Pro-Gun, Anti-NRA

[steve863]

Now you are twisting it to AR rifles.  Where the HELL did I mention AR rifles in my initial post?  I said FIREARMS, which means any and ALL FIREARMS.  You are the challenged individual here by trying to twist BS any which way to try to make a point.  There definitely has to be some psychological diagnosis for such behavior!

 

So tell me again, do hammers outnumber firearms in the FBI murder stat I posted?  

 

Anxiously awaiting the next twist! LOL

 

 

[ants]

I was not talking about self defense, only about murders by firearms.  You can take up that discussion with someone else, for that was not the point I was bringing up.

 

Got it..So law abiding citizens should be able to own firearms in order to protect themselves from criminals….Right?

[steve863]

Got it..So law abiding citizens should be able to own firearms in order to protect themselves from criminals….Right?

 

A citizen who passes a background check to own firearms can own one for whatever reason they desire.

[Mr VJP]

Aww, you're getting angry.  Time to up the meds.

 

Again, the point was about need vs rights Steve.

 

I never said you were wrong.  I check and clarified what I was referencing, then pointed out Cuomo banned something less dangerous than blunt objects.

 

I typed that as slowly as I could the last time.

 

I find it interesting you keep saying I have a problem.  Most shrinks will readily point out those that accuse, are usually the one's who are guilty.

[steve863]

Aww, you're getting angry.  Time to up the meds.

 

Again, the point was about need vs rights Steve.

 

I never said you were wrong.  I check and clarified what I was referencing, then pointed out Cuomo banned something less dangerous than blunt objects.

 

I typed that as slowly as I could the last time.

 

I find it interesting you keep saying I have a problem.  Most shrinks will readily point out those that accuse, are usually the one's who are guilty.

 

 

Oh I could give a rats ass about you, VJP, that's for darned sure!   

 

We should ask for a show of hands of the others here who also think that you are nuts.  LOL

[Mr VJP]

Why?  You think I care about it or what you think of me?   LOL!

 

Steve, you are less significant to me than a speck of dust on the most distant planet in the universe.

 

But banning things because someone thinks we don't need them, is.

 

(It would be interesting to see how we do a show of hands on the internet though)

 

Edited December 17, 2014 by Mr VJP

[wildcat junkie]

This is certainly true for some people but not all. Given the choice I would much rather pull my gun rather than risk doing  a mind meld or trying to incapacitate an assailant with a T.V. tray or a clock radio. When it comes to the life of my family Im going for the best option.

 

And Im no wimp.

Not talking about mind melding rather keeping ones head & if you go back & re-read my post i tnink I included the use of a firearm in that same subject.

 

So, what if you are caught in a situation where you don't have your weapon?  A TV tray or clock radio would be poor choices & would not be an effective weapon.

 

Now, the sharp corner of a conter top, a refridgerator, a heavy glass ashtray or the iron grate from a gas range would be quite effective. Stun the opponent, then incapacitate immediately.

 

The eliment of surprise would be paramout & using the assailants wieght to his disadvantage. Being percieved as an "old vulnerable person" would work well as far as the assailant expecting a ruthless, incapacitating action.

 

Even when armed with a gun, if you hesitate, you have lost the advantage.  The same mind factor applies to surviving/escaping any perilous situation be it an accident or natural disastor. Take your time to think quickly under pressure. Ever hear of the sensation of things happening in slow motion? I have seen some scientific explanations for that. Survivors usually have that ability, victims often don't.

 

I doubt if my wife could effectively use a firearm in a tense situation to defend herself, she fold under pressure.

[philoshop]

The EPA wants to have management rights over my drainage ditch. They don't even know that it's there, but they want control over it.

 

The FDA wants control over my diet. Mostly stuff I've killed in my back yard, but they want control over it.

 

The FDA also wants to take away my personal vaporizer (aka, electronic cigarette) because it might somehow prove to be harmful to me.

That I haven't had a single cigarette in almost six months because of it doesn't matter. They want control over it.

