Rattler

So you feel the government should require a NICS check before you can go hunting with your lifelong buddy and lend him your deer rifle? The people who want to fix NICS want to require that.

From what I've read, in states where they are legal, it's expensive. I also believe they reduce velocity. So there are some disadvantages.

As long as you never bring it into NY State at all. Not that I agree with the stupidity of the law, just looking to keep people out of trouble.

Don't believe some people will voluntarily give up their rights? Read on, especially the parts about getting on the list by "accident" and how it's nearly impossible to get off the list. https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180202/waivers-of-gun-rights-a-new-shot-at-gun-repression Let's just keep things simple and prosecute criminals. And no, the government never shuts down it's anti-gun attacks even when they claim the government is shut down.

So where do anti-gun politicians get their ideas from? https://www.nraila.org/articles/20180202/canada-as-quebec-brings-long-gun-registry-on-line-federal-liberals-plan-new-restrictions The goal is not gun control. It's CONTROL!

Know why 81,000 pistol owners in NY State have yet to comply with the state's registration scheme? 81K NEW YORK GUN OWNERS TELL CUOMO WHERE TO STICK GUN DATABASE ANDREW WEST FEBRUARY 1, 2018 There’s an extremely common misconception about the state of New York in which Americans believe that everything within the Empire State’s borders is a liberal wasteland. In reality, however, things are much, much different. Given the system of government bestowed upon the state, (and the nation, for that matter), where majority rules in a voting setting, New York City is an enormous factor in this misrepresentation. The widely blue locale in the southeastern corner of the expansive state is only a few square miles across, but packs an enormous punch in our representative democracy. It is truly a bright blue speck in a sea of red, with conservative values ruling much of the rest of the state. And to put the size of New York State into perspective, it would take you well over seven hours to traverse from the Big Apple to the farms and hunting lands of the Buffalo area. Now, as the left leaning legislature attempts to install a handgun database across the entire state, New Yorkers are flat out ignoring the new law, effectively telling Governor Andrew Cuomo to take the entire plan and shove it. “The SAFE Act has been popular in urban areas, according to polling data. But some rural gun owners have resisted from the beginning. As the first big handgun registration deadline approached this winter, for people who got their guns prior to 2013, the push back grew more intense. “Talk radio host Bill Robinson has lashed out at the state on ‘The Second Amendment Radio Show,’ which he hosts for a small station near Rochester. ‘The government shouldn’t have master lists of us gun owners and the specific guns we have,’ Robinson said on a recent episode. ‘They don’t need it!’ “As of the deadline, more than 81,000 people – or 20 percent of affected handgun owners in New York – haven’t responded to the state’s request. But New York State Police spokesman Beau Duffy argues that concern about this gun database has been overblown. He said felony charges are off the table for now. ‘We’re not going to take criminal enforcement action, particularly with those people who were unaware of this re-certification process,’ Duffy said.” For how long, however, will the authorities wait for these 81,000 Americans to voluntarily turn themselves in, so to speak? Surely this issue will come to a head again in the not so distant future, and we have to wonder if this will be the issue that finally splits the Empire State into New York and New Amsterdam – an idea that has been around for decades.

As far as that woman goes, she isn't your average "Mom" against guns. She's an agent of anti-gun elected hacks with orders to complete a mission. Don't doubt it.

I have not stated I do not agree with SIMPLE background checks. I just outlined what I believe would be acceptable, but not needed for every single firearm transaction, nor for transfers between family members and friends, nor expanded to include people who didn't pay a parking ticket, nor for building a data base of the types of firearms one owns including all the serial numbers. I'm against the government "fixing" the system so it can be more intrusive and more able to confiscate firearms if it decides to do so. I'm also against the gun owner paying for the check, which allows the government to control what that costs, and invites price increases whenever they want to tax us even more. That would be a "sin" tax. Do you think owning a firearm is a sin? The anti-gun elected hacks do. You also have to be aware that whenever any commodity is in demand and banned by the government, it creates a black market, where prices are high and incentives to supply the banned item are also high. Drugs are a perfect example. Prohibition was a failure and created Al Capone and bloody violence. Have you not noticed the rise in firearm thefts lately, even from FFL dealers? Did background checks stop the criminals from getting the guns? Anyone who believes they are going to solve the problem of criminals having firearms and using them in crimes, by putting even greater infringements on the responsible gun owner, really needs to consider one basic question. "What could possibly go wrong?"

Not what I think at all. Even though that's how it was decades ago. But I think the criteria should be limited to anyone who's been convicted of a felony, and that's all. They should not be recording what type of firearm was purchased either, other than was it a long gun or handgun, and that's iffy. Otherwise there is incentive to add all sorts of insignificant criteria to deny all sorts of people. Actually, I'd like to see a one time background check where you are issued a lifetime permit than can only be revoked after due process by a court. Can anyone tell me why we need a NICS check for every firearm purchase, even days apart, that require the fee each time? Can you say, "revenue generation"? How about, "financial obstacle"?

I responded to both of them. You just don't comprehend the response. They will not help. That's wishful thinking. Every now and then an anti-gun elected fanatic slips and lets the truth out. The goal is complete disarmament of citizens. That's where all of their proposals are aimed.

