• 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.

Hampton VA Closes Gun Show "Loophole?"

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
PavePusher wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:

Private sales DO circumvent this check that the FFL dealers do.

Actually, since there is no requirement, by definition there is no circumvention. Circumvention implies that one is avoiding something. That is not the case here, as there is nothing to avoid.

I wouldsay that a private seller has a moral duty to attempt to ensure the sale isnot to a personintent on causing harm.But I don'trecall a specific legal requirement todo so. 'Course,the sellermight be held legally liable for any ensuing consequences...
SNIP.....
I don't want to sound like I'm attacking you, just felt you had some errors that needed clarification. I might be wrong. :?
Maybe I can clarify by saying..... A felon or person subject to a restriction can get around the checks in place to buy a gun if they go for the private sale.

Personally.. I would NEVER sell to someone I did not know personally and would have to check the record of those I do not know.

I would really hate to know that I sold a gun to a "bag guy."
I see it the other way around: the background check at the FFL is a circumvention of the Constitution. Just my 2¢
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Tomahawk wrote:
I see it the other way around: the background check at the FFL is a circumvention of the Constitution. Just my 2¢
If nobody broke the law and hurt people.... maybe we would not need these checks.

But time has proved that there are many bad people out there that will use guns toallow them to rob, rape, assault, and kill others.

The system is not fool proof. There are ways around it where you can get a gun when your not supposed to be able to. But the main point is that not everyone can get them and just do not have the connections.

When a bad guy commits a serious crime against someone... they are creating a victim andtaking away thatpersons rights to go about life unharmed. If the bad guy does not care about your rights... he should lose his.

The record check conducted does not prohibita law abiding citizen from obtaining a gun. It stops the known criminal or person temporarily prohibited from getting one. How else do we try to stop criminals from getting the tools they need?

We should look at something new that was added to the disqualification for purchase. Domestic assault, protective orders, and stalking.

I do not agree making something retroactive. That is just wrong! But these prohibitions were created because people in these situations are known to have obtained a gun and hurt their victim. I have seen this for myself first hand.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
I see it the other way around: the background check at the FFL is a circumvention of the Constitution. Just my 2¢
If nobody broke the law and hurt people.... maybe we would not need these checks.

But time has proved that there are many bad people out there that will use guns toallow them to rob, rape, assault, and kill others.

The system is not fool proof. There are ways around it where you can get a gun when your not supposed to be able to. But the main point is that not everyone can get them and just do not have the connections.

When a bad guy commits a serious crime against someone... they are creating a victim andtaking away thatpersons rights to go about life unharmed. If the bad guy does not care about your rights... he should lose his.

The record check conducted does not prohibita law abiding citizen from obtaining a gun. It stops the known criminal or person temporarily prohibited from getting one. How else do we try to stop criminals from getting the tools they need?

We should look at something new that was added to the disqualification for purchase. Domestic assault, protective orders, and stalking.

I do not agree making something retroactive. That is just wrong! But these prohibitions were created because people in these situations are known to have obtained a gun and hurt their victim. I have seen this for myself first hand.
The basic premise of your argument is that it is o.k. to violate the Constitution in order to make us safer.

When the violations of of the Constitution do not fix the problem,your solution is further violation of the constitution.

How much of the Constitution do we trash in the name of safety?
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Thundar wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
I see it the other way around: the background check at the FFL is a circumvention of the Constitution. Just my 2¢
If nobody broke the law and hurt people.... maybe we would not need these checks.

But time has proved that there are many bad people out there that will use guns toallow them to rob, rape, assault, and kill others.

The system is not fool proof. There are ways around it where you can get a gun when your not supposed to be able to. But the main point is that not everyone can get them and just do not have the connections.

When a bad guy commits a serious crime against someone... they are creating a victim andtaking away thatpersons rights to go about life unharmed. If the bad guy does not care about your rights... he should lose his.

The record check conducted does not prohibita law abiding citizen from obtaining a gun. It stops the known criminal or person temporarily prohibited from getting one. How else do we try to stop criminals from getting the tools they need?

We should look at something new that was added to the disqualification for purchase. Domestic assault, protective orders, and stalking.