 

The EPA wants to make me use a different woodstove to heat my house.  There are apparently problems with the smoke in some parts of the country. No complaints from my neighbors. It's about control.

 

The state of NY wants me to register my guns. Control.

 

The federal government would like to have a say in my ownership of guns. Control.

 

People want me to live according to some Utopian vision to which I do not subscribe. Control.

 

............................................

Edited December 17, 2014 by philoshop

[nyantler]

I doubt if my wife could effectively use a firearm in a tense situation to defend herself, she fold under pressure.

 

But she should be the one to decide that and nobody else.. that would be her right.

[wildcat junkie]

Another little boy who cries "bully" when someone doesn't agree with his whining. That's another card always played by leftists when they are put in their place. I didn't back down, I ignored you, because you're insignificant.

Not crying in the least. I am emenesly entertaind by your posts.

 

Great comedy, thanks for being so compliant.

 

Please continue.

Edited December 17, 2014 by wildcat junkie

[wildcat junkie]

But she should be the one to decide that and nobody else.. that would be her right.

Oh yes, it's her right & I have tried to "train" her. Some folks just aren't suited to self defense. She folds when quick thinking/action is required.

[wildcat junkie]

I still don't see the rational for the NRA opposing universal background checks.

 

For years they beat the drum of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

At least setting up background checks for gun shows would eliminate at least one source of easy access.

Edited December 17, 2014 by wildcat junkie

[philoshop]

Because even the smallest of concessions is immediately trumpeted as a huge win by the anti's who have absolute control over most media outlets in this country. The average Joe with no horse in the race is going to side with whoever seems to be winning. Tiny steps turn into huge victories. Never give an inch.

Criminals generally don't use legally purchased firearms anyways.

[Huntscreek]

I am going to point out that in 2007-10,129 murders & in 2014- 8,583 much less can the key to the decline be more armed citizens that refused to be a Victims not a number on a data chart. How many were drug related, abuse related etc.. Safe Act was not needed, The people were evening the odds before Cuomo pulled a Political move which he thought would put him in the white house only to find out The People would not roll over. There has and always been murders, guns just leveled the field so the victim has a chance to defend themselves. The Right to defend themselves now if a person don't want to use that right don't take away another's.

[Curmudgeon]

Thanks Wildcat for making some sense. It isn't working but it is appreciated.

[ants]

Not talking about mind melding rather keeping ones head & if you go back & re-read my post i tnink I included the use of a firearm in that same subject.

 

So, what if you are caught in a situation where you don't have your weapon?  A TV tray or clock radio would be poor choices & would not be an effective weapon.

 

Now, the sharp corner of a conter top, a refridgerator, a heavy glass ashtray or the iron grate from a gas range would be quite effective. Stun the opponent, then incapacitate immediately.

 

The eliment of surprise would be paramout & using the assailants wieght to his disadvantage. Being percieved as an "old vulnerable person" would work well as far as the assailant expecting a ruthless, incapacitating action.

 

Even when armed with a gun, if you hesitate, you have lost the advantage.  The same mind factor applies to surviving/escaping any perilous situation be it an accident or natural disastor. Take your time to think quickly under pressure. Ever hear of the sensation of things happening in slow motion? I have seen some scientific explanations for that. Survivors usually have that ability, victims often don't.

 

I doubt if my wife could effectively use a firearm in a tense situation to defend herself, she fold under pressure.

You sound like you have have had some training in Judo, Karate or some other form of hand to hand self defense method. Thats great. My father in law was a boxer back in the 50's and a tough SOB when I first met him. He is 83 now. He needs a gun if he stands a chance against a younger assailant. My wife is 5 feet tall, stretched, and weighs maybe 100lbs. she is a wuss. she needs a gun to defend herself against a bigger assailant. Different strokes for different folks.

[nyantler]

I still don't see the rational for the NRA opposing universal background checks.

 

For years they beat the drum of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

At least setting up background checks for gun shows would eliminate at least one source of easy access.

