And so it begins...

[Guest db99wj]

I think the intent was good at one point and even the idea, but once you get passed the effectiveness, the motivations fail. While it might work ever once in awhile on those that I mentioned earlier, like the mentally defective, or the really really stupid criminal, for the most part, it doesn't work. It does "make it harder" for a criminal to get one, meaning they have to find the right person, which could take hours instead of being able to pick and choose at a gun store. One piece of failed logic that the liberal side doesn't ever talk about, or really anyone is that many "criminals" don't have criminal history's that would preclude them from purchasing a firearm. Here's another piece of why it doesn't work. What criminal wants to buy a gun in a shop, that can be traced back to said gun shop, and possibly tied to you if at some point you used it in a crime. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize that buying one from Tbone on the corner is a safer bet. I'm betting tbone don't run background checks.

All that background checks are is a system that keeps honest people honest, and provide a barrier to criminals that for the most part is insignificant due to them not getting their piece from a gun shop, and is feelgood legislation from the libtards. Does it stop some things, sure, I've seen a few that were denied that probably should have been, is it effective regarding the intent, no and no amount gun control will ever will be.

I wonder if the most effective area of success for gun control would be regarding crimes such as domestic issues, crime of passions if you will, otherwise law abiding citizens that do criminal things due to the opposite sex.

[Guest Jamie]

I wonder if the most effective area of success for gun control would be regarding crimes such as domestic issues, crime of passions if you will, otherwise law abiding citizens that do criminal things due to the opposite sex.

I would have to say no. In all the time I spent dealing with those kinds of calls, I don't remember there being even one time where someone went and got a gun or other weapon then returned... at least not any further than their vehicle or some other room. They didn't go out and buy one.

Those kinds of situations tend to be spontaneous, and any weapon used is already there and at hand. ( I don't suspect any judge or jury would buy the "crime of passion" description if it were any other way. )

The only exception to this would be a couple having a fight, one of them leaving, then calling and telling the other person they were going to come back and kill them. If that happens, and the person means what they are saying, then any obstacle that prevents the person being threatened from obtaining a gun or other means of protection is having a very detrimental effect, in my opinion.

Habitual or reoccurring domestic violence issues are also a different matter, and probably the only sort that a background check would have any influence on, since one or both of the individuals involved have/should have likely lost the right to buy a gun after the first incident anyway. But then, those sorts of people don't tend to let a little thing like laws get in their way, so I dunno...

[Guest db99wj]

I would have to say no. In all the time I spent dealing with those kinds of calls, I don't remember there being even one time where someone went and got a gun or other weapon then returned... at least not any further than their vehicle or some other room. They didn't go out and buy one.

Those kinds of situations tend to be spontaneous, and any weapon used is already there and at hand. ( I don't suspect any judge or jury would buy the "crime of passion" description if it were any other way. )

The only exception to this would be a couple having a fight, one of them leaving, then calling and telling the other person they were going to come back and kill them. If that happens, and the person means what they are saying, then any obstacle that prevents the person being threatened from obtaining a gun or other means of protection is having a very detrimental effect, in my opinion.

Habitual or reoccurring domestic violence issues are also a different matter, and probably the only sort that a background check would have any influence on, since one or both of the individuals involved have/should have likely lost the right to buy a gun after the first incident anyway. But then, those sorts of people don't tend to let a little thing like laws get in their way, so I dunno...

Yea good point!

[Guest GunTroll]

Money, traceability, liability are what come to mind when I think of the form 4473.

[Oh Shoot]

Money, traceability, liability are what come to mind when I think of the form 4473.

Money is only a factor in TN. 4473 check is free in other states.

- OS

[Moped]

My personal opinion is that background checks just make sure the good guys are checked. The bad guys get their firearms from other sources.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Moped

[Guest GunTroll]

Money is only a factor in TN. 4473 check is free in other states.

- OS

Riiiiight, but we live here so I feel it was/is relevant for this conversation.

