Ad hominem attack? What false equivalencies? You can claim what you wish to avoid a real discussion. You have made that quite clear.
I believe most of us protect our firearms as we do all the rest of our property, and likely more so, as we do with our more precious property. We cannot control illegal acts. The antis want to burden us with misplaced liability and try to claim that it is our fault that criminals commit crimes. I do not shoulder those burdens as it is not my fault there are criminals in the world. Even without firearms, there will still be criminals. Murder has existed ever since Man has been on this planet, taking away my firearms will not prevent that, neither will it prevent any other crimes.
Those that are attacking our rights do not believe in firearm safety, that is another false term used to fool the ignorant. None of those Bloomberg “gun safety” organizations teach firearm safety. Their idea of “gun safety” is citizen disarmament. It is not possible to have a compromise when the compromise is just taking another slice out of our rights until they do not exist any longer.
Another problem is that the antis have hijacked the issue and control it with false terminology, such as “gun safety”, “Concealable assault-style firearms”, etc. Worse than that, not only do they lack understanding of firearms, and actual firearm safety, but also seem to lack knowledge, or feign ignorance, of the existing laws, as they incite fear in the ignorant.
Our rights are trampled upon by politicians, that is why we are where we are now. Interestingly, as certain states further restrict our rights, other states are becoming more liberal - there are now 20 states that have some form of “Constitutional Carry”. While that is occurring the antis are working hard at making it more onerous, costly and legally perilous to own firearms. As an example, look at the list of “prohibited” persons today, and how they are always seeking to add more groups to that list.
As to the efficacy of “gun control” laws, look at the murder of Carol Bowne. She had a restraining order on her ex-boyfriend. She applied for a permit to purchase a firearm. It was illegally delayed beyond the 30 days required for the police to process or deny the application for the permit. Several days before she was stabbed to death in her driveway, recorded on her home security cameras, she had again pleaded with the police to process the application. This is what “gun control” looks like to me. That harsh reminder still burns in my mind.
Our 2A is written into our Constitution. Our representatives are failing on their oath of office to defend our Constitution when they propose and pass unconstitutional legislation that infringes on our right that “shall not be infringed.” Data is nice, but those that seek to infringe on our rights do not concern themselves with facts. I write my representatives and do provide data and links to sources - it is summarily ignored as it does not support their views. If I get a reply, it is usually some anti-rights non-sense that they typically send out to their constituents, filled with lies and emotion, lacking any rational thought.
The only way for us to win this, is to gain support of others. The only way to do that is to teach and inform those willing to listen and learn. When people come to me with questions on “gun control” bills or laws and I explain them, they always state that it does not make any sense or that it’s ridiculous. I agree, and tell them that is why I am active with rights groups and contact my reps, not just the one’s from my district or state, as all of their votes affect me.
Maybe keep that earlier comment in mind when you think about the second? You’ve implied a major portion of the forum’s membership are irresponsible, which extraordinarily far from the truth. You haven’t been around for very long; try hanging out a bit more and getting to know the people here better before issuing sanctimonious statements. It’s not that you can’t be sanctimonious, but you have to earn the privilege.
(@Dave17 I just got back from a short vacation. I did not check the status of all my firearms while I was away. Guess I’m a bad steward, but at least I’m not buying a bridge.)
I can, and I did. By and large, we’re pretty good at self-moderating, that’s why it’s called a “community.” These are things most of us have learned by this time in our lives.
Ad hominem attack, anyone? You failed to understand, or rather, conveniently chose not to address my point, but make a childish retort about it, and continue to do so.
It is you that has done what you claim we have done. Your comment about watches, twice, now, is a prime example. Your claiming that those that don’t know every second of the day where all of their belongings are being irresponsible is ridiculous. I gave two instances of why that is preposterous. You chose to just make light of it, and claim how wonderful you are because you supposedly do, which unless your firearms on your person, you cannot know for certain where they are, especially while away from wherever you store your firearms.
My comment is not an ad hominem attack. You certainly have a huge chip on your shoulder. I will not stoop to your level of childishness. You clearly have chosen not to debate, but to try to ridicule others and make childish comments. This is not what we are here for.
No need, I saw it in your posts. When you are ready for a debate, I am here.
Thank you for conceding with manners and grace.
Thanks again for taking the time here, and for “your own efforts (that’s pretty cool)”.
I do share some concern about our firearms being taken away. With current regulations, in my region, I feel pretty confident that I’ll be able to follow within the law and not have mine taken away. However, I’ll be watching for any encroachments.
I’m with you on the influence of terminology. I guess it’s part of my idealist view or innocence, but I don’t want to accept the term “gun control”, as for me, it connotates that they “control” us, and I don’t want to be controlled, but rather – empowered.
I saw the post by USCCA’s Beth A., about Carol Bowne. So sad. I wonder if the anti-group could join us in creating policy to allow a speedier way for domestic violence victims to obtain more freedom, such as with the CCW permit. Anti groups might relate to domestic violence victims.
Unrelated to firearms, but I wonder what else our society can do to reduce similar crimes such as committed by her assailant.