 

They don't have a problem with background checks as much as the information required by the person who is being checked... I have no problem with checking my background... I have a problem with having to give up anything other than my ID so they can check on me... they don't need to know what gun I'm buying or how many... they just need to give the okay or not that a gun can be sold to me...

[Mr VJP]

Why universal background checks won't work

 

By C. D. Michel, adjunct professor, Chapman University School of Law

 

There are three basic problems with universal background checks; it will have no effect, the numbers don’t prove the case, and the only way to make the scheme remotely effective is repugnant to the people. Those are three big hills to climb. That’s why few politicians seem ready to take the hike.

 

Most important is that criminals disobey such laws (and according to the Supreme Court in their Haynes vs. U.S. decision, criminals are not legally obligated to). In a report titled “Firearm Use by Offenders”, our own Federal Government noted that nearly 40 percent of all crime guns are acquired from street level dealers, who are criminals in the black market business of peddling stolen and recycled guns. Standing alone, this shows that “universal” background checks would have an incomplete effect on guns used in crimes.

 

The story gets worse. The same study notes that just as many crime guns were acquired by acquaintances, be they family or friends (this rather lose category also includes fellow criminals, who are equally unlikely to participate in “universal” background checks). Totaled, nearly 80 percent of crime guns are already outside of retail distribution channels (which are 14 percent of crime gun sources) and outside of transactions made by the law abiding folks who would participate in “universal” background checks at gun shows (0.7 percent).

When 80 percent of the problem is not addressed by legislation, even if the law was enforced it would be nearly useless.

 

In the rush to do “something,” bad legislation is proposed and then has to be justified. When public support for “universal” registration started slipping, politicians brought out statistics to bolster their case. Unsurprisingly those statistics were as weak as the legislation itself.

“As many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check,” was President Barack Obama’s assertion concerning the National Instant Check System (NICS) which is exercised by every licensed gun retailer in the country. Aside from problem that 80 percent of crime guns come from non-retail acquisitions, the president’s 40 percent number is horribly mangled and completely inaccurate.

 

The quoted datum (which actually totaled 36 percent, not 40 percent) came from a survey conducted before NICS came into being in 1998. The 1994 survey, reported in the 1997 study “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms”, 36 percent of transfers (not sales just simple transfers of possession) were outside of background checks. “Transfer” is another very lose category which include gifts, trades, inheritances, and loans as well as sales. Indeed, 17 percent of all those transactions were non-sales, and 27 percent were outside of normal retail channels. So “universal” background checks would only extend to an additional 9% of firearm transactions under the most favorable circumstances.

Though 80 percent of crime guns already bypass the new system.

 

To achieve any degree of success, the “universal” background check system would require universal gun registration. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) has already acknowledged this, which doomed the bill before it was drafted. Despite denials by some politicians, registration has already led to gun confiscation in the United States – in New York, California, Chicago, District of Columbia. Voters are wary of repeating the same process in their home towns. National registration to support “universal” background checks is almost universally repugnant. This is the insurmountable hill representatives and senators face.

 

Universal background checks aren’t the answer. Voters are anxious and willing to control violence. But controlling guns doesn’t control criminals and lunatics. Cops and counseling do.

 

Michel, an adjunct professor at the Chapman University School of Law and a senior partner at Michel & Associates, P.C.

 

If you can't understand this, you simply choose not to.

 

Edited December 18, 2014 by Mr VJP

[Pygmy]

How many of you have been mortally threatened and NEEDED a handgun, but did not have one because it was illegal... ?...

 

I was in that situation in Brooklyn in 1971...Only incredible good luck in the form of a patrol car  full of cops (4) saved me and my buddy from being sliced up  .. Our only crime was the fact that we were caucasion. 

 

I vowed at that time that I would never again be without means of defense ( meaning a FIREARM)  if I could help it...

 

Put yourself in that situation....  It's why I will NEVER again go someplace where I cannot carry , especially NYC....

 

 

[ants]

How many of you have been mortally threatened and NEEDED a handgun, but did not have one because it was illegal... ?...

