US Government wants to take firearms away by force!

Post Reply New Topic

There is a middle ground. Ten years ago the NRA was for background checks! They do not violate a law abiding citizen's right to bear arms. They only prevent psychos and criminals from obtaining guns.
Even the NRA membership is for background checks. However, the NRA is controlled by the gun manufacturers. I guess if criminals and psychos are prevented from buying guns that would cut into sales!

I'll bundle a few together to save space.

So show me how gun control keeps crazy people from obtaining firearms or other deadly weapons.
Then tell me what is the next step when it fails, and it will fail, to protect the flock.
I’ll answer it for you; more gun control which will fail and so on…….


I’m not even going to go look up what the NRA was for 10 years ago because nothing would surprise me. NRA to real pro-gun people stands for Negotiate Rights Away. The NRA has a track record of compromise and flat out advocating gun control in some form for at least 50 years and probably a lot longer. They’ve actually been a little better behaved in my time.
I belong to the NRA for two reasons:
1. It’s required for my NRA certified Range Safety Officer rating which I need to continue to be a volunteer range officer which I need so I can have a place to shoot whenever I want to go shooting.
2. It’s still the biggest and most powerful gun lobby in the Unites States. Sort of like the republican party; I don’t agree with everything they do or stand for but I’d rather align myself with them than the democrats.


They prevent nothing. I’ve been through several NICS checks and filled out an equal number of 4473’s and there’s nothing there to prevent anything other than someone with a known criminal record or on some “list” that NICS has visibility to.
Even if they flunk the NICS there are other ways to obtain firearms.

You’re saying that background checks prevents psychos and criminals from getting guns is like saying our decades old “war on drugs” prevents druggies from getting their dope.
Don’t make me laugh.

So you are saying that meth and heroin should be legal? If your point is that if making something illegal (such as psychos getting guns or people being able to obtain meth and heroin ) does not completely eliminate the problem the effort should not have been made in the first place,then it follows that there should be no laws at all. The law against speeding should be eliminated according to your logic. After all some people still speed!

Technically, an assault rifle is only really more useful than a manually operated firearm if fighting against others with similar weapons in a military environment, i.e., superiority of fire and maneuver. You put out a lot of [accurate] lead to keep the enemy pinned whilst your buddies move on the enemy relatively safely.

It doesn't matter what you use when gunning down unarmed people as long as you can put out a round every few seconds and hit with it.

Makes sense.

Most people will drive safely no matter the laws, whereas some won't no matter the laws.

Mentioned drugs should be legal, of course; most people know that one should use them only for the required affliction, as they're unsuited for recreation. Some people misuse them, no matter the laws.

You know, people are free to buy fire starting tools, but you don't see most people misusing them, just the few who do. Why make it harder for most people when the few that misuse them will find a way anyway?

Everyone should have the ability, or no one should.

I'd just as soon they did make it legal. Whatever little good the war on drugs has brought is not worth all the expense, prison space, and innocent lives ruined over it.
If someone is dumb enough to use meth or smack then sell them all they want.
They are going to ruin their lives somehow and I'm not willing to hold their hand through life to keep them on the straight and narrow.


My point is that we spend too much time and money chasing our tails and it's of little avail.
The effort and cost don't justify the results.

So show me how gun control keeps crazy people from obtaining firearms or other deadly weapons.
Then tell me what is the next step when it fails, and it will fail, to protect the flock.
I’ll answer it for you; more gun control which will fail and so on…….

How am I supposed to prove how insane people and criminals have been prevented from possessing guns when it has been stopped from happening?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

That might be true, although I might suggest that there is a lack of evidence to support your claims.

I would argue that the size of the groups you call "some" and "must" are not constant. Some people are affected by laws when they make decisions about risks. New Hampshire has no seatbelt legislation, and is constantly in the 3 states with lowest seatbelt usage. Cars regularly slow down simply because the speed limit has dropped or they are aware of police cars. There are people who would take drugs, but fear the legal consequences (although this probably doesn't stretch to meth or heroin very much).

I meant what is the actual result of background checks on reducing crime, not the theoretical reduction of crime.

Not necessarily. Generalizations like that tend not to be correct. I approve background checks for people who want to purchace such weapons to prevent people with criminal records from getting them, but I don't want to ban gun ownership entirely. The thing is, the issue is not that simple or black and white; there are some grey areas to consider.

Tsk, tsk. While everyone was arguing, the Government *literally* took firearms away by Force:

I assume legal gun dealers aren't going to sell weapons to customers if the background check says there is something in their pasts.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

As long as they aren’t assault rifles , eh?




Dealers won’t cut corners but dealers aren’t the only source.
NICS does not cover everything. It only covers what is on record. Not all crazy people have been diagnose and are on record and not all criminals are caught and prosecuted.

Background checks have been in effect for several years and are grudgingly accepted but they are not even close to a catch-all. It is more of a feel-good measure than anything.

The majority of gun sales or trades around here are done by individuals to individuals,I'm don't think there is any way to regulate that unless the government was right up someone's ***.
Better mental health care would go a long way to prevent firearm deaths.
If these shooters that randomly kill had got help, then they never would have picked up that gun.

The world is not that black and white.