kimbercarrier
Campaign Veteran
I saw this on Foxnews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...r-gun-sale-background-checks/?test=latestnews
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...r-gun-sale-background-checks/?test=latestnews
-
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.
-
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 proposes tighter background checks.
- Thread starter kimbercarrier
- Start date
SFCRetired
Regular Member
He don't know us very well, do he?
Why do people not realize that all tightened laws will mean is that the black market in stolen firearms will skyrocket. A person, like the Tucson shooter, who is bent on destroying will accomplish their purpose with either stolen firearms, edged weapons, or clubs.
Far better would be, as we are trying to do, to create an armed, polite, self-policing society in which the criminal and, unfortunately, the mentally unbalanced would not be able to carry out their violence.
I say "unfortunately" in the case of the mentally unbalanced because these are people who need treatment. In too many cases, they do not get it or they get ineffective treatment.
Why do people not realize that all tightened laws will mean is that the black market in stolen firearms will skyrocket. A person, like the Tucson shooter, who is bent on destroying will accomplish their purpose with either stolen firearms, edged weapons, or clubs.
Far better would be, as we are trying to do, to create an armed, polite, self-policing society in which the criminal and, unfortunately, the mentally unbalanced would not be able to carry out their violence.
I say "unfortunately" in the case of the mentally unbalanced because these are people who need treatment. In too many cases, they do not get it or they get ineffective treatment.
kimbercarrier
Campaign Veteran
Too bad there aren't tighter background checks to become President...
I'll second that!
Obama said he's "willing to bet" that responsible gun owners would support laws to "keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few -- dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example -- from getting their hands on" guns.
Sorry Prez, you're not speaking for me. Do a better job of enforcing what's already on the books before you come asking for my support on more intrusive measures.
Sorry Prez, you're not speaking for me. Do a better job of enforcing what's already on the books before you come asking for my support on more intrusive measures.
Aknazer
Regular Member
He is speaking for you. See he already has laws on the books to "keep an irresponisble, law-breaking few" from getting guns. He just needs to learn to properly enforce them.
eye95
Well-known member
Too bad there aren't tighter background checks to become President...
Fourth.
Someone needs to say this to his face the next time he wants our backgrounds checked!
President Obama, you do not speak for me. Not even close. I do oppose background checks that are any more intrusive and obstructive than we have now or that require individual citizens (not dealers) go through a bureaucratic hassle to sell a firearm to someone who has given no reason to believe that they are prohibited by law from possessing.
I believe, sir, that I have more common sense in my pinky than you and your ilk have in your whole being.
Felid`Maximus
Activist Member
Or fertilizer and trucks.
Last edited:
since9
Campaign Veteran
How ironic: I'm watching the Angels and Monsters segment of Heroes (season 3, ep 5)
No. Perhaps one of the worst sins any elected representative or president could commit.
Time to get touch with us, Mr. President! Please start by reading these threads.
Thanks.
It's what's called the "false sense of security." Here's how it works: Person A exhausts any and all possible means, from A to X by which someone could hurt them, while Person B, the perp, figures out way Q, S, or Z, and it's game over.
Most criminals fall somewhere between A and X, but a few hit upon Z, and the really good ones go on to masterminded ZM schemes. The few that hit upon those who're discovered, recruited, and trained by foreign governments, armed with databases armed with A-Z schemes, go on to become operatives capable of coming up with ZTSFG schemes without going through all the iterations between.
It's called a "false sense of security," and most politicians are between stage A (totally naieve) and stage D (they know some of the threats, have taken some measures, including personal security, including either armed guards or arming themselves).
Years ago I worked as a manufacturing engineering in the security electronics. Our products protected some of the best-known high-security facilities in our country. I learned a few things from the field guys, but nothing like what they knew. What I did learn is this: "If there's a way to protect it, there's a way to break it." Another motto they held was "we can circumvent anything the engineers come up with," and after implementing a three-day competition to that effect, hoping to help the other engineers come up with better ideas, I was instead on the out for a while, as the field techs put them all to shame.
