I just don't find it at the same level as voting rights and therefore I'm more willing to accept some limits in liberty for additional security.

Seems like you're views are the opposite...you want less liberty and more security in voting (worried about fraudulent elections more than me?) but not in gun ownership (less worried about violent crime committed by people who no longer have the right to own firearms?).

Without the means to SECURE your Rights, you don't have any Rights. If we did not have the Right to bear arms, then all your others Rights could be legislated/dictated away. Think about it--if all personal firearms and the means to produce them are taken away from the people except for the 'government'. Then the said 'government' says you no longer have any other Rights--what do you do? Just sit and take it? You obviously can't effectively fight back because they've taken that means away from you. Read these quotes...

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

- George Washington

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Mason

...plenty more if you want them. Many people in history and even now can 'vote' and it doesn't mean that they are free or have Liberty.

Sorry to the others for the TLDR post...

[herkbum]

I sure hope this thread doesn't devolve like many of the other threads nsplayer post in. I have enjoyed reading this thread to learn more, but it looks like its heading towards the taxes/fiscal cliff and election threads that I quit reading months ago. He is slowly ruining this forum for me.

[spaceman]

Last week I made a kydex holster form my O-6 Department Head (hey, I know I'm kissing ass here). Borrowed his Glock 17 for a week and turned out this for him

Cool! Just out of curiosity, how do you make a holster like that? Do you put the gun between two pieces and heat them up to form them around it, or what?

Looks like some good work anyway

[HeloDude]

I sure hope this thread doesn't devolve like many of the other threads nsplayer post in. I have enjoyed reading this thread to learn more, but it looks like its heading towards the taxes/fiscal cliff and election threads that I quit reading months ago. He is slowly ruining this forum for me.

True...but I think the keeping up with proposed and passed/failed legislation is important to post/discuss along with the sharing of the crazy stories we're seeing about confiscation, etc. Maybe move this type of discussion to the Constitution/Rights thread or make a new 'Gun Legislation/Shenanigans' type thread?

Where's M2 when you need him!

[FreudianSlip]

Cool! Just out of curiosity, how do you make a holster like that? Do you put the gun between two pieces and heat them up to form them around it, or what?

Looks like some good work anyway

Heat the kydex in the oven. Depending on the thickness of the kydex around 300-350 degrees. Get it any hotter and you'll burn it.

then sandwich it with the gun (note; put in the magazine in the gun with polymer framed guns) outside is two sheets of plywood, mayo/mustard is two pieces of foam, then the kydex with the gun in the middle. smash it with 4 clamps. let it sit 15-18 minutes to cool-presto easy peasy

[M2]

I think there's a real chance some kind of universal background check will pass since it's so popular and especially since the NRA said they won't oppose it if there's no registry. And I don't see why there needs to be a registry...run it exactly like background checks are run now, just require a FFL to make that phone call even for private sales. Seems like those dealers would be in favor since they can take a cut for the service. Exempt sales to direct family members or something like that. If you're qual'd to buy a gun from a dealer, you're cleared to buy one from Joe Blow on the internet via a FFL...win-win.

Bullshit. There is no "win-win" for private sales, just added costs and administrivia. If you honestly don't believe it will be a de facto form of registration, you're sadly mistaken.

Plus, the main reason to be against it is that it will have no effect whatsoever on gun crime. Criminals will still illegally obtain firearms through various sources, and crimes will still be committed with legally-obtained firearms.

"Universal background checks" is just yet another liberal "feel-good" measure that has no real benefit at all. Just like "assault rifles," high-capacity magazines" and all those other made-up, mythical threats the Democrats pull out there ass; they once again fail to recognize the true cause of the problem and the fact that such laws and legal measures have never and will never have any impact on crime rates.

Quit blindly spouting the party line and actually think about what you're saying for a change...

Welcome to the 8%. You can freely oppose it, just realize that the vast majority of citizens, and gun owners, and NRA members, don't share your view.

Wow, "1,110 adults nationwide" What a broad sweep? Were they all in NY, California or Chicago, or some other liberal. If you can't do any better than to quote a poll that asked 1100 people out of 315 million (you do the math) a question and think that it represents the entire nation, you're just all full of fail!

Take that poll in Texas and tell me what the results are.

As for the rest of your dribble, you're just talking out your ass again. None of it is worth responding to...

Last week I made a kydex holster form my O-6 Department Head (hey, I know I'm kissing ass here). Borrowed his Glock 17 for a week and turned out this for him:

Made this for an AMT here at the zoo:

(note shameless plug if you are in C Springs and want a holster)

Nice, but ya need some forward cant to them...