[dlm37015]

so ask the folks in england or down under what they think about background checks

sometimes you have to make a stand in life we are getting close to that now

just like when sunquist wanted an income tax the people stoped them

we must get involved at a local level and get rid of lawmakers who do things like this to us

it dosent matter what party need to show them that we see and know what their doing

for myself i send letters not emails letters get noticed lets all write 1 letter a week to congress

[Oh Shoot]

Riiiiight, but we live here so I feel it was/is relevant for this conversation.

Well, any number of folks think this is a federally mandated fee, and I think it's important for folks to understand this is not a federal fee, but rather, a TN tax, here in the great free patron state of shootin' stuff.

- OS

Edited March 16, 2011 by OhShoot

[Guest GunTroll]

Well, any number of folks think this is a federally mandated fee, and I think it's important for folks to understand this is not a federal fee, but rather, a TN tax, here in the great free patron state of shootin' stuff.

- OS

True. Well put. I couldn't believe the fee when I first moved here from CO. I herd CO was attempting to try the same BS. Not sure if it went through.

Edit:

Don't think this is new thread worthy but a certain gun shop has complained to the department of revenue about the issue of taxing out of state sales/transfers of firearms for the sale amount of the firearm. I got an email about from TBI about this subject. This shop has informed TN department of revenue about their concerns on this matter and then asked TBI to forward a email to all FFL holders. It is a law to use the "honor" code and pay for out of state purchases here in TN but it darn near un-enforceable. Perhaps they do not enjoy filling away the 4473 for 20 years for a measly transfer fee. They would rather make the sale themselves I suppose. And thats fine but to go and cry to TBI and the department of revenue is childish IMO. Not sure why they would like to be more responsible for collecting sales tax and paying them when its the customers responsibility. Just thought I'd drop this info seeing how this thread correlates a bit to the burden of fees/tax's on our 2A rights. Heads up!

Maybe TN feels the need to regulate/tax interstate commerce .

Edited March 16, 2011 by GunTroll

[kieefer]

THIS is why I continue to support the NRA. Their official response to the Barry show...

http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaletter314.pdf

I hope every one here is a member and if not, it's past time to join.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's a decent enough letter, but to me it doesn't go far enough. I'm sorry, but there shouldn't be an "F"

in BATFE, and more likely the rest of the initials. I don't see the NRA's stance on the other gun issues that

I care about:suppressors, machine guns and the like. Show me where those laws have stopped crime. Show

me where their harassment, in that area, has made us safer. All those laws have done is make something

more expensive and more difficult for the law abiding citizen to attain. Where does the NRA stand on that

issue? I think the Supreme Court agrees with me more than the NRA. That's sad.

Until they show their stance completely and firmly in favor of the 2nd Amendment, I will consider them useless

and too costly, like the rest of the lobbies. It's not that I would even rush out and buy a machine gun, but

it is the fact that those laws infringe on the 2nd and I don't hear a peep. And if someone wishes to say that

they are picking their battles, maybe so, but that one they are not interested in.

Keep compromising yourself out of existence.

[mikegideon]

Pick your battles. That letter was a response to Obama.

[RobertNashville]

That's a decent enough letter, but to me it doesn't go far enough. I'm sorry, but there shouldn't be an "F"

in BATFE, and more likely the rest of the initials. I don't see the NRA's stance on the other gun issues that

I care about:suppressors, machine guns and the like. Show me where those laws have stopped crime. Show

me where their harassment, in that area, has made us safer. All those laws have done is make something

more expensive and more difficult for the law abiding citizen to attain. Where does the NRA stand on that

issue? I think the Supreme Court agrees with me more than the NRA. That's sad.

Until they show their stance completely and firmly in favor of the 2nd Amendment, I will consider them useless

and too costly, like the rest of the lobbies. It's not that I would even rush out and buy a machine gun, but

it is the fact that those laws infringe on the 2nd and I don't hear a peep. And if someone wishes to say that

they are picking their battles, maybe so, but that one they are not interested in.