My point is somewhat veiled, but I'll make it rather simple: If whatever powers (actual powers, not the incompetants) that be wanted to take out either any one, or any system, overtly, they've have absolutely no problem doing so. I worked (and will always side with) the U.S. side of the fence, so I know our protective measures are among the very best. Perhaps not THE best, but up there.
Without 2A rights with respect to personal amarment so as to directly respond to whatever threat we might face, and appropriate escalations, we citizens might actually be at risk!
I have absolutely no objections to the U.S. Secret Service employing MAC-10s, Uzis, 50 cals, hand grenades, LAWs, or whatever in order to protect the President, and in fact, I'm as supportive of their efforts to use that advanced firepower as I am in support of my efforts to be able to use sufficient firepower to counter my own local threats. The Secret Service assesses the threats, they transport the appropriate firepower, and more importantly, the training and the methodology of their actions to counter those threats.
A person, like the Tucson shooter, who is bent on destroying will accomplish their purpose with either stolen firearms, edged weapons, or clubs.
Hell, with bare hands there are perhaps a million humans in the U.S. who could dispatch any Congressperson in the country half a second after a handshake.
Why isn't this done? Because we are Patriots! We believe in our country. Those of us who've gone through any sort of military service have received some background checks, and those of us who've gone through more have received more.
Personally, I believe the military leaves me alone is because despite the fact I'm no longer on an active payroll, I'm still espousing the virtues of the military as a whole. If I weed out a few bad apples in the process, they may be mighty incensed, so I simply talk about the same ideals we were all given back in the days of my great-grandfather's history class, my grandpa's, father's, and mine civics classes, and mine and my ancestors time serving the U.S. Military.
Back to proposing "tighter background checks," I concur Obama should be at the forefront. HALF of America has either served in the military or been directly related to members of the military. Our country is BONDED by such family ties.
Obama's family knows no such ties. Sorry, Obama - not your fault. It's the fault of the "give me my share" idiots who voted you into office.
Well, we had that well before 1776. Unfortunately, well-meaning but otherwise mentally inept folks who were allowed, often by popular vote, to rise to positions of authority wherein they enacted laws infringing on our Founder's Second Amendment "shall not be infringed" clause have indeed infringed upon the utmost principle of personal security: "I will not be a victim. I am not a target. I will fight back with anything and everything within my power and being to ensure that whoever, and whatever forces attempt to undermine my rights, from governmental down to personal, will be dealt with in an appropriate manner of response."
Gees! Did I just write that? Someone please extend the signature characture limit so I can include that as my signature.
I say "unfortunately" in the case of the mentally unbalanced because these are people who need treatment. In too many cases, they do not get it or they get ineffective treatment.[/QUOTE]
No. Perhaps one of the worst sins any elected representative or president could commit.
Time to get touch with us, Mr. President! Please start by reading these threads.
Thanks.
It's what's called the "false sense of security." Here's how it works: Person A exhausts any and all possible means, from A to X by which someone could hurt them, while Person B, the perp, figures out way Q, S, or Z, and it's game over.
Most criminals fall somewhere between A and X, but a few hit upon Z, and the really good ones go on to masterminded ZM schemes. The few that hit upon those who're discovered, recruited, and trained by foreign governments, armed with databases armed with A-Z schemes, go on to become operatives capable of coming up with ZTSFG schemes without going through all the iterations between.
It's called a "false sense of security," and most politicians are between stage A (totally naieve) and stage D (they know some of the threats, have taken some measures, including personal security, including either armed guards or arming themselves).
Years ago I worked as a manufacturing engineering in the security electronics. Our products protected some of the best-known high-security facilities in our country. I learned a few things from the field guys, but nothing like what they knew. What I did learn is this: "If there's a way to protect it, there's a way to break it." Another motto they held was "we can circumvent anything the engineers come up with," and after implementing a three-day competition to that effect, hoping to help the other engineers come up with better ideas, I was instead on the out for a while, as the field techs put them all to shame.
My point is somewhat veiled, but I'll make it rather simple: If whatever powers (actual powers, not the incompetants) that be wanted to take out either any one, or any system, overtly, they've have absolutely no problem doing so. I worked (and will always side with) the U.S. side of the fence, so I know our protective measures are among the very best. Perhaps not THE best, but up there.