I do not agree making something retroactive. That is just wrong! But these prohibitions were created because people in these situations are known to have obtained a gun and hurt their victim. I have seen this for myself first hand.
The basic premise of your argument is that it is o.k. to violate the Constitution in order to make us safer.

When the violations of of the Constitution do not fix the problem,your solution is further violation of the constitution.

How much of the Constitution do we trash in the name of safety?

What do you suggest be done? Easy to critique... Not so easy to come up with a valid solution.

Speed limit signs do not work either... but the alternative is to remove them and allow people go any speed they desire. This would absolutely create more harm than good to the public.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

'The public good', who was it, what political philosophy was it that prated of 'the greatest good for the greatest number'?

And this drivel as premise to q question in response to another question. And on and on and on ad nauseam!

Safety is a good tool for tyrants. No one can be against safety. Violation of the Constitution in the name of 'safety' is the only tool?

Without enforcement, of 'speed limits', they are effectively obviated and I do fine.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. LAB/NRA/GOP KMA$$
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
imported post

What do you suggest be done? Easy to critique... Not so easy to come up with a valid solution.

The answer is obvious although not very PC. Despite all the slogan spewing and PC debates there is abasic fact that is called THE REAL WORLD.
In order to control violent criminals, you need to pose as big a threat to them, as they do to you.

My first experience with violent crime was a long, long time ago when I was 17 or 18. I grew up in the mountains where things were a little more self relient than in the cities.
One night, I was going to the nearest city with a date and while still in the sticks, was broadsided by two fellows driving a stolen car and being chased by a State Trooper and a Game Warden. He had run a stop sign going over 60 according to the Trooper, and hit me.

Car was totaled and my date was out cold. They jumped out of their car and ran into the woods, one with a rifle. The Trooper stood on the road and watched as they disappeared.

I got out, checked on my date and went to the two Officers. I asked the Trooper to call rescue squad and I went hunting.

I caught one hiding in a thicket about a mile away. He had the rifle. By the time I got him back to the road, he had fallen down several times and in fact had to stay in the hospital for two days. He had also told me who his friend was and were he lived and had some how fallen on his rifle stock and broken it over his shoulder.

I had to testify in court (since I was injured, I couldn't remember how he fell down).

He looked at me and said " I thought you were 10 feet tall)..I whispered "Wanna go to round 2"

His answer was NO WAY!

I doubt he stole any more cars! Problem solved!
That's the real life solution 229!
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

peter nap wrote:
What do you suggest be done? Easy to critique... Not so easy to come up with a valid solution.

The answer is obvious although not very PC. Despite all the slogan spewing and PC debates there is abasic fact that is called THE REAL WORLD.
In order to control violent criminals, you need to pose as big a threat to them, as they do to you.

My first experience with violent crime was a long, long time ago when I was 17 or 18. I grew up in the mountains where things were a little more self relient than in the cities.
One night, I was going to the nearest city with a date and while still in the sticks, was broadsided by two fellows driving a stolen car and being chased by a State Trooper and a Game Warden. He had run a stop sign going over 60 according to the Trooper, and hit me.

Car was totaled and my date was out cold. They jumped out of their car and ran into the woods, one with a rifle. The Trooper stood on the road and watched as they disappeared.

I got out, checked on my date and went to the two Officers. I asked the Trooper to call rescue squad and I went hunting.

I caught one hiding in a thicket about a mile away. He had the rifle. By the time I got him back to the road, he had fallen down several times and in fact had to stay in the hospital for two days. He had also told me who his friend was and were he lived and had some how fallen on his rifle stock and broken it over his shoulder.

I had to testify in court (since I was injured, I couldn't remember how he fell down).

He looked at me and said " I thought you were 10 feet tall)..I whispered "Wanna go to round 2"

His answer was NO WAY!

I doubt he stole any more cars! Problem solved!
That's the real life solution 229!

Way back in the day.. cops used to handle things at the street level. Car thieves got a beat down or wood shampoo. It is my understanding that a great many up and coming criminals decided a life of crime was not worth it since getting caught meant getting thumped!!