Keep compromising yourself out of existence.

When a government or an organization is not doing what we think is "right" or what we think it "should" be doing, we can either chose to be part of changing it or ignore it.

When you see your country heading for the cliff of self-destruction and socialism; it's very, very tempting to look for a bunch of land out in the proverbial "middle of no where"; build a self-contained existence and hope you can hang out/hang on until you meet your maker OR you can chose to get involved...vote...write...call...donate...run for office...all of the above and try to move things in the right direction.

When an organization like the NRA isn't doing what you think it should be doing...taking the stands you think it should be taking...you can complain and refuse to join (and be, rightly, ignored) OR you can become a member, vote, and try to push it and its leaders in the right direction.

I doubt anyone here thinks the NRA is a perfect organization...I know I don't. I also don't think the USCCA, GOA, or TFA are perfect organizations but I belong to all of them and others. You can't change imperfect organizations by standing outside of their office building and yelling up at the boardroom...you change them by belonging and influencing who gets to be in leadership and perhaps, even getting as seat at the table in the boardroom.

That's not compromising...that's taking action.

Further, I'd say the results of this poll is evidence that, even among the firearm enthusiasts/2nd Amendment supporters, there is a lot of action/education needed. I mean think about it; we have almost 30 years of evidence to show that background checks do nothing substantial to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals yet even on this board, a fairly significant majority are in favor of them! I find that as incredible as I do sad.

Organizations like the NRA are, I think, the best way to keep the firearms freedom we have and to regain what we've lost...there is power in banding together rather than going it alone.

Edited March 17, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And I agree, it was a good response, but it's only one battle. They need to be consistent in a

positive note concerning the 2nd Amendment. Americans should never cower about their rights,

but they do. I was a member and probably will re-join one of these days, but that is my beef

with them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I get quite involved. You needn't lecture me about that, or perhaps you haven't paid attention

to some of the issues I have commented on. For the most part we agree. And, as far as I'm concerned

the only member with any clout I saw on the NRA board was Ted Nugent, concerning those issues.

I'm member to things by choice, not by crowd mentality. Read some of my posts before you chastise me

about socialism, too. I don't bow down to the altar. When I see them doing what I think is right, I said I

will re-join. My comments are mine.

You can ignore me any time you wish.

[gregintenn]

The NRA isn't perfect, but they're the best and most effective representation we have at the moment. I have several gripes with them, such as mailing me crap 3-4 times per week, instead of using those funds to fight for gun rights. I'll continue to support them as long as I can, and voice my opinion on what they are doing right and what they could improve upon.

[Guest Jamie]

I honestly don't believe either side has any interest in decisively winning the "war" on gun rights and the second amendment... Not the NRA or the Brady Bunch. There's just too much money to be made by them continuing to fight, and too much power involved.

And the politicians are only going to have an interest in the whole issue so long as it'll get them votes because of them appearing to be on one side or the other.

So given that, I'll no more join the NRA than I would the Bradys. Instead, I'll keep talking to the folks like the ones here who voted in favor of a background check, and try to get them to think, and see what a mistake it is to go along with that sort of crap. Because in the end, they are the only ones who'll ever get anything changed.

... and no, I don't hold out any real hope of success. :-\

[RobertNashville]

I get quite involved. You needn't lecture me about that, or perhaps you haven't paid attention

to some of the issues I have commented on. For the most part we agree. And, as far as I'm concerned

the only member with any clout I saw on the NRA board was Ted Nugent, concerning those issues.

I'm member to things by choice, not by crowd mentality. Read some of my posts before you chastise me

about socialism, too. I don't bow down to the altar. When I see them doing what I think is right, I said I

will re-join. My comments are mine.

You can ignore me any time you wish.

I think you are confusing metaphor with criticism - I apologize if it came across as criticism.