Without 2A rights with respect to personal amarment so as to directly respond to whatever threat we might face, and appropriate escalations, we citizens might actually be at risk!
I have absolutely no objections to the U.S. Secret Service employing MAC-10s, Uzis, 50 cals, hand grenades, LAWs, or whatever in order to protect the President, and in fact, I'm as supportive of their efforts to use that advanced firepower as I am in support of my efforts to be able to use sufficient firepower to counter my own local threats. The Secret Service assesses the threats, they transport the appropriate firepower, and more importantly, the training and the methodology of their actions to counter those threats.
A person, like the Tucson shooter, who is bent on destroying will accomplish their purpose with either stolen firearms, edged weapons, or clubs.
Hell, with bare hands there are perhaps a million humans in the U.S. who could dispatch any Congressperson in the country half a second after a handshake.
Why isn't this done? Because we are Patriots! We believe in our country. Those of us who've gone through any sort of military service have received some background checks, and those of us who've gone through more have received more.
Personally, I believe the military leaves me alone is because despite the fact I'm no longer on an active payroll, I'm still espousing the virtues of the military as a whole. If I weed out a few bad apples in the process, they may be mighty incensed, so I simply talk about the same ideals we were all given back in the days of my great-grandfather's history class, my grandpa's, father's, and mine civics classes, and mine and my ancestors time serving the U.S. Military.
Back to proposing "tighter background checks," I concur Obama should be at the forefront. HALF of America has either served in the military or been directly related to members of the military. Our country is BONDED by such family ties.
Obama's family knows no such ties. Sorry, Obama - not your fault. It's the fault of the "give me my share" idiots who voted you into office.
Well, we had that well before 1776. Unfortunately, well-meaning but otherwise mentally inept folks who were allowed, often by popular vote, to rise to positions of authority wherein they enacted laws infringing on our Founder's Second Amendment "shall not be infringed" clause have indeed infringed upon the utmost principle of personal security: "I will not be a victim. I am not a target. I will fight back with anything and everything within my power and being to ensure that whoever, and whatever forces attempt to undermine my rights, from governmental down to personal, will be dealt with in an appropriate manner of response."
Gees! Did I just write that? Someone please extend the signature characture limit so I can include that as my signature.
I say "unfortunately" in the case of the mentally unbalanced because these are people who need treatment. In too many cases, they do not get it or they get ineffective treatment.[/QUOTE]
since9
Campaign Veteran
I concur, eye95. I've had my background checked six ways to Sunday. Come to think of it, it went to around when I was fifteen. Talk about a lifetime of introspection! Didn't give it a thought at the time it began. I asked my Dad, who'd retired at an O-6, and he'd gone through the same.
With all due respect, eye95, I don't think Obama's security background has gone a day past that of either of us.
KansasMustang
Regular Member
I'm quite certain that nObama's security check didn't go as deep as mine. Like Since9 mine was checked not only throughout my HS years but all my hometown neighbors and my local neighbors. And this man has the ability to conduct Global Thermal Nuclear war. No sir, I will not have any more background checks imposed on me.
If the people that knew that cretin in Arizona like his college professors had done their jobs and alerted the authorities to his instability they may have prevented his buying a gun. I mean,,all you have to do is take one look at the guy and you could see he's deranged.
If the people that knew that cretin in Arizona like his college professors had done their jobs and alerted the authorities to his instability they may have prevented his buying a gun. I mean,,all you have to do is take one look at the guy and you could see he's deranged.
In a Sunday op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star, President Barack Obama called for a three-pronged approach: enforcing the laws already on the books, including the National Instant Criminal Background Check System; pushing for greater state-to-state coordination; and expediting background checks and the release of relevant data.
I don't see anything in that statement I would have a problem with.
I don't see anything in that statement I would have a problem with.
Aknazer
Regular Member
Having a simple background check is fine. And by simple I mean a near instant check that ONLY looks at if you have anything in your record to make you ineligible (such as felonies, mental instability, etc). Depending on how it was done I wouldn't even be against the system tracking gun buys in a 6month timeframe. It shouldn't directly affect your ability to buy weapons and would be used to better help sellers/authorities identify strawman buyers (oh look, you've bought 5 guns per store from 5 different stores over 10 days...yea that doesn't look shady at all). But pretty much anything more than what is required to prevent a reasonible amount of arms from getting into the hands of criminals is too much. At that point it becomes a burden on the citizen for very little net effect.