 

I was in that situation in Brooklyn in 1971...Only incredible good luck in the form of a patrol car  full of cops (4) saved me and my buddy from being sliced up  .. Our only crime was the fact that we were caucasion. 

 

I vowed at that time that I would never again be without means of defense ( meaning a FIREARM)  if I could help it...

 

Put yourself in that situation....  It's why I will NEVER again go someplace where I cannot carry , especially NYC....

This is what a lot of people don't realize.  " It will never happen to me"    a gun has saved my ass too. More than once.

[Mr VJP]

Universal Background Checks for Dummies

By Robert Farago on October 4, 2013

According to a recent poll, 90 percent of Americans continue to support “universal background checks.” Given their general ignorance about all things firearm, I reckon 100 percent of the people who support “universal background checks” have no clue what “universal background checks” are, or why anybody would be against them. I say that without malice. Americans busy putting food on the table don’t have the time to examine the ins-and-outs of firearms freedom. But if there are “low information” voters who want to understand why 10 percent of Americans oppose this example of “common sense gun control,” I offer the following primer . . .

 

Private firearms sales are gun sales between private individuals.

At the moment, the federal government does not require a criminal background check for private firearms sales. Although there are plenty of laws against knowingly selling a firearm to an addict, criminal or mentally ill person, a private seller selling to a private buyer doesn’t have to access the FBI’s instant background system to see if the buyer’s a prohibited person

That’s on the federal level. On the state level, some states (e.g., California) require that all gun sales go through a federal firearms licensee (a.k.a., FFL or gun dealer). By federal law, all buyers who purchase a gun through an FFL must undergo an FBI criminal background check. So in states like California, all private firearms sales are subject to an FBI background check.

So there’s your first point of confusion and contention: some private gun sales are strictly private (no FBI background check or other notification to the local, state or federal government), while some firearms sales between individuals are “semi-private” (mandatory FBI background check though an FFL). It depends entirely on where you live.

To understand why gun owners don’t want a federal law that make background checks “universal” (i.e. mandatory for all private firearms sales) know this: background checks for firearms purchases made through an FFL create a gun registry. A database of who bought what gun when and where.

Strangely, it’s not the background check itself that creates the database. By law, the FBI must destroy the electronic record of all firearms-related background checks by the next business day. As long as the Fibbies follow the letter of the law, an FFL’s criminal background check doesn’t pose a threat to a gun owner’s personal privacy.

It’s The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that’s the problem. They’re the Agency in charge of making sure that all FFL dealers  maintain a paper record of all firearms sales and transfers in their “bound book.” The ATF requires that FFLs enter the following information about a gun buyer into their bound book:

1. The date of receipt of the firearm;

2. The name and address of the non-licensee or the name and FFL license number of the licensee from whom you received the firearm;

3. The name of the manufacturer and importer (if any) of the firearm;

4. The model of the firearm;

5. The serial number of the firearm;

6. The type of firearm (pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, receiver, frame, etc); and

7. The caliber or gauge of the firearm

This is a gun registry.

By law, the federal government can’t use the information in the FFL dealer’s bound book to create a database (i.e., a centralized gun registry). Only they can. And do.

By law, an FFL dealer must provide sales information recorded in their bound book to various federal agencies when asked to assist with a criminal investigation. By law, an FFL dealer who retires from the business must surrender their bound books to the ATF. In both cases, records are kept, a registry (whether paper or electronic) created.

Bottom line: private firearms sales that go through an FFL dealer, recorded in their bound book, are not private, safe or secure. After Ruby Ridge, Waco and Fast and Furious, gun owners don’t trust the ATF with their personal information.

One more wrinkle: some states maintain a registry of all private firearms sales (e.g., Connecticut, New York and New Jersey).

Gun owners in states where private sales are private—and many of those who live in states with state-run gun registries—don’t see the advantages of the system. The background check system in general, and private sales background checks in specific, don’t deter criminals from illegally obtaining firearms.