Just like scaring the hell out of your kids with a spanking..some small timecriminals were kept in line and made well aware that what they were doing was not allowed. That type of police behavior is not condoned any longer and with good reason.

The police cannot even be rude without getting complained on and possibly fired. My how things have changed over the years. ;) I am looking forward to when the police cannot shoot criminals unless they are actually shot dead first. ::Sarcasm::

Keeping in mind.... the police should not be rude but there are times when you have to match attitudes with the bad guy. You cannot be "Ned Flanders" and your trying to gain controlofsubject. The sad thing is that if you cuss at the bad guy... he can file a complaint on you... getting you in trouble.


In closing.... street justice is not a viable option in keeping guns out of the hands of those we do not want to have them.
 

Mr. Y

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
485
Location
Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
imported post

since I was injured, I couldn't remember how he fell down
Some people are just clumsy that way. Perfectly understandable.
What do you suggest be done? Easy to critique... Not so easy to come up with a valid solution.
Respect the Constitution. It's a very simple thing to expect, and it's not difficult to do. When you commit a crime, you atone for it, pay your debt to society and that's it. Ifthe crime is of such a nature that it shocks the community - violent rape, murder, armed robbery - lockthem up and never let them out. Ever.

But these prohibitions were created because people in these situations are known to have obtained a gun and hurt their victim. I have seen this for myself first hand

But domestic violence are overwhelmingly "heat of passion" occurrences. Unless there's a gun in the kitchen which is more handy, I'm going for the cast iron skillet, or meat tenderizing mallet, Ginsu meat cleaver or a host of other implements around the kitchen proper which are far more efficient WRT noise discipline.

If domestic violence is such the problem thatyou suggest,then abusers need to be punished in accordance with their crimes. If they repeat, they can do an enhanced stay in the correctional system. I think 50 yearsis fair.

Lock the criminals up, keep them locked up and you don't have to infringe everyone else's rights.

Speed limit signs do not work either

True. But stop lights do. Both are traffic control devices. So why are speed limit signs largely ineffectual, but stop signals & signs largely effectual?

Might it be that the public knows that since the first radar gun was produced speed enforcement has been about one person's power over another and a way for jurisdictions to extract money from citizens for an arbitrary deviation from what some group of politicians set as the norm?
but the alternative is to remove them and allow people go any speed they desire
No, that is not the only alternative. One viable alternative is to set a speed limit with an actual bearing in reality, not some urban utopian fantasy like the speed limits in NoVA.

This would absolutely create more harm than good to the public.

I'm definitely interested to see your supporting data on this.

So back to the topic at hand -

If you set the penalties such that acriminal knows that for any violent felony they face the prospect of either death, or the practical rest of their adult life in prison, after a few years of rounding up the hard core, "1 percenter" thugs, you're left with the petty criminals and periodically more serious ones.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Thundar wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
I see it the other way around: the background check at the FFL is a circumvention of the Constitution. Just my 2¢
If nobody broke the law and hurt people.... maybe we would not need these checks.

But time has proved that there are many bad people out there that will use guns toallow them to rob, rape, assault, and kill others.

The system is not fool proof. There are ways around it where you can get a gun when your not supposed to be able to. But the main point is that not everyone can get them and just do not have the connections.

When a bad guy commits a serious crime against someone... they are creating a victim andtaking away thatpersons rights to go about life unharmed. If the bad guy does not care about your rights... he should lose his.

The record check conducted does not prohibita law abiding citizen from obtaining a gun. It stops the known criminal or person temporarily prohibited from getting one. How else do we try to stop criminals from getting the tools they need?

We should look at something new that was added to the disqualification for purchase. Domestic assault, protective orders, and stalking.

I do not agree making something retroactive. That is just wrong! But these prohibitions were created because people in these situations are known to have obtained a gun and hurt their victim. I have seen this for myself first hand.
The basic premise of your argument is that it is o.k. to violate the Constitution in order to make us safer.

When the violations of of the Constitution do not fix the problem,your solution is further violation of the constitution.

How much of the Constitution do we trash in the name of safety?

