Who here is part of the "92%"?

[jrumann59]

Close to 300 votes in our poll now and 92% against UBC. The irony is thick. Makes a person wonder if the statists "misread" the original poll results.

Posting poll like this here is like asking people that are sitting in Famous Daves if they like BBQ

 

[JMangle]

I vote no, and I'll tell you why:

1) I have sold guns to family members and people I have known since elementary school. I know these people better than the government ever will. Why can't I sell my dad a gun?

2) The state/feds will always use this as a tool for delay and added cost.

3) I have never understood why you can't just find a cop and have them do the check for free. They have the ability, and I pay my taxes. If you're going to have background checks they must be free, instant, and readily available. Why can't I call the FBI and give them someone's info?

The system is designed to screw us.

 

[Boom Boom]

Posting poll like this here is like asking people that are sitting in Famous Daves if they like BBQ

Going to Famous Dave's for BBQ is like going to McD's when you want a great burger. Can't get there from here.

 

[gtodave]

Posting poll like this here is like asking people that are sitting in Famous Daves if they like BBQ

I understand, but the President keeps repeating that 92% of the country wants this, including a majority of "rational gun owners". In order for that to be true, I figure (as I said in the first post) that about half of us would need to be on board with it too. Which obviously isn't the case.

 

[highfructosecornsyrup]

I'd say I dont mind a few simple regulations that I am not afraid to go through, since I have nothing to hide.

The problem is I have no more trust in what the govt is up to with the information they get. So at this point I am against anything they want to propose. I guess I am ok with what we already have...

 

[Mooseman]

We already have too many laws and regulations. It is however the least objectionable of the recent proposals. I do not support universal background checks.

 

[jrumann59]

Going to Famous Dave's for BBQ is like going to McD's when you want a great burger. Can't get there from here.

Probably right, But if I said Sam's Pit beef stand, some would have been lost.

 

[Brychan]

You know what's funny is that until 1968, people would have thought you were crazy if you went to buy a gun and said hey don't you want to see my ID or don't I have to fill out some paperwork or something. Seems from 1776 to 1968 nobody treated buying a gun any different than buying a hammer.

 

[sclag22]

Using a SSN is totally opposite of anonymous. Logged into remotely with no tracking sorry but that happen with the way the internet is setup. Once you login all the IP and other information I am sure is logged.

Anonymous as in what the background check is for...there are other reasons why people get background checked other than buying a gun. Yes perhaps any sort of remote login would be able to be tracked, but my main point that I'm trying to make is that if we were to have background checks, there should be no record on file that any one person had their background checked specifically to buy a gun.

 

[gtodave]

Welp, an "agreement" has been reached:Background checks for everyone except family members:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ackground-check-bill-145147692--election.html

Go Rand Paul and the filibuster machine!

 

[occbrian]

Both Toomey and Manchin are gun owners and have an A rating from the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun lobby group. Toomey said he added some provisions to strengthen gun rights in the bill, including allowing a legal gun owner to take his or her concealed weapon over state lines while traveling, even if that state does not allow concealed carry.

 

[AntiGun]

Both Toomey and Manchin are gun owners and have an A rating from the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun lobby group. Toomey said he added some provisions to strengthen gun rights in the bill, including allowing a legal gun owner to take his or her concealed weapon over state lines while traveling, even if that state does not allow concealed carry.

Is there any text available yet for these strengthened rights? The travel/transport aspect would be of great interest those with Utah, Florida, etc..

I never worry about travel to WV where I co-own property but going to PA for a daytrip while CC has always concerned me regarding getting pulled over in MD during the return drive.
I imagine it would go something like this:
"Are you returning from a target shoot, place of residence, show, etc.. as legally dictated by MD law for transport of a handgun?"
-no, it was a daytrip to a state where I can legally CC.
"Sorry but that is not accepted by MD, please step out of the car..."

Do the strengthened rights protect us from our own state?

 

[Vikingpwr67]

Background checks won't solve a thing. You think that a criminal is going to buy a gun on the street that has been stolen and take it to Msp to get a background check and have it registered. Lol. These idiot politicians are so far detached from reality it's not funny.

