Universal Background Checks for gun purchases

[concerned citizen]

I recently joined this forum because I truly care about our rights as free Americans. More importantly the rights of our children and grandchildren. The question we should ask ourselves is this. 10,000 gay rights activists bitch and they get whatever they want, 1,000 black lives matter members bitch and they get what they want, 1 in 3 Americans own a firearm and we get nothing but restrictions... someone please help me understand.

 

[mxrider]

Disclaimer (yes it's in my sig, but what the heck)
****This is MXRider speaking and not on behalf of ANY organization*****

This is a situation that there is truly no correct answer. While I like the idea of a background check to prevent unauthorized persons from obtaining a firearm, I also know that those same individuals will just go to the black market to obtain them. So, if we get rid of the background check, will this ultimately result in MORE prohibited people obtaining firearms through FFL's? That is the part that I personally struggle with. Deep down inside I know that those that are determined to get their hands on a firearm will do so by whatever means are available (black market etc.) so what is the point? I struggle with this each and every day and I don't think there is a "right" answer to this paradigm.

 

[Armati]

I recently joined this forum because I truly care about our rights as free Americans. More importantly the rights of our children and grandchildren. The question we should ask ourselves is this. 10,000 gay rights activists bitch and they get whatever they want, 1,000 black lives matter members bitch and they get what they want, 1 in 3 Americans own a firearm and we get nothing but restrictions... someone please help me understand.

Because, as you can see, there is a popular theme of "I shouldn't have to do anything because its a constitutional right, and what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand, and any law is a restriction, and, and, because the antis are poopy heads".

Meanwhile, the other side is busy working on the laws they want. But we won't work on a law that works for us because any law is an infringement. Yup, a winning strategy...

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Minuteman]

I recently joined this forum because I truly care about our rights as free Americans. More importantly the rights of our children and grandchildren. The question we should ask ourselves is this. 10,000 gay rights activists bitch and they get whatever they want, 1,000 black lives matter members bitch and they get what they want, 1 in 3 Americans own a firearm and we get nothing but restrictions... someone please help me understand.

I hear you. The vast majority of us just want to make this right (allow the average law-abiding citizen the ability to carry concealed if they want; minimally invasive checks, training, etc.) We don't want criminals (violent felons/legitimately crazy people) to have guns. As far as making a noise, the unfortunate reality is that gun owners are among the most responsible citizens in our society, and they don't fall into that trap of 'make noise'. By nature, the law-abiding gun owners of our nation AVOID conflict and controversy. They literally are the middle - neutral path.

So every rally that Maryland Shall Issue (MSI) has had, the overwhelming majority have been totally peaceful, and supportive for the cause. We have hoped, beyond hope, that the legislators would see our presence (in 2013 we had about 4000 of us show up); would send the right - positive message. And that this message would effect some basic, common sense change. Thus far, I think we have. There are more people asking these same basic questions, and increasingly more legislators asking the right questions.

The people are winning, and someday, when Maryland becomes 'Shall Issue' we will look back and only ask - why did it take so long to do the right thing?

Because, as you can see, there is a popular theme of "I shouldn't have to do anything because its a constitutional right, and what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand, and any law is a restriction, and, and, because the antis are poopy heads".

Meanwhile, the other side is busy working on the laws they want. But we won't work on a law that works for us because any law is an infringement. Yup, a winning strategy...

I like where you are starting to go with this. We do need to focus on legislative issues. We need to keep this in the face of our accidental oppressors. Most of 'them' in elected office have no idea that they are mere puppets that are opposing legislation that would make such a significant difference in so many Marylanders lives. The more responsible gun owners that are trained, and lawfully carry firearms in Maryland the greater the general criminal deterrent there is; and ultimately the safer we all are.

---

This officer does it right:

 

[pcfixer]

http://www.ammoland.com/2015/11/the...grabbers-always-demanding-more/#axzz3sY2J4YSc

This fight has been going for years........So don't stop now. WE as in all citizens who do want our 'constitutional rights' really need an add campaign other that NRA. Why can't MSI do adds in papers etc? Why Not, cause so much is spent on laws suits that seem to go nowhere.