What do you suggest be done? Easy to critique... Not so easy to come up with a valid solution.

Speed limit signs do not work either... but the alternative is to remove them and allow people go any speed they desire. This would absolutely create more harm than good to the public.


I suggest that we live by our Constitution.

My recommendation:

- Shut down BATFE.

- Eliminate federal gun legislation.

- Eliminate Federal Background checks.

- Live Free or Die.

Will we ever get to my recommendation? I pray that we will but I don't thinkthatthe two major political parties (with the exception of Ron Paul and a few other patriots)have thediscipline toexercise only enumerated powers.

In the meantimeI will fight the good fight to preserve those rights that haven't been stripped from me by an overbearing government. The 2nd Amendment is the Palladium of our Rights. Once we lose it we will not get it back.

Don't get me wrong, I love my country, but I have an inherent distrust of a Federal Government that assumes powers not enumerated by the constitution.


You said "the system is not perfect", I was just waiting for the "but if it saves only one life it will be worth it." It is a false premise perpetrated by Handgun Control, Inc.and their ilk that if we tweak theabrogation of rightswe will be better off.

Yourpremise is that the denial of our rights is o.k. because those that make and enforce the law want to make us safer, after all guns in the hands of regular people is just so dangerous.

Driving is a privilege, bearing arms is a right. There is a distinct difference.

Please, if you must propose one more law to fix the system, examine the totality of the gun control system that hasbeen foisted upon us. Ask Danbus, Chet, the Tony 7 or Thorsmitersaw if more gun control is the answer.
 

Scout

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
38
Location
Culpeper, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Thundar wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
I see it the other way around: the background check at the FFL is a circumvention of the Constitution. Just my 2¢
If nobody broke the law and hurt people.... maybe we would not need these checks.

But time has proved that there are many bad people out there that will use guns toallow them to rob, rape, assault, and kill others.

The system is not fool proof. There are ways around it where you can get a gun when your not supposed to be able to. But the main point is that not everyone can get them and just do not have the connections.

When a bad guy commits a serious crime against someone... they are creating a victim andtaking away thatpersons rights to go about life unharmed. If the bad guy does not care about your rights... he should lose his.

The record check conducted does not prohibita law abiding citizen from obtaining a gun. It stops the known criminal or person temporarily prohibited from getting one. How else do we try to stop criminals from getting the tools they need?

We should look at something new that was added to the disqualification for purchase. Domestic assault, protective orders, and stalking.

I do not agree making something retroactive. That is just wrong! But these prohibitions were created because people in these situations are known to have obtained a gun and hurt their victim. I have seen this for myself first hand.
The basic premise of your argument is that it is o.k. to violate the Constitution in order to make us safer.

When the violations of of the Constitution do not fix the problem,your solution is further violation of the constitution.

How much of the Constitution do we trash in the name of safety?

What do you suggest be done? Easy to critique... Not so easy to come up with a valid solution.

Speed limit signs do not work either... but the alternative is to remove them and allow people go any speed they desire. This would absolutely create more harm than good to the public.


Except there is one basic fundimental difference. In one case you are saying that if you do X, then you are wrong and shall be punished. In the other case you are saying that we need to prevent you from doing Y hoping that somehow that will keep you from doing X which is wrong.



The issue is you are attempting to stop a crime by reemption and that simply does not and never has worked. You basically treat everyone like a potential criminal in the vain hope that somehow, by some means, you might actually do something about crime. Instead criminals simply use other means or other sources and nothing changes except that a lot of people are put to a lot of bother for nothing. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals than fix the :cuss:justice sytem and keep their :cuss:in jail. If you can't trust them with guns, then why do you trust them enough to release them from jail?????????
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Scout wrote:
Except there is one basic fundimental difference. In one case you are saying that if you do X, then you are wrong and shall be punished. In the other case you are saying that we need to prevent you from doing Y hoping that somehow that will keep you from doing X which is wrong.