 

[rmiddle]

I think all purchases, public and private, should go through the current NICS system or some kind of equivalent...something that isn't a "registry" or a "confiscation list", but just runs a person through a database to insure they aren't a convicted felon or something.

I think a lot of the arguments I've heard against these background checks are rather weak. Yes, criminals will probably steal firearms or buy them on the black market. But that's already illegal, and it's often a lot harder to do that than to walk into a store and buy one.

There's a lot of talk about "burdening law-abiding citizens", but who is to say who is "law-abiding" and who isn't without a background check?

I don't think an insta-check is an "undue burden", I call it "due process".

That's just me. I'm sure there are plenty of people here who want to go back to the pre-'34 rules where you can walk down to the hardware store and buy a 6-pack of Thompson submachine guns.

So you would have problem giving a complete stranger your ssn to complete the private selling on a gun if not then feel free to post it in the forums and see how long it takes to clean out your bank account. There is a reason that private sales don't require a check.

Thanks
Robert

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk HD

 

[goalie098]

I said yes with this caveat; Depends on the check. If they want to run a check when I buy a gun to see if I am a felon or mentally ill cool. But, do not put the type or serial number of the gun on the check. They want to keep criminals from getting guns I support that. But not as a back door registration. Also, define what a transfer is. not from family member to family member or loaning a gun to a friend.

 

[alucard0822]

Welp, an "agreement" has been reached:Background checks for everyone except family members:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ackground-check-bill-145147692--election.html

Go Rand Paul and the filibuster machine!

I met Toomey and had a minute with him at an NRA function before he was elected Senator, decent guy, pledged a 3 term limit in the house, and kept his word. Pro gun, as in he would like to reduce some regulations, but not as strong as someone like Rand Paul. I called and asked for the text of his bill, it's not available yet, so I'm holding off on blasting the guy till I read it, also still waiting to see if his comment that "background checks are not gun control" was out of context, or talking out of his ass.

It seems a lot of people here agree with background checks, however want a completely anonymous check without and paper trail. Problem is that you then have no way to verify if it was done,and if someone is denied, being there is no firearm information given, it can't be used to prove they were trying to buy a gun, and therefore can't really be prosecuted. It would have minimal impact, but end up being unenforceable, and likely ineffective.

It really is a catch 22, an all or nothing proposal, neither party can be anonymous, the record of sale and firearm info must be recorded and traceable(defacto-registration) it must be mandatory, and those declined must be prosecuted, or else it is basically unenforceable, impossible to verify, and violations wouldn't stand up in court. What is comes down to is that the government has proven they can't be trusted to be "reasonable", anything they feel worth doing will be overbearing, complicated, and subject to the whims of those in power, for instance how long have MDers been waiting for their "common sense background check" for regulated firearms, how reasonable is the background check, registration and fingerprinting in the new SB281 bill?

Despite hundreds of well funded studies, many from biased anti-gun sources, there is no proof private sales from a law abiding source contributes large ammounts of crime guns, most are still transferred directly from FFLs, stolen, or from straw purchasers. Last study I read placed LEO agencies as a larger source of crime guns than private transfers where the seller was legal, and had no knowledge the buyer was prohibited. A mandatory background check law itself is an admission that other, more potent laws are not effective, it centers on the belief a criminal will submit to a background check, and go on without a firearm if denied. The problem is that a person who will commit a violent felony with a gun, commit a felony by merely possessing a gun, and commit a felony to obtain a gun in the first place will lie, cheat and steal to get around any background check. Adding one more relatively minor charge on top of probably a dozen felonies and expecting it to make a difference is ridiculous. The only logical explanation for criminalizing private sales is to charge law abiding sellers, The rarity of "Straw purchase" prosecutions pretty much shows the private sale ban is aimed directly at transactions from the law abiding, to the law abiding. IMO this is a law that basically says the government has a prison cell waiting for me for merely transferring my property without their permission, or failing to hand over complete control of the transaction to the government or their anointed licensees, all despite constitutionally recognized rights against this infringement.

Many people got it during the hearings, MD has hundreds of murders, and thousands of "lesser" gun crime every year, yet it has been years since they have prosecuted ANYONE for a straw purchase, or selling to a prohibited person, so it can be inferred those that the new law won't be enforced for those that break the law, it is only meant to impede the law abiding. For this reason, I am as unconcerned as the government about criminals obtaining firearms from an otherwise legal private sale, my concern is that the government will be far more dangerous if they are allowed to usurp and restrict this right of the people any more than they already have.