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “We need to close the loopholes that still remain in the background check system and finish the job that Jim and Sarah Brady started so many years ago,” New York Senator Chuck Schumer threatened at a Brady Center awards function. “We are going to bring the universal background check bill to the floor of the senate, early next year, and with your help we’re going to win!”
As usual, he’s lying. The “job” the Bradys took over, now under the “stewardship” of current president Dan Gross and a new crop of totalitarian lobbyists, was articulated by the organization’s founder, Pete Shields, back before the group decided they had to change their name from “Handgun Control, Inc.” to something that hid their true intentions. Here’s what Shields told The New Yorker back in 1976:

We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. . . . [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.
​

There are other “jobs” Schumer wants to finish as well. He wants to ban semi-automatics because he says “there’s no legitimate use for them.” He wants to ban standard capacity magazines. He wants “national security”-based disarmament. He wants to keep registration records. He doesn’t want to allow you to transport your personal safety tools — even in your checked luggage. He wants to feed U.S. tax dollars to foreign gun-grabbers. He wants to sue gun manufacturers and dealers out of existence for the acts of criminals. He wants to end private sales.

So, gentlemen!!!!! What do YOU want?

 

[mxrider]

Why can't MSI do adds in papers etc? Why Not, cause so much is spent on laws suits that seem to go nowhere.


So, gentlemen!!!!! What do YOU want?

We can, given that funding is available. Have you seen how much it costs to run a 1/4 page add in a "relevant" paper? Better yet, we would love to do a commercial.....

 

[Armati]

.


So, gentlemen!!!!! What do YOU want?

It would seem that a lot of folks would prefer to do nothing because getting in front of this thing and playing offense would be accepting defeat.

?



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[pcfixer]

We can, given that funding is available. Have you seen how much it costs to run a 1/4 page add in a "relevant" paper? Better yet, we would love to do a commercial.....

I'm glad you get this point. Doesn't have to be relevant and even honest radio commercial work to sway public sentiment.
Weight against the cost of law suits, money down the drain so far.

 

[BeoBill]

I'm glad you get this point. Doesn't have to be relevant and even honest radio commercial work to sway public sentiment.
Weight against the cost of law suits, money down the drain so far.

I agree completely. I think we also need to be working on lining up some large and influential "marketplace" sponsors who have our back. And not necessarily with money. Sometimes just a word or two in the right ear at the right time can be much more valuable and far-reaching in impact.

 

[kcbrown]

It would seem that a lot of folks would prefer to do nothing because getting in front of this thing and playing offense would be accepting defeat.

?

Got no problem with going on the offensive. In fact, that's exactly what we should be doing.

Supporting UBC isn't going on the offensive. That's going on the defensive, an attempt to limit the damage. Us going on the offensive would mean THEY would be attempting to "limit the damage". There is no damage for them to limit with a UBC law. It would be self-inflicted damage for us if we support it.



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

 

[BeoBill]

Got no problem with going on the offensive. In fact, that's exactly what we should be doing.

Supporting UBC isn't going on the offensive. That's going on the defensive, an attempt to limit the damage. Us going on the offensive would mean THEY would be attempting to "limit the damage". There is no damage for them to limit with a UBC law. It would be self-inflicted damage for us if we support it.



(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)

Supporting "Universal Shall Issue" is something I could get behind in a heartbeat.

 

[MDFF2008]

Why can't MSI do adds in papers etc? Why Not, cause so much is spent on laws suits that seem to go nowhere.


So, gentlemen!!!!! What do YOU want?

The average cost for one Sunday paper ad for one printing is between 600-1000 to print, plus design costs.

Yet, when we ask for money, people accuse us of "just being in it for the money"

 

[Armati]

Supporting "Universal Shall Issue" is something I could get behind in a heartbeat.

Now you're getting it. The UBC, would be Universal Shall Issue and National Reciprocity.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[kcbrown]

Now you're getting it. The UBC, would be Universal Shall Issue and National Reciprocity.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

If that's all it is, then fine, I'd get behind that (because it would add liberty, not remove it). But that's not all it is, and you know it.

If it's something that would impact firearm transfers (and it is), then I cannot back it. It would represent an additional restriction on what amounts to a prerequisite for carry (one cannot carry a firearm that one does not have). And it would eventually be transformed in exactly the way I previously described.

I am not willing to kill "keep" in the long run in order to get "bear" in the short term, because "keep" is necessary for "bear", but not vice versa. What you're talking about here amounts to exposing our flank.

And in any case, you're not thinking the political process through here, nor are you accounting for the psychology of permits. What starts as "shall issue" will quickly morph through the political process into "may issue" combined with "national reciprocity" for the permits. If that doesn't happen immediately in the political process, it will happen as soon as the opposition gains the upper hand in the legislature in some future election. And the net end result will be that we will lose "keep" in the way I outlined, while not permanently gaining anything.

You are attempting to negotiate with a scorpion here, and are gambling that it will not sting you once you cross the stream with it on your back.