The issue is you are attempting to stop a crime by reemption and that simply does not and never has worked. You basically treat everyone like a potential criminal in the vain hope that somehow, by some means, you might actually do something about crime. Instead criminals simply use other means or other sources and nothing changes except that a lot of people are put to a lot of bother for nothing. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals than fix the :cuss:justice sytem and keep their :cuss:in jail. If you can't trust them with guns, then why do you trust them enough to release them from jail?????????
Hey.. I believe we let criminals out too soon but they need space for the new guy.
 

PavePusher

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,096
Location
Tucson, Arizona, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Scout wrote:
Except there is one basic fundimental difference. In one case you are saying that if you do X, then you are wrong and shall be punished. In the other case you are saying that we need to prevent you from doing Y hoping that somehow that will keep you from doing X which is wrong.



The issue is you are attempting to stop a crime by reemption and that simply does not and never has worked. You basically treat everyone like a potential criminal in the vain hope that somehow, by some means, you might actually do something about crime. Instead criminals simply use other means or other sources and nothing changes except that a lot of people are put to a lot of bother for nothing. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals than fix the :cuss:justice sytem and keep their :cuss:in jail. If you can't trust them with guns, then why do you trust them enough to release them from jail?????????
Hey.. I believe we let criminals out too soon but they need space for the new guy.


Here's where we take a page from Sherrif Arpaio's rule book. Pick a flatish spot out in the desert (or swamp, etc.). Put up army surplus tents and bunk beds. A/C or heatoptional, but discouraged unless environmental conditions warrent it, and then only enough for life support, not comfort. Surround said tents withwire fencesand razor wire. Plant high-density field of anti-personnel mines, 100 meter width. A couple more fences to protect the public/wildlife. Provide access to large piles of large rocks, with instructions to turn into largepiles of small rocks. If it's good enough for U.S. military members (with minor detail changes), it's good enough for criminals. And the crims will have the bonus of not being shot at unless they misbehave some more. I would differ slightly from Sherrif Joe in the diet dept. (no green balogna) but rice, beans, green veggies, fruit, water and milk,etc.provide the basis of a nutritious diet. No ice cream, sweets, coffee, tea, etc. Make educational classes/therapy/rehabilitation available aftera nine hour work day. No gyms, just pull-up bars and adirt running track. No T.V. except a few news channels. No internet. One phone call per week, 15 minute duration. Visitors only beforeor after work shifts. Easy and inexpensive to make more space for the new guys.

Also, fix the silly gun and drug laws that have people being thrown in jail forhaving a few joints or hits for personnel consumption (or just legalize and regulate like booze) or oh, forgetting to take a magazine out of their pocket, and you should clear out a bit of space.:X

I'm sure it's not all quite that simplistic, but it's probably a heck of a lot simpler than a lot of people (especially politicians and civil servant types) make out.
 

Scout

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
38
Location
Culpeper, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Scout wrote:
Except there is one basic fundimental difference. In one case you are saying that if you do X, then you are wrong and shall be punished. In the other case you are saying that we need to prevent you from doing Y hoping that somehow that will keep you from doing X which is wrong.



The issue is you are attempting to stop a crime by reemption and that simply does not and never has worked. You basically treat everyone like a potential criminal in the vain hope that somehow, by some means, you might actually do something about crime. Instead criminals simply use other means or other sources and nothing changes except that a lot of people are put to a lot of bother for nothing. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals than fix the :cuss:justice sytem and keep their :cuss:in jail. If you can't trust them with guns, then why do you trust them enough to release them from jail?????????
Hey.. I believe we let criminals out too soon but they need space for the new guy.

No, offense, but I think we can ALWAYS find room. If the navy can sleep 75 men in a room 30x60 then I think we can find a way to house prisoners in as little space. If they find that too objectional then stick up a stockade set up some tents and let them enjoy the great outdoors. After all, prison isn't suppose to be pleasant.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Scout wrote:
No, offense, but I think we can ALWAYS find room. If the navy can sleep 75 men in a room 30x60 then I think we can find a way to house prisoners in as little space. If they find that too objectional then stick up a stockade set up some tents and let them enjoy the great outdoors. After all, prison isn't suppose to be pleasant.
I can still agree... But there are some people that believe a man that does not have enough living space is crule and unusual punishment.
 