I sure hope this thread doesn't devolve like many of the other threads nsplayer post in. I have enjoyed reading this thread to learn more, but it looks like its heading towards the taxes/fiscal cliff and election threads that I quit reading months ago. He is slowly ruining this forum for me.

No worries, I am about ready to block nsplayr from posting in this thread. He's just polluting it anyway...

[FreudianSlip]

Nice, but ya need some forward cant to them...

Custom order. They get what they want. I agree, needs forward cant. The ejection port cut out was a new one for me.

[nsplayr]

Woooo dude. I don't come here that often and when I do I mostly lurk but I'm jumping in here. So let me get this straight, you throw out a news article and tell me that I'm in an 8% minority and then say that NRA members also overwhelming support background checks all within the same line of text. Please let it be heard I am an NRA member and don't support universal background checks. All the NRA members that I hang with, shoot with and know, don't support universal background checks.

Cool...if you went to the second page of the second link, their survey had 85% of respondents living in households with an NRA member saying they were in favor. That's where that part of the article came from.

...but I think the keeping up with proposed and passed/failed legislation is important to post/discuss along with the sharing of the crazy stories we're seeing about confiscation, etc. Maybe move this type of discussion to the Constitution/Rights thread or make a new 'Gun Legislation/Shenanigans' type thread?

Sounds fine to me. It takes 2 (or in this case many more) to tango on these debates/discussions...I'm happy to take it to a different thread.

Wow, "1,110 adults nationwide" What a broad sweep? Were they all in NY, California or Chicago, or some other liberal. If you can't do any better than to quote a poll that asked 1100 people out of 315 million (you do the math) a question and think that it represents the entire nation, you're just all full of fail!

You may need to re-hack on the CBT on statistical sampling and how polling works...

Take that poll in Texas and tell me what the results are.

There was barely any difference when the data was broken down by region in the Quinnipiac poll; I'm assuming Texas was included as part of the South which actually has 93% answering "support" when asked the question, "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"

No worries, I am about ready to block nsplayr from posting in this thread. He's just polluting it anyway...

Like I said, I'm willing to take it elsewhere or withhold political discussion from this particular thread. Numerous other posters seem to also want to discuss the political aspects of gun laws and gun control.

Edited March 20, 2013 by nsplayr

[FreudianSlip]

Cool...if you went to the second page of the second link, their survey had 85% of respondents living in households with an NRA member saying they were in favor. That's where that part of the article came from.

Next you'll tell me that 40% of firearm are purchased without a background check?

http://www.nationalr...-myth-john-lott

I find it odd that so many NRA members want UBGCs and yet I have never met one. Gosh, those USPSA matches I go to where there are ton of shooters who have NRA stickers on their cars must be lying to my face. I have to seriously question a poll that says one thing, yet the facts on the ground show the opposite is true.

Again, a reality vs theory issue. I generally lurk around here and think you play devils advocate just for an exercise in mental juggling but sometimes you just blow my mind.

Ok, found what you are referencing:

38. Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp

Support 92% 89% 96% 92% 90% 94% 92% 95% 91%

Oppose 7 9 3 7 9 5 7 5 8

DK/NA 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 - 1

So I guess the CO legislature just blew you stats out of the water. Not a single ® voted for universal BGCs. hmm....

Just as an FYI 67.2% of statistics are made up BS!

Well, gotta go practice loading my shotgun...Noveske 3G match coming soon and I have to figure how my short butt is going to load quickly while poking out a sunroof.

but "I'll be back!"

Edited March 20, 2013 by FreudianSlip

[busdriver]

Universal background checks.... hmmm totally unenforceable without a registry.... agree

That said, if there was a free way that I could verify I'm not selling to a douche bag I'd use it. Would that reduce the amount of guns sold to felons un-knowingly, probably but what's the cost and what's the true number of guns bought this way by criminals? While it may still be unenforceable, would it still be helpful? I bet the NRA would be really on board with a free background check system.

[HeloDude]

I bet the NRA would be really on board with a free and voluntary background check system for private sales.

FIFY

[nsplayr]

Universal background checks.... hmmm totally unenforceable without a registry.... agree

That said, if there was a free way that I could verify I'm not selling to a douche bag I'd use it. Would that reduce the amount of guns sold to felons un-knowingly, probably but what's the cost and what's the true number of guns bought this way by criminals? While it may still be unenforceable, would it still be helpful? I bet the NRA would be really on board with a free background check system.

They used to be, Mr. LaPierre gave some pretty strong testimony on it back in the day (i.e. 1999); seems like their position is different today but perhaps not if the system is enacted like you just described.

Edited March 20, 2013 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

They used to be, Mr. LaPierre gave some pretty strong testimony on it back in the day (i.e. 1999); seems like their position is different today but perhaps not if the system is enacted like you just described.