I can see how those in the “anti” fuel their own fire. I hope there is a common ground out there. Looking for solutions and hope. I’m with in wanting to gain support of others, and teaching, yes Sir indeed.
As this initial post began with the topic of background checks. Someone had posted that one of its objectives is to reduce the number of guns getting into the wrong hands. When the anti-gun groups complain, I’ve heard that background checks have been in our favor, supporting our cause, in that it shows that in order for us to purchase a firearm, we have to meet certain standards; Which makes me be in support of them, to a limit. If one’s a law-abiding citizen, then this “check” seems reasonable, at least to me. In my region, my check cost $5, and my wait is around 3-5 days. I would be in support in making sure other regions have their “checks” completed within that time frame. Copied form 4473 below (for our online community). Take care.
Please review the Community Guidelines about personal attacks and name-calling.
We’re not asking you to agree, but the personal attacks need to end.
The moderators of this site are staff at Delta Defense, the service provider for the USCCA. We are all trained and responsibly armed Americans ourselves.
This thread is for commenting on the blog post indicated. This particular post, written by Kevin Michalowski, does illustrate his point:
But we are talking about background checks, so let’s get to that. Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. So the requirement for a background check on the sale of a firearm will not stop any criminal. Let’s take this discussion all the way to its logical end.
Robbie the Robber wants a gun, but a law is in place saying he cannot have a gun unless he passes a background check. So Robbie finds Sheldon the Seller who is willing to sell Robbie a gun without doing the background check. Robbie offers Sheldon a premium to sell the gun, and Sheldon agrees. Robbie hands Sheldon the money, and Sheldon hands Robbie the gun. The sale is complete, albeit illegal.
The law did not stop Robbie from getting his gun. But he did commit a crime to get his gun. Still, why should he care about the nine-month jail term for avoiding the background check when he is willing to risk 25-to-life in prison for aggravated robbery … or something worse?
Here are Kevin’s credentials:
Executive Editor of Concealed Carry Magazine Kevin Michalowski is a USCCA and NRA Certified Trainer and is a graduate of the Force Science Institute Certification Course. He has participated in training as both an instructor and a student in multiple disciplines. Kevin is also a fully certified law enforcement officer working part time for a small agency in rural Wisconsin.
Not a whole lot, just like rabid dogs and criminals, they will always exist. The problem is these types of crimes are based on emotions. Angry people do not use rational thought, logical patterns are bypassed, so the idea of if I do this, x will happen (go to prison) are not considered. The only thing that can be done is enable those that are victims to be able to more effectively defend themselves, and to prosecute the assailants when they commit crimes, as we do with other crimes.
Or better yet, not have a government agency involved in “allowing” us to exercise our rights.
And that is why it is suggested, it sounds reasonable. The data on the background checks show it’s a complete waste of time, resources and money. Here is some information on the effectiveness of background checks. Since November 1998, when NICS began, to February 28, 2021, there have been 380,459,962 NICS background checks, according to FBI data. In a report by the GAO, dated September 2018, that document is titled “LAW ENFORCEMENT Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of Prosecutions”. The data in it very clearly shows in the ineffectiveness of the background check system. This also shows that this system only checks backgrounds on those that are able to pass background checks.
|Fiscal Year 2017|
|Federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)|
|Firearms Denial Cases Investigated and Prosecuted|
|Federal NICS Transactions||8,606,286|
|ATF Field Division Investigations||12,710|
|United States Attorney’s|
Fascinating numbers - fuzzy from the source.
That’s a lot of guns to “buy back.”
I’m with you on “enabling victims to be able to defend themselves, and prosecute the assailants when they commit crimes”.
Background checks :
My apologies. I think I lost you in the NICS reports. Not your fault. Nothing on you personally. It sounds confusing, and complicated, not my cup-o-tea per se. I’m sure the anti-gunners also have their own charts as well, I tip my hat to “all” of those who have a statistician eye.
In appealing to the average person, and trying to keep it simple; I propose we all think about having background checks. For those who are against them, I’m still searching for reasons why. Such checks to me, seem fair. I’m ready to take my beat down now. LOL. That’s ok, I get that a lot.
Maybe I’m looking at it from the viewpoint of “Do we want certain individuals” not to have guns? And for those we don’t want to have them, what’s the reason we decide that way. I wonder if there are two main reasons one might not want a gun to legally get into another’s hands; 1.) We think he/she is too dangerous, either by violence or by severe psychological disability; And 2.) If we see ownership as a privilege. Perhaps there’s an element of semantics at play, I sometimes think that “rights” and “privileges” are similar and crossover.
For example, do we want the following persons to be able to legally possess a gun?:
- Persons who have a restraining order against him/her
- Persons who had previous inpatient psychiatric admission
- Those age 17 and under
- Undocumented immigrants
I guess it comes down to personal opinions. When it comes to them being able to legally own in the U.S., “no”, but that’s only IMHO. I have nothing personally against them. I used to work with those populations. But I look at ownership as a serious thing. That those who legally own must demonstrate some minimum responsibility and ability.