Scout

Regular Member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
38
Location
Culpeper, Virginia, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Scout wrote:
No, offense, but I think we can ALWAYS find room. If the navy can sleep 75 men in a room 30x60 then I think we can find a way to house prisoners in as little space. If they find that too objectional then stick up a stockade set up some tents and let them enjoy the great outdoors. After all, prison isn't suppose to be pleasant.
I can still agree... But there are some people that believe a man that does not have enough living space is crule and unusual punishment.
If it's standard practice then no one can complain it's unusual. :D
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Scout wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Scout wrote:
No, offense, but I think we can ALWAYS find room. If the navy can sleep 75 men in a room 30x60 then I think we can find a way to house prisoners in as little space. If they find that too objectional then stick up a stockade set up some tents and let them enjoy the great outdoors. After all, prison isn't suppose to be pleasant.
I can still agree... But there are some people that believe a man that does not have enough living space is crule and unusual punishment.
If it's standard practice then no one can complain it's unusual. :D
Hey... I say those in jail for life should be in their cell 24 hours a day! Why do they need tolearn a trade in jail. Working out and watching cable... please!!

We could go on but we will be straying from the topic of this thread.
 

Mr. Y

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
485
Location
Super Secret Squirrel Bunker, Virginia, USA
imported post

No, offense, but I think we can ALWAYS find room. If the navy can sleep 75 men in a room 30x60 then I think we can find a way to house prisoners in as little space
Dude... you can't do THAT to prisoners:celebrate

Besides... The ARMY can fit that many guys in a pair of2.5 ton trucks.
 

sjhipple

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
1,491
Location
Concord, New Hampshire, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Personally.. I would NEVER sell to someone I did not know personally and would have to check the record of those I do not know.

I would really hate to know that I sold a gun to a "bag guy."
Do you take the same precautions when selling used getaway cars to possible criminals? What about when selling your home? Or are guns the only thing for which you take these precautions...it's personal preference I guess.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Tomahawk wrote:
I see it the other way around: the background check at the FFL is a circumvention of the Constitution. Just my 2¢
If nobody broke the law and hurt people.... maybe we would not need these checks.

But time has proved that there are many bad people out there that will use guns toallow them to rob, rape, assault, and kill others.

And there are many governments out there that use laws to disarm people to allow them to rob, rape, and murder their own citizens, often en masse.

The United States is not squeaky clean in this regard, as Native Americans, former slaves, and residents of certain Southern towns in the 1860s would have attested. More recently, survivors of places like Waco would also be able to bear witness. Every government in history has been guilty of violating the basic rights of its citizens; even local governments find ways to cheat you out of money or take your land, or set up speed traps.

The fact, LEO229, is that governments, especially those without limits on what laws they can pass, can cause far more damage to a person's life, liberty, or property than any run-of-the-mill street thug. Most people can deal with a mugger, if they think ahead, and when the mugger has run away he's gone. Out-of-control government crawls into every aspect of your life and you cannot run away or fight back once its too late.

That's why the Founders wrote the Bill of Rights, and put the 2nd Ammendment into it. They understood that limits have to be set against those who mean to rule us, and those limits have to be strictly enforced.

So a background check for buying a gun is unconstitutional, and is a fine example of the government breaking the law that created it, plain and simple.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

ama-gi wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Personally.. I would NEVER sell to someone I did not know personally and would have to check the record of those I do not know.

I would really hate to know that I sold a gun to a "bag guy."
Do you take the same precautions when selling used getaway cars to possible criminals? What about when selling your home? Or are guns the only thing for which you take these precautions...it's personal preference I guess.

I do not sell used getaway cars.

I have never sold my home.

But in selling my own carI have sold it toCarmax, a co-worker, andtrusted neighbors.

In selling my house I have little choice unless there are a ton of buyers at the door.

In either case...

My car could be used to run people down or also used as the getaway vehicle in a crime. But the clothing they wear and the ski mask and gloves they use are also part of the crime. We are not controlling those items.

The chance my house will be used to kill someone is pretty slim. I guess they can use the garage door to crush someones neck if they disable the sensors. :lol:
 
Top