I'm not suggesting you aren't involved in things as I suspect you are very involved. I'm simply saying that if you ("you" in general, not "you" personally) don't like an organization; especially a member-based organization like the NRA; you aren't going to have much impact or power to improve it by not being part of it - they aren't going to listen to nor should hey listen to people who aren't members.

We can either wait for the NRA to "do what is right" and then get involved or we can be part of influencing it so that it does do what is right; I think the latter approach is more productive.

I hope people also remember that there organizations that support 2nd Amendment rights other than the NRA and, perhaps, even better than the NRA - I hope people don't dismiss all of them just because they may not like/agree with the NRA!

Edited March 17, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest Maelphaedor]

Criminals by defination don't obey laws. All more extensive background checks do is end up making another link in the chain of 'oops we screwed up and denied someone that should have passed thru'. While I do agree that some sort of check it not totally unreasonable, a criminal will always find a way to get a weapon, steal, borrow, buy off the street, get someone clean to buy it, doesn't matter.

While I don't pretend to know the answer to solving the percieved 'gun problem', I do know making more laws for law abiding citizens to jump thru hoops staying legal is not the answer. I've pretty much given up on getting a SBR PS90 because I don't want to jump thru the hoops to get the stamp. Which now that I think about it, may be the point to all of this gun control BS, sure, overturning the 2nd isn't going to happen, but if they can make it as hard as possible to get your gear and stay legal, perhaps more people will just write off getting a gun because it's more trouble than it's worth.

[mikegideon]

The NRA can just move to abolish the ATF. It shouldn't even be part of their stated goals until it's within reach. They ARE on top of the immediate issues with the ATF.

You don't build support by overreaching. It's much more effective to chip away at the issues, and be diligent about it. Campus carry, Constitutional carry, and keeping an anti-gun guy from RUNNING the BATFE. As others have said, they're not perfect. As I have said a number of times... we would be in deep yogurt without them.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

We are in deep yogurt with them, also. They have been around for the Machine Gun act of 1934,

Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 and that mischief in 1994. There

needs to be a unified front pushing back against progressive liberalism in this country, but so many

people rationalize so much away by thinking it does very little harm and might actually do some good.

There is very little philosophical discussion in this country until it is too late. People either are too busy

to analyze what's being said and done to them to accomplish anything, or they just don't care any

more about liberty and have come to grasp some of the milder forms of tyranny as a default or given.

It will be regretted.

If the NRA gives a rat's ass about the Constitution, Wayne La Pierre will provide leadership in his organization

by adopting conservative principles and worrying less on maintaining. I use "conservative principle" meaning

like Jefferson would, not like country club republican, so please don't misunderstand.

Yeh, Mike, they do pick their battles. Where were they when that guy Dolomite referred to in another post

went to prison because of a malfunctioning AR? That was an outrage. Things like that I won't forget.

Something like that could happen to anyone and probably has. The ATF does nothing but restrict commerce,

by no legitimate use of a constitutional clause. They make people criminals when those people weren't before.

I applaud the Eddie Eagle program, the fight to protect some handgun rights and others, but they need to

wake up and deal with many more, with the kind of money they amass.

These arguments are left up to people made to look and resemble terrorists, and that is wrong. The 2nd

Amendment is a lot more than a damned handgun. It is about the fight against a tyrannical government.

I wish people would start remembering that.

It is getting to be too late.

[mikegideon]

Pretty good post AR. You trying to outdo Leroy?

Unfortunately, the NRA has to function in the cesspool. There no telling what kind of back door deals get cut just to pull off what they manage to get done. Even though I agree with you, I just don't know if the NRA could go hard line like that without losing all forward momentum.

They do enough to make me want them to continue.

[Guest SUNTZU]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO67h_359wM

Free and clear or don't let them out.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nope, I couldn't do that if I wanted I wanted to. We agree too often:D

They do quite a bit, I agree, but what I want and what they want conflicts. I'm

sure it will eventually get better, though, and when it does I will reconcile.

The cesspool is the problem and that involves the consistency of Jeffersonian

attitudes. We're cool:D