This is right, except not a foreign government, but super rich foreigners who buy Leftist American politicians.

But it's easier for Democrats to attack gun owners than it is to fix the problems their permissive liberal agenda has created, or admit they created these problems.

Airbow? Is that thing still around?

I think we have gotten way off track here from the Schumer shutdown. We should start a new thread focusing on NICS and it's flaws. There is plenty to debate about all sorts of 2nd Amendment infringements here, enough to demand it's own thread.

So you want "basic solutions" that have the potential to increase government power over the responsible gun owner, while doing nothing to prevent criminals from committing crimes. What you call "proactive" is actually infringement. See where it takes us? It has the potential to take us exactly where I said it will. Once we are there, we can never go back. Are you willing to see if I'm right? It is impossible to stop criminals from committing crimes, but it's easy to take freedom away when people are willing to allow it. How about severe punishment for committing crimes and leaving normal everyday gun owners alone to enjoy themselves without harming anyone? Let's focus on the criminal use of firearms and stop trying to "prevent" responsible gun owners from having them, assuming we're all irresponsible and dangerous.

No Belo, you are the one who doesn't get it. "The government may not descend to the evil of preventive law. The government cannot treat men as guilty until they have proven themselves to be, for the moment, innocent. No law can require the individual to prove that he won't violate another's rights, in the absence of evidence that he is going to. But this is precisely what gun control laws do. Gun control laws use force against the individual in the absence of any specific evidence that he is about to commit a crime. They say to the rational, responsible gun owner: you may not have or carry a gun because others have used them irrationally or irresponsibly. Thus, preventive law sacrifices the rational and responsible to the irrational and irresponsible. This is unjust and intolerable. The government may coercively intervene only when there is an objective threat that someone is going to use force." H. Binswanger Anyone who thinks Universal NICS checks will prevent any criminal from getting a gun is a fool. Anyone who trusts the government not to abuse a law requiring every gun transfer to be blessed by the government, even between nuclear family members, is an even bigger fool. If you support the government's desire to inject itself into every legal, private firearm transaction by requiring they know about, and approve, every single transaction, knowing it will have ZERO effect on criminals and crime, but will have a HUGE effect on legal firearm ownership in terms of frivolous and erroneous denials, which will be costly if not impossible to reverse, or randomly increased costs for the checks, to the point of being out of reach for the average man, you really need to question your desire to voluntarily eliminate the rights you have been endowed by your creator and become a subject of the government rather than a free man. The man in your above example could buy a car from you and run down and kill those same people. Would that make you guilty of a crime? No. Why? Because the government has no vested interested in taking people's cars away. I know your heart is in the right place and it makes one feel good to believe they are doing a good thing, but how will you feel when you come to realize the truth about what you supported, when it becomes clear you gave away your freedoms and rights to feel like a good person?

All your link does is provide info on current laws for firearm sales. Are you trying to say if a NICS check is not required for a transfer between two private individuals who live in the same state, it's a "loophole" that skirts the law? It's not if it's the law in that state. If anyone does a private transfer ANYWHERE in a state that requires a NICS check to do it, they have committed a crime! They have not successfully skirted the law with a legal move taking advantage of a "loophole". Now if you want to get into the problems involved with making ALL firearm transactions require a NICS check, we can start another thread and talk about why that is a very bad idea for firearm owners. Just to put a tease out there for you, it cannot be successful unless every single firearm in the country is registered! And once they are, they can be easily confiscated! To regain our rights, we'll all be looking for a loophole in the tyranny we allowed to happen.

If he can't talk about what's going on, that's because it's illegal! Case closed. A "loophole" is something the law fails to address and leaves a way for people to skirt it without violating it. As far as gun shows go, they do NOT exist, because every firearm transaction is currently regulated by the government already. Some states regulate more severely than others, but every transaction is regulated.

Hey you're not driving, I am. LOL!

I risk getting fired and she gets the ride of her life.

Isn't it interesting how the government has already made people believe they need permission to exercise a Constitutional right. Legally they do, but how did they ever get people to start believing it? People gave up their rights when the government threatened to put them in prison if they didn't.

Women are probably the fastest growing segment of new gun owners today. I like that. Ever try to take something away from a woman that she needs and earned on her own? The Democrats have no clue. BTW, until the government stops taking money from your paycheck, it has not shut down.

People who promote "common sense" gun control laws, which merely restrict activity that enables one to commit a crime even though they never will, also assume "preventative laws" actually prevent crimes. Imagine a law that would make it a crime to be a male with an attached penis, so rape would be eliminated. That's what gun control laws amount to. We already have laws on the books to punish crimes. If anyone believes any law will prevent those crimes, they're dreaming.

Pygmy, I count 54 seasons coming up this year since you got your first small game license. I'm just a kid compared to you.

Yep. Still have my card from my hunter safety class which I took in October 1970. So this October will be 48 seasons. I'm 62 now, but physically still feel like 42. One of my favorite sayings is, "God does not subtract from your allotted life hours, those spent hunting and fishing." That's why we should all do as much of it as we can.