 

[fabsroman]

So you would have problem giving a complete stranger your ssn to complete the private selling on a gun if not then feel free to post it in the forums and see how long it takes to clean out your bank account. There is a reason that private sales don't require a check.

Thanks
Robert

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk HD

There is no reason a FTF sale cannot go through an FFL just as regulated sales have been required here in Maryland for almost a decade. Or, they can be done by the MSP. No Form 77R and 2 month wait though. That would be ridiculous. Of course, FTF transfers of regulated firearms right now only have a 7 day wait period.

Ultimately, the federal government should preempt every other government on these background checks and come up with something that is sufficient enough and quick enough for ALL firearm sales, and one wherein no record is retained after a certain number of years and any violation requires mandatory prison time.

It can be done. It is just a matter of coming together and getting it done, and then holding the private and government criminals accountable. Sell a gun without a NICS, mandatory sentence. Retain paperwork beyond the specified time period, mandatory sentence. PERIOD.

 

[plinkerton]

Ps what is a "universal background" check anyhow?
I am fine with a NICS check at the retail level and nothing past that.

PSS. There could/should be a way to get a temporary 30 day NICS number good for private/second hand sales. That is as far as I'd go for "universal background" checks.

I'm ok with background checks for private sales of handguns.
NO REGISTRY!

 

[fabsroman]

Exactly, you "call" yourself a conservative and you trust your government when there is no rational reason to do so. Also, define conservative. Are we taking Barry Goldwater conservative or neocon Bush/Cheney?

BTW, social security and medicare a "benefits" that taxpayers paid for. If you paid for something, how would you feel if it was taken away?

If you are good with numbers AND politics, you would understand that Social Security and Medicare are both ponzi schemes due to people having fewer kids and living longer. Somebody is going to "pay for it" and not get anything back. Plus, if you understand Social Security and Medicare, you would understand that today's payments are essentially going to pay for today's recipients. What I pay today, pays for my parents' social security and medicare. What I pay for today, is not locked up and designated for me.

Medicare is scheduled to go broke in 2020, Social Security is scheduled to pay 75% of the promised payout in 2034. Guess what, I qualified for both benefits about 15 years ago, but I will not be at full retirement age for another 25 years, assuming that the qualifying age is not increased further.

I would love to hear what age group you fall into. My retired father in-law is fine with raising FICA/Medicare taxes, because he isn't paying them. However, mention cutting either benefit and WOW. Mind you, these cuts will affect the elderly now and also us current workers once we become the elderly.

Simply put, Social Security and Medicare in their current forms are not sustainable. Sadly, not enough people saved enough for retirement. I know way too many retirees that still have mortgages they have to pay.

As far as me trusting my government, I don't. However, I don't really trust my neighbors either. The ironic thing is that I was just thinking the same thing while driving home from my parents tonight. "People must be retarded if they rely on government."

People rely on Social Security, Medicare, welfare, the government for schools, etc., electricity, heat, food, and a lot more.

My wife and I are really conservative. We put about 40% of our yearly earnings aside for retirement and just in case the SHTF. There are also other preparations for SHTF, like a wood burning furnace, fuel storage, and we are about to put in a solar array and possibly an electricity generating windmill if I can get a variance. Yep, we want to be off the grid and we certainly are not relying on Social Security of Medicare for our retirement.

Thing is, I don't want a mentally disturbed neighbor to own a machine gun before the SHTF, or even any firearm for that matter.

 

[fabsroman]

Welp, an "agreement" has been reached:Background checks for everyone except family members:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...ackground-check-bill-145147692--election.html

Go Rand Paul and the filibuster machine!

Toomey added language to the bill that would allow anybody with a CCW in one state to travel through and visit other states that do not currently acknowledge out of state CCW's. Wonder how the Maryland reps in the US Senate are taking that one.

Thing that bugs me is that they are calling this "common sense" instead of "gun control". Well, as soon as you hear common sense nowadays, you know something is bad. Let's call a spade a spade, this is gun control.