• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Obama urges tighter background checks on gun buyers after Aurora massacre

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA

sasha601

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
338
Location
Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
"A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," the president, who has called for reimposing the Assault Weapons Ban, said in a speech to the National Urban League.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...round-checks-gun-buyers-aurora-033815400.html

I think he wanted to say this: "Most of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of law abiding citizens, not in the hands of criminals -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, for self defense and other lawful purposes"

Also, It thought that AK-47 was not used during Aurora shooting
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
I think he wanted to say this: "Most of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of law abiding citizens, not in the hands of criminals -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, for self defense and other lawful purposes"

Also, It thought that AK-47 was not used during Aurora shooting

it wasn't, but what type of gun do you expect a kenyan communist to mention. all they know is AK's
 

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
AK-47's... On the Streets of our Cities

For example, like this?
DSC01703.jpg


Or like this?

_MG_1904_copy.jpg


Yeah, totally.

"A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals -- that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," the president, who has called for reimposing the Assault Weapons Ban, said in a speech to the National Urban League.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...round-checks-gun-buyers-aurora-033815400.html
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
NICS works pretty well. Maybe it could use a bit of tweaking, but it's pretty effective.

The biggest problem I've seen is that there isn't a harsh penalty for someone who fails a NICS check trying over and over at different shops. I'd say it'd be good to send jokers like that to prison, because if they're that determined they'll almost inevitably try to talk a non gun person into straw purchasing for them, or seeking out a private sale.
 

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,535
Location
Quarryville, PA
I don't see much of a problem with the current background check system. A stricter background check would not have prevented the Colorado tragedy, seeing as how Holmes had no record of any kind, criminal or mental.
 

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
NICS works pretty well. Maybe it could use a bit of tweaking, but it's pretty effective.

The biggest problem I've seen is that there isn't a harsh penalty for someone who fails a NICS check trying over and over at different shops. I'd say it'd be good to send jokers like that to prison, because if they're that determined they'll almost inevitably try to talk a non gun person into straw purchasing for them, or seeking out a private sale.

Yeah but thats a slippery slope. "We should arrest them, because they'll probably commit a crime"...
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Yeah but thats a slippery slope. "We should arrest them, because they'll probably commit a crime"...


That's not my point. Trying to buy a gun when you KNOW you're prohibited should be illegal. And as it stands, I'm not sure whether it's a crime or not, but I know that no enforcement actions are taken until the gun is illegally purchased. This is the sort of thing pro and anti gun people should be able to come together on to agree is bad.

I'm not saying this so much in regards to the colorado shooting, just in terms of the topic at hand.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
That's not my point. Trying to buy a gun when you KNOW you're prohibited should be illegal. And as it stands, I'm not sure whether it's a crime or not, but I know that no enforcement actions are taken until the gun is illegally purchased. This is the sort of thing pro and anti gun people should be able to come together on to agree is bad.

I'm not saying this so much in regards to the colorado shooting, just in terms of the topic at hand.

It is a crime to lie on form 4473.
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
Yes it is, a felony as I recall. But it doesn't matter if the gun never gets purchased, and the 4473 never gets filled out fully, or gets discarded.

I am not aware of the intricacies of the law, I am merely speaking on what I've seen happen in person at gun shops and sporting goods stores, and the inaction on repeat unsuccessful attempts at unlawful purchases.

Whatever the reasoning may be, straightening that out would be a good step to take.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Yes it is, a felony as I recall. But it doesn't matter if the gun never gets purchased, and the 4473 never gets filled out fully, or gets discarded.

I am not aware of the intricacies of the law, I am merely speaking on what I've seen happen in person at gun shops and sporting goods stores, and the inaction on repeat unsuccessful attempts at unlawful purchases.

Whatever the reasoning may be, straightening that out would be a good step to take.

I would like criminals to stay in jail. I can't endorse something I consider unconstitutional to begin with. Would you rather keep Holmes in jail or maybe have stronger laws to monitor him while he is free, and those same laws used on the rest of us.
 

sasha601

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
338
Location
Rochester Hills, Michigan, USA
2A is not just a right but Constitutionally protected right. Therefore, I believe that only high crimes should disqualify someone from owning or possessing a firearm. We have too many non-violent crimes that disqualify people. Michigan concealed carry law is a good example. It has too many unjust disqualifiers
 

budlight

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
454
Location
Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
I do.

It exists.:mad:

Just curious, what is wrong with it? I haven't seen any major issues.

If you have a Michigan CPL, you are exempt. Right now I can walk into a gun store and buy everything as long as I have the credit or cash without a background check. If you don't have a CPL, the system still works well and keeps guns out of the hands of known felons.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Just curious, what is wrong with it? I haven't seen any major issues.

If you have a Michigan CPL, you are exempt. Right now I can walk into a gun store and buy everything as long as I have the credit or cash without a background check. If you don't have a CPL, the system still works well and keeps guns out of the hands of known felons.

There is nothing in the 2A that talks of background checks, but does say shall not be infringed.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
I suspect it won't be long before some gun owners/carriers who say they support the right to bear arms will be suggesting that restricting the right to bear arms is Ok as long as the restrictions (background checks where the gov. has the power to deny IS a restriction on the right itself simply because the power to deny IS an "infringement") are "reasonable", "appropriate", or.............. "acceptable".
 
Top