 

[pcfixer]

The average cost for one Sunday paper ad for one printing is between 600-1000 to print, plus design costs.

Yet, when we ask for money, people accuse us of "just being in it for the money"

I Understand the negativity MSI board gets about money. It would be very nice if a sticky was made on MSI funds spend in a general way.
I've contributed all the time, also to SAF, NRA and others to support 2A.
I'd drive on. AND I'll contribute online today to the cause.
I'm a retired Army veteran, it seems like not many want to stand for freedom. Many here on mdshooters do, we need alot more.
How about a radio add seeking more members?

 

[Brooklyn]

Your scheme would be tied up in court for several lifetimes, IMO.

And as far as no leaks, tell that to the Chinese, Russians, IRGC, Hamas, ISIS/L, CCC, Russian Mafia and all God's other chilluns. The only hackproof system resides inside a sealed steel cube and has no outside connections and no users. Anything else is vulnerable.

This is my business.. I design databases.. You can't leak what's not there.

No record of purchases or even owners can physically be created. Because the only list is of prohibited persons not authorized ones.

But in candor I really don't care anymore. We are going to lose. And we deserve to lose.

We are playing checkers they are playing 3 d chess.

So be it. I always thought we were smarter than the oposition.. Now I am not so sure.

If anyone really wants to brainstorm this... Offline perhaps we can for a working group..

But I am not going to take fire from both sides...

I am already known.. I gain nothing by helping to prevent what's coming.
God help us all

 

[Brooklyn]

If that's all it is, then fine, I'd get behind that (because it would add liberty, not remove it). But that's not all it is, and you know it.

If it's something that would impact firearm transfers (and it is), then I cannot back it. It would represent an additional restriction on what amounts to a prerequisite for carry (one cannot carry a firearm that one does not have). And it would eventually be transformed in exactly the way I previously described.

I am not willing to kill "keep" in the long run in order to get "bear" in the short term, because "keep" is necessary for "bear", but not vice versa. What you're talking about here amounts to exposing our flank.

And in any case, you're not thinking the political process through here, nor are you accounting for the psychology of permits. What starts as "shall issue" will quickly morph through the political process into "may issue" combined with "national reciprocity" for the permits. If that doesn't happen immediately in the political process, it will happen as soon as the opposition gains the upper hand in the legislature in some future election. And the net end result will be that we will lose "keep" in the way I outlined, while not permanently gaining anything.

You are attempting to negotiate with a scorpion here, and are gambling that it will not sting you once you cross the stream with it on your back.

We don't need your permission.

 

[pcfixer]

This is my business.. I design databases.. You can't leak what's not there.

No record of purchases or even owners can physically be created. Because the only list is of prohibited persons not authorized ones.

But in candor I really don't care anymore. We are going to lose. And we deserve to lose.

We are playing checkers they are playing 3 d chess.

So be it. I always thought we were smarter than the oposition.. Now I am not so sure.

If anyone really wants to brainstorm this... Offline perhaps we can for a working group..

But I am not going to take fire from both sides...

I am already known.. I gain nothing by helping to prevent what's coming.
God help us all

John Locke says it very well.
http://fee.org/freeman/john-locke-natural-rights-to-life-liberty-and-property/

“Reason, which is that Law,” Locke declared, “teaches all Mankind, who would but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions.” Locke envisoned a rule of law: “have a standing Rule to live by, common to every one of that Society, and made by the Legislative Power erected in it; A Liberty to follow my own Will in all things, where the Rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, Arbitrary Will of another Man.”

Locke established that private property is absolutely essential for liberty: “every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” He continues: “The great and chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.”
Locke believed people legitimately turned common property into private property by mixing their labor with it, improving it. Marxists liked to claim this meant Locke embraced the labor theory of value, but he was talking about the basis of ownership rather than value.
He insisted that people, not rulers, are sovereign. Government, Locke wrote, “can never have a Power to take to themselves the whole or any part of the Subjects Property, without their own consent. For this would be in effect to leave them no Property at all.” He makes his point even more explicit: rulers “must not raise Taxes on the Property of the People, without the Consent of the People, given by themselves, or their Deputies.”

Then Locke affirmed an explicit right to revolution: “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.”

It probably will come. There are a number of authors writing about 4GW.
Simular to the Sling and the Stone.

 

[Brooklyn]

Locke is dead. When he lived he was a Philoposher not a lawyer. I studied philosophy for years. Decades. But I work and live it the practical world.

When you revolt you will find out why.

But don't be so sure others will follow.

History teaches otherwise.

 

[mac1_131]

Do you believe that the federal government deletes anything these days?

Only emails...