He also mentioned adding "common sense" laws. Now he didn't specify just what those are, but generally what a lot of people view as "common sense" for gun control is just plain bad. It could just be him pandering to the gun control people, but it doesn't sound good to gun rights people.
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
Too bad there aren't tighter background checks to become President...
I agree, we should at least require Presidents to present proof of Citizenship... I mean, look what happens when we don't....
[/sarcasm]
since9
Campaign Veteran
Really? Wait until his second term. I'd rather you simply vote against him, so we don't have to find out the hard way.
Why is it recently added members with low post counts are most apt to support violations of our Constitutional rights?
We already have a "common sense" law which covers the entire gamut: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
We don't need more laws. What we need are politicians, judges, and police departments willing to follow the one we have.
Now you're talking!
No, it doesn't. Sounds to me like what someone else said about sticking his toe into the waters.
Last edited:
Aknazer
Regular Member
And just how is having a short term tracking system a violation of your rights? As I said, it wouldn't stop you from being able to make a purchase, but it would allow LE to identify potential strawman purchases. It would in no way infringe on your ability to keep and bear arms. Also just what does my post count have to do with anything?
Once again, tracking how many guns were purchased over a short time in no way infringes on your ability to keep and bear arms. It simply makes it easier for LE to identify people performing illegal actions.
Very true.
Personally I think that people should be able to buy ANY firearm they want (including machine guns and certain destructive devices). But I also think that LE needs the proper tools to be able to help keep weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Now finding that right amount of legislation to help LE w/o jepordizing citizens rights is very tricky because it starts the "slippery slope" of regulation (I could further outline potential ideas if you so cared). I also understand that where I would like our country to be compared to where it's at currently isn't going to happen overnight. Which is why I would be potentially willing to support legislation that "regulates" so long as it helps to return 2A rights.
An example would be in Oklahoma it's illegal to OC, but there has been legislation suggested to allow people with a CC license to be able to OC. Obviously I would prefer anybody to be able to OC who is legally allowed to have a gun, but I realize that might not be a realistic first step compared to where the state is currently. So allowing CCers to OC will help break down the OC stigma, which will hopefully strengthen a future push for state constitutional carry (assuming Congress doesn't inact constitutional carry first). But it's all about those smaller steps and getting the public back onto our side. Because like it or not, without public support we're likely not going to get back what was taken from us.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Yes it does, and rights violations occur even when it's expressly against the law. Here in Colorado, state law expressly prohibits county sheriffs from sharing CHP information with state police. Yet about two-thirds do so anyway.
When the law actually allows for such things, the slope gets too slippery, and too steep for my taste.
KansasMustang
Regular Member
I just don't recall having read anything in the Constitution that says one word about background checks. Maybe it's just me but,,,
Thinkin' it was a wise man (Benjamin Franklin) that said words to the affect ,,,those that give up liberty for security will soon have neither. Sorry,,but I'm too lazy right now to get the direct quote.
As Since9 stated your low post count makes us that have been on here quite a while look at you with a jaded eye. There have been quite a few lately that come on this forum saying "Oh it's okay if we let the Feds do this lil thing, it won't take away our Liberty" or it's okay if we allow one more minute inconvenience into our Liberty. And that's Progressive. Chip away at Liberty...because of folks like you that say,,oh it's okay... And soon we'll turn around and look,,thru the triple strand concertina of the "reeducation camps" and wonder,,,where did Liberty go? For me sir,,it's give me Liberty,,or give me death. Dang,,now where have I heard that before?
Last edited:
SouthernBoy
Regular Member
We do require this via a certain document; the Constitution. Unfortunately, as with so many other things, this document has been ignored, perverted, corrupted, interpreted, and disdained by so many over the years that this simple requirement for president has become just so much drivel. And we see the results of ignoring that which was passed on to us. It sits in the white house with contempt for the very documents which founded this nation.