For if not, then that gives the anti-gunners a lot of fuel to fight us. In fact, they are kicking my butt over here, in my paths. I’m of the opinion that maintaining credibility (and with pride) for us “owners”, goes a long way when we have to face the other 50% of our country who question our rights in legislative sessions. We know where we stand, but it’s some of them whose hearts and minds I need.
If one does have a criminal or psychiatric background, then is there a way for them to appeal? Is there a process for them to prove that they are capable? If not, maybe there should be, because what if they have changed. Is that the freedom or rights that some are wanting here?
If one does not have a criminal or psychiatric background, then what do you have to fear, you’re in.
I fear if we eliminate background checks, we are opening ourselves up to “anyone” being able to legally own. I’m biased, because I passed my background check. To me, waiting the 3-5 days and paying the $5 is a small sacrifice.
If a person answers yes to any of the background questions on form 4473, aren’t they denied being able to purchase? Might some of us know some folks who that happened to. I’ve a friend who is legally able to use marijuana, for medicinal purposes, but she won’t purchase a firearm from an FFL because form 4473 asks. When I was at the gun-shop last month, I heard a store clerk tell a customer on the phone, that their 4473 was denied.
I’m probably naïve to this all. I only started reading and thinking about firearms a year ago when I first took it up. It’s possible I could even be swayed one way or another. I guess what confuses me is, why be against background checks, what harm do they do, if it’s only a 3-5 day wait. However, if it takes longer than that, then I’m on your side, and I want to advocate with you that it stay that short a waiting period, indeed (in there you have my support).
In dear Kevin M.’s post here about this reciprocity, I did glean another important idea, and that’s the idea of one’s CCW Permit being able to be honored in more or all 50 U.S. states. Now that’s something I wish we could have. I believe in the process of education and training before obtaining a CCW Permit, I just don’t like that we have to wait so long once we completed the certification. Piece be with you.
Let’s modify your hypo example to today’s actual events - that does not involve breaking the law by the gun buyer. If the gun buyer had in-fact purchased the gun at a Gun Show - directly from a private owner, the transaction would be legal. No background check required. The buyer did not need to rely on another person’s greed or weak respect for our laws. My concern is this…with Texas passing a bill and waiting on the governor to sign into law - an open carry + no CC license required, the intent of the Background Check process is doomed. We need to strengthen background checks prior to taking possession. We need to require the appropriate level of gun safety and weapon management. Are you comfortable with your family’s safety knowing that “anyone” may purchase a gun (legally) without being screened by the Background Check process?
BTY, regarding my harsh comment about being a monitor of this site, I apologize. No excuse. Just an apology.
I have no issue with someone under 17 possessing firearms under certain conditions. For example, there are many under that age that compete in shooting sports and hunt. As to the others, they are already prohibited, and as the numbers I provided shows, the government does very little about it, to the tune of 12 prosecutions out of over 112,000 in just 2017 alone. This either means those 112,000+ were false positives, or the government “allowed” 112,000+ prohibited persons to purchase firearms.
Why be against background checks? Because the numbers prove they do not do what they claim to do. Ever read a story about a prohibited person committing a crime with a firearm? As the numbers prove, only those able to pass background checks get background checks. You claim it only costs $5. Well, multiply that by over 20 million last year or just the 8.6 million in 2017 as my data shows. And for all that money, we prosecuted twelve people, and most got little to no prison time. I believe we could easily find a better use for all that time and money wasted on background checks.
Appreciate your point BrianKeith about being open to background checks, for our own safety when we’re on the business end of a barrel. Glad you said it first, and I feel bad about saying it, but a part of me wondered, for those who oppose “checks”, is there another reason. Nothing to be ashamed of, but if they’d fail a “check”, maybe regulations can offer them an appeal review, whereby they can demonstrate their ability to be responsible. IDK.
Thanks Michael966. To your point, those who commit more serious crimes ought to get more attention, and prevention efforts towards that, as opposed to legal gun owners who are law abiding citizens. Complex world it is indeed friend.
I don’t know about you, but I have had my background checked innumerably. I fail to see where checking my background, yet, again, is going to solve any issues with “prohibited” persons illegally obtaining firearms. Keep in mind that there is no legal method whereby prohibited persons can obtain firearms. Also, as they do not legally obtain firearms, prohibited persons are not getting background checks when obtaining their firearms.
It was not until 1938, under the FFA, that felons were prohibited the RKBA. It is also in the 1968 GCA. We see in the prisons the ineffectiveness of the law disbarring their RKBA. The main reason cited by these prisoners in a study for obtaining firearms was for self-defense.
I also have an issue with the list of “prohibited” persons for two reasons. One is the fact that the groups of people included on that list continues to grow. At what point will we all, as generic firearm owners, be included, since anyone that owns a firearm must be dangerous, right? The other bigger issue is that we all have the right to self-defense, denying a person their inalienable rights is not just. The issue of dangerous people needs to be addressed in a more practicable way, as we know just telling them they are no longer legally “allowed” to own firearms does not work.
You hit the nail on the head, man. There is probably an agenda.