The DOJ link establishing source of crime guns has been disabled by government shutdown. Suffice it to say, the oft-repeated statistic that 40 percent of firearms used in crimes come from gun shows (i.e. involving private sales without background checks) is false. Less than four percent of guns used in crimes are attributable to that source. The vast majority are obtained by theft.

More to the point, gun owners who oppose universal background checks see a tremendous downside to the mandate. They believe that universal background checks will lead, eventually, to firearms confiscation.

We can argue about the likelihood of that happening: the federal or state government outlawing and then confiscating a type of weapon (say, assault rifles). We can debate the chances of government deeming an entire class of people unsuitable for gun ownership (say, people who take anti-depressants). But there’s no doubt that a “universal background check” law—requiring all firearms sales to go through an FFL dealer—would create a gun registry.

Equally, there’s no question that gun registries enable gun confiscation. It’s common sense; it’s a whole lot easier to confiscate guns if you know who’s got what gun and where they live.  From gun confiscation a loss of individual liberty inevitably flows, engendering state-sponsored mass murder.That is the nightmare that millions of gun owners fear.

Again, this is not paranoia. The formula—gun registration => gun confiscation => police state => mass murder—is a demonstrable, historical and contemporary fact of life. Click here for a post making that connection. Or ask yourself why anyone would allow themselves to be the victim of genocide if they were armed.

Gun control advocates insist that “expanded” or “universal” background checks would make us safer. The exact opposite is true. Criminals would continue to get access to firearms while the law would put us on the slippery slope to the kind of government tyranny our forefathers fought to make us free.

 

[Mr VJP]

How is it that any gun owner, who claims to have some level of intellect, cannot understand why "universal background checks" would be bad for all gun owners, while having no effect on criminals?  Don't you guys ever question what progressive propaganda tells you to think?

 

[Doc]

 

Now you are twisting it to AR rifles.  Where the HELL did I mention AR rifles in my initial post?  I said FIREARMS, which means any and ALL FIREARMS.  You are the challenged individual here by trying to twist BS any which way to try to make a point.  There definitely has to be some psychological diagnosis for such behavior!

 

So tell me again, do hammers outnumber firearms in the FBI murder stat I posted?  

 

Anxiously awaiting the next twist! LOL

 

I'm having a hard time understanding where you are going with your arguments. Are you just generally against all guns or some guns or what is all this talk about how much evil that is perpetrated by guns. I think we know that, but what is your point?

[steve863]

I'm having a hard time understanding where you are going with your arguments. Are you just generally against all guns or some guns or what is all this talk about how much evil that is perpetrated by guns. I think we know that, but what is your point?

 

 

Read all the posts and maybe you will get it.  It was a post in a string of responses I made to post 109.  Comparing cars to guns is as lame as it gets.  If gun owners can't come up with better examples to defend their reasons for owning them, then we are really in trouble.

[Five Seasons]

What you call extreme may not be extreme to someone else... when we're talking about the 2nd Amendment we're talking about everyone's right to keep and bear arms... not just yours and mine... I don't see anybody imposing their will on me and trying to jamb a 30 round clip down my throat.. I have no use for one, but maybe someone else does... and frankly, it is a weak man that allows any other man to impose their will on him... and you ARE advocating taking away rights when you side with only points of gun ownership and carry laws that YOU think are appropriate and disregard others. Personally I like the stereotype of a gun owner... mainly because I couldn't care less about turning anyone off... sick of the, "carefully what you say and do" ...you don't want to piss off the people that don't like you much anyways BS. Not sure why guys like you buy into that politically correct crap... look it even has you calling fellow gun owners.. "gun nuts"... because they have a different view of the 2nd amendment than you and your "not anti-gun, gun owner"

 

perhaps I dind't do a great job of explaining my stance. I never once advocating for taking anything away. I have an NRA membership. I'm pro gun, I vote for pro gun. I left the f'n state and one of the reasons were the gun laws.

 

What I'm saying is there's a line where you do not need to flaunt your "rights". It turns the voting population off. Weak man may be your opinion, but I get one vote and so do you. So if your pride allows you turn 5 voters off? How much did you accomplish? You're now out voted.