He evolved...just like Obama and Hillary on gay marriage.

And by the way, the clip only spoke about gun shows...it didn't say anything specifically to private sales at non-gun shows (where I would argue a majority of the private sales take place).

[M2]

Truthfully, if nsplayr actually did some homework on the issue he'd find that there aren't actually many guns being sold illegally because of the lack of background checks. It is another liberal-generated myth like "the gunshow loophole" of which the anti-gun clowns are clueless as well.

I would be convinced these measures would work if those that propose them could prove that they're needed; but the truth is they are not.

Blaming firearms for crime is ridiculous, and creating stricter laws only hampers law-abiding citizens; but that doesn't penetrate the liberal mindset (facts rarely do). Just like the six-month old killed during the drive-by shooting in Chicago last week, nary a word is spoken about the criminal who shot the gun only that a gun was used. And what about that city's strict gun laws? That is also overlooked because it is only proof that the Democrats are wrong on their position, and God knows they'll never admit they are wrong (like Feinstein, they will keep making up stories in vain attempts to prove themselves right!).

Reid is at least smart enough to know that such proposals will have significant backlash, which is why he killed Feinstein's proposal. That also shows how stupid nsplayr's claims that 92% of Americans support such measures, he too is victim to the whitewash and too ignorant to admit he's completely wrong about it.

[FreudianSlip]

Universal background checks.... hmmm totally unenforceable without a registry.... agree

That said, if there was a free way that I could verify I'm not selling to a douche bag I'd use it. Would that reduce the amount of guns sold to felons un-knowingly, probably but what's the cost and what's the true number of guns bought this way by criminals? While it may still be unenforceable, would it still be helpful? I bet the NRA would be really on board with a free background check system.

FIFY

You beat me to it. While I like it, as a exercise in thinking two steps down the road:

1. Private FFLs would not do it unless they were reimbursed.

2. You could set up an FFL check at local DMVs and let the State or Fed handle funding. Both parties come in (w/o the gun) do the check, depart the area and trade/sell the gun(s).

2a. the 4473 would have to be adjusted as nobody is logging a gun in then out.

2b. there would be no record, just a check of criminal background history and legality of owning a firearm

2bi hell you could do this to check on your new live in nanny and I bet more people would use it for that than firearm transfers but it would be nice to have that ability to check someone out

2bii I get great thoughts when loading my shotgun. Instead of both parties having to be there, they could individually walk in and do the check. They would receive a form indicating the check was complete and a code could be given. Each party could swap codes and call them into an automated phone number where it would advise of the check's outcome. Computers and science could solve it but if it is like DTS then nobody would use it. Let Apple develop it!

I have bought plenty of guns online from dealers, gunbroker and internet gun forums. I have also bought from people who frequent a local gun forum that has a trading post. I showed my CCW, he showed me his. Boom, checks complete, sell complete, good to meet ya, say "hi" on the forums some time. The chances that some gangbanger is kicking back, listening to Bones Thug-N-Harmony while smoking his medical MJ and surfing my local trading post looking to buy a Glock is about as realistic as some of the stats I've seen today.

I wouldn't mind seeing the option that busdriver and helodude formulated but likewise it costs $$...

Truthfully, if nsplayr actually did some homework on the issue he'd find that there aren't actually many guns being sold illegally because of the lack of background checks. It is another liberal-generated myth like "the gunshow loophole" of which the anti-gun clowns are clueless as well.

Next you'll tell me that 40% of firearm are purchased without a background check?

http://www.nationalr...-myth-john-lott

I did the homework for him, just bumping this down to the next page in case anybody goes straight there.

Edited March 21, 2013 by FreudianSlip

[itsokimapilot]

Today, I finally got to shoot the Springfield loaded 1911 I purchased at a gun show last weekend. All I can say is wow. Very impressed with this pistol. OBTW, no loopholes, everyone was running background checks for gun purchases.

[M2]

Springfield 1911s are the shit, I have had four before the tragic boat accident and loved them all, from the basic GI to the Lightweight Operator.

I would love to pick up a TRP (the FBI uses them and they are simply outstanding pistols), but alas I fear it would suffer the same fate and end up at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico (damn seagulls!)...

As for the gun show and background checks, basically you're saying it was business as usual, right?

[brickhistory]

I use my Springfield Champion GI model as my "racing" gun.

Try different springs, parts, sights, etc on it. Had it bobtailed which looks cool, but when shooting I actually like the straight-edge.

Great, reliable, well-made 1911 for a decent price (prior to the current lunacy).

Now if only ammo were not like unicorns at present...

[spaceman]

It's been a while since I've been able to get to the local pistol range (it's been packed lately) but my wife and I finally made it the other day! :rock: