Scheduled Instant Check Outage 9/2 - 9/6

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by XD45

how many of us will still beable to buy guns after the update? wonder what kinda info they are putting in there....

I highly doubt that it's anything that's not already a disqualifying condition, but that's no reason to trust them IMHO. It's probably mental health records or something to that effect.

[Murf_The_Surf]

Originally Posted by Montanya

Yeah I think the interviews thing is bad.... they are loading additional data into the system to make the checks better. I don't think I have found 1 gun rights advocate that is against what they are doing, just the length of time and time of year they are taking to do it.

I personally am against what they are doing.

Background checks constitute a prior restraint. I disagree with the whole system. If someone can't be trusted with a gun, they shouldn't be on the street. Period.

If someone has committed a serious offense and if they are susposedly rehabilitated and have paid whatever debts they owe to society and they are now free on the street, they should have their rights restored. After all, don't we typically argue that gun control doesn't work because criminals can get guns anyway?

The problem with instant check is that the list of prohibiting offenses will continue to be expanded each time a new poster child goes on a shooting spree.

Right now VA Tech is the poster and the big deal is tightening the standards for mental health checks. How long before that leads to barring everyone who takes anti-depressants, especially since many high profile shooters have been on anti-depressants? The expansions and "enhancements" of the prohibited list will never end.

Don't forget that firearms disablement is a total gun ban for everyone on the list.

Eventually the people who can legally purchase and own firearms will be whittled down until the percentage of the population owning guns is small enough that it will be politically feasible for wholesale bans to be enacted.

I personally do not want to see instant check updated, expanded and enhanced; I want to see it abolished. Brady supports it for good reason: it's the means by which eventual total civilian disarmament can be achieved.

[ithinkimamedic]

http://www.centredaily.com/news/brea...ry/188741.html

The suit has been filed

[D-FENS]

Originally Posted by ithinkimamedic

http://www.centredaily.com/news/brea...ry/188741.html

The suit has been filed

bum link for me

This worked,

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/189207.html

+1 Murf the Smurf - very well said and right on.

[KeithPA]

Right on Murf. Get tuff on crime is making alot of people felons who wouldn't have been years ago. There was a good thread over on THR

Think we should keep felons from owning guns? Texas has 2,324 types of felony

A guy looked at all the felonies possible in Texas. 11 of them have to do with Oysters.

It got locked cause it drifted but you get the idea. In highschool they raised the minimum grade to pass a class when compared to many other schools. This didn't really raise standards, it just made more fail.

The new pics probably has a section for gun rights activists. We'll all get denied.

[ham385]

Originally Posted by TheBuckslayer

Are you Hilary's campaign manager?

You have got to be shitting me. So they interview a co-worker that doesn't like you and you are denied? How about a relative that you are not close with? This is the kind of gun control the brady campaign would love to be put in place to prevent legal law abiding citizens from obtaining a gun.

OK, maybe you guys need to educate me a little more about why there is no middle of the road on this issue because currently I am in the middle. So what you are saying is that because it's a constitutional right, no one should be denied. So we restore Felons' right to own a gun? I don't think anyone would agree with that except the felons. How about taking a different approach and being proactive instead of reactive. Why should we wait for them to victimize someone?? Some people shouldn't have access to guns. Case in point - the VT nutbag, he wasn't a felon, but anyone who knew him was afraid. A straw man argument about interviewing an ex, or a relative you had a falling out with years ago doesn't change my position. How about giving me a real world argument where, when common sense is applied by the interviewing authority, and oversight is in place, where this could possibly work against us.
I do get that chipping away at our rights is their strategy, but there will be a point of diminishing returns on that strategy. I'm saying, why not give them what they think they want, and help ourselves and society at the same time.
Educate me, please, because apparently I don't get it.

[XD45]

Originally Posted by ham385

So what you are saying is that because it's a constitutional right, no one should be denied. So we restore Felons' right to own a gun? I don't think anyone would agree with that except the felons.

Actually you'll find many people who agree with that, more than you'd think.

Originally Posted by ham385

How about taking a different approach and being proactive instead of reactive. Why should we wait for them to victimize someone?? Some people shouldn't have access to guns. Case in point - the VT nutbag, he wasn't a felon, but anyone who knew him was afraid. A straw man argument about interviewing an ex, or a relative you had a falling out with years ago doesn't change my position. How about giving me a real world argument where, when common sense is applied by the interviewing authority, and oversight is in place, where this could possibly work against us.

What about family members that are antigun? My family is about 98% anti gun besides me and my 2 cousins, if they where to call say my uncle and he says I dont think he needs a gun, not in a way he wants to be an asshole to me, but because in his mind he was thinking he could possibly be saving my life just because those are his views on guns I cant get one??? what if there is a coworker that had a grandfather hurt in a hunting accident, she is terrified of guns, and the thoughts you could be carrying it at work makes her cringe, So now I don't get a gun?? I could go on giving scenarios for hours, that is ridiculous to think that would be a good idea.

Originally Posted by ham385

I do get that chipping away at our rights is their strategy, but there will be a point of diminishing returns on that strategy. I'm saying, why not give them what they think they want, and help ourselves and society at the same time.
Educate me, please, because apparently I don't get it.

why dont we just all have the next group shoot at a gun melter and give them exactly what they went, oh don't forget your cigs, booze, cars that don't run on batteries, everything on TV that wasnt filmed in a church and a hundred other things

[ham385]

Originally Posted by XD45

Actually you'll find many people who agree with that, more than you'd think.

I can see merit to that if we were to throw away the key after they're locked up, but currently we don't, we just let them out to do it again.

Originally Posted by XD45

What about family members that are antigun? My family is about 98% anti gun besides me and my 2 cousins, if they where to call say my uncle and he says I dont think he needs a gun, not in a way he wants to be an asshole to me, but because in his mind he was thinking he could possibly be saving my life just because those are his views on guns I cant get one??? what if there is a coworker that had a grandfather hurt in a hunting accident, she is terrified of guns, and the thoughts you could be carrying it at work makes her cringe, So now I don't get a gun?? I could go on giving scenarios for hours, that is ridiculous to think that would be a good idea.

Maybe the issue here is that I am naive. I believe in the system, I just think it needs 'tweaking'. In my mind, an interviewing authority who applies common sense would see through both of those as antigun stances and not a case of a dangerous individual wanting to buy a gun.
Say I'm a 'radical' muslim (I only bring this up because it's an issue that faces our country today) I don't have any felonies, but I am active in anti american rallies, I argue with coworkers about 'the problem with you americans....' I'm known to the FBI to post on a Jihad website. There's nothing to stop me from legally purchasing all the weapons I want.
I'm saying an interview system THAT APPLIES COMMON SENSE with the proper checks and balances to prevent abuse that would benefit anti gun mentality would prevent this.

Originally Posted by XD45

why dont we just all have the next group shoot at a gun melter and give them exactly what they went, oh don't forget your cigs, booze, cars that don't run on batteries, everything on TV that wasnt filmed in a church and a hundred other things

I'm not antigun, just anti nutbag. I firmly believe that people kill people, guns have very little to do with it. Of the hundreds or thousands of ways to murder, maime, kill, guns just allow someone to do it from a distance and in a small package. VT boy could have very easily hopped in his ford broco and gone 4 wheeling in the quad with the same effect. The difference would be that the anti-4wheelers would have ammo now instead of the anti-gunners and pro-gunners could use that as a stellar example of how gun control does nothing to control violence. I apologize if this was tasteless, I don't mean to make light of what happened, nor do I mean to offend anyone who lost a loved one.
In short, there's no need to be condescending or rude. I'm just trying to understand why the overwhelming pro-gun stance is that everyone should be able to owns a firearm, regardless of their propensity for violence. Should a heroin addict be allowed to work as a nurse with narcotics, even if never convicted? Are you against drug screens for people working in this capacity? Should someone with serious mental issues be allowed to drive a school bus, even though they've never been convicted of anything? Are you against background clearance for people working with children? It's the same argument.

[Montanya]

Originally Posted by ham385

OK, maybe you guys need to educate me a little more about why there is no middle of the road on this issue because currently I am in the middle. So what you are saying is that because it's a constitutional right, no one should be denied. So we restore Felons' right to own a gun? I don't think anyone would agree with that except the felons. How about taking a different approach and being proactive instead of reactive. Why should we wait for them to victimize someone?? Some people shouldn't have access to guns. Case in point - the VT nutbag, he wasn't a felon, but anyone who knew him was afraid. A straw man argument about interviewing an ex, or a relative you had a falling out with years ago doesn't change my position. How about giving me a real world argument where, when common sense is applied by the interviewing authority, and oversight is in place, where this could possibly work against us.
I do get that chipping away at our rights is their strategy, but there will be a point of diminishing returns on that strategy. I'm saying, why not give them what they think they want, and help ourselves and society at the same time.
Educate me, please, because apparently I don't get it.

Wow...just wow. Well in interest of your general education, a felon has already SHOWN legally that he is willing to violate the law. Hence I don't think being locked in a jail with hundreds of other criminals "rehabilitiates" anyone. Sure, I think some people leave jail with the desire to not return and change their ways. Most, IMHO, do not.

Most people here I would believe are staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment. Also, it was so importation that the people who created the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Constitution, felt the need to include wording so clear as to state that the rights of our citizens to bear arms in protection of themselves and the state SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED. I truly put my right to keep and bear arms up there with "permitted to walk free".

People who are "anti's" like to "whittle" people down. Now that is not just anti-firearms, that is anti-anything that has a group of people against it. So they start by limiting people who can carry a concealed firearm, having to wait 3 weeks, provide 2 references and pay $25. Then they want to limit how many you can purchase in a 30 day period. What part of "Shall Not Be Questioned" is so hard to comprehend for our state lawmakers.

The whittling begins with smaller steps, eliminating certain groups, "oh this law won't effect hunters" so then the hunters shrug their shoulders and say "oh well", then the law passes. Then they outlaw certain capacity magazines, and for alot of firearm owners who don't use such magazines they shrug and say "oh well doesn't effect me" Then after they have divided out 2nd amendment rights groups down then comes the conquer. Slowly we lose more and more of our rights until we have none.

I do not believe in being a good little follower, I don't blindly believe that everything my government officials do is "for my own good". I am not an idiot, or an irresponsible adult, I don't require my federal or state officials to do things for my good that they do not consult me on.

In closing, no one says you can't be a moderate, at least you're not throwing out there "BAN GUNS" or anything crazy. I think if you go back and look at what our constitution as well as the US Constitution says and all the various times that the state has "questioned" our contstitution and created additional gun laws you will understand better why firearms advocates are quick to want to crush down additional gun laws, even if they only effect a small portion of gun owners.

I'm sure others will be posting responses for you as well, just wanted to add my 5c. (yeah it's a little wordy that's why the extra postage)

-Monty

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by ham385

OK, maybe you guys need to educate me a little more about why there is no middle of the road on this issue because currently I am in the middle. So what you are saying is that because it's a constitutional right, no one should be denied. So we restore Felons' right to own a gun? I don't think anyone would agree with that except the felons.

Not so fast....It might sound weird to say "Felons should have guns", but let's face it. If they want to use a gun to commit a crime, they're going to get one. A victim will not be any more dead simply because the gun was legally obtained. Simply being in possession of a gun does not make you more (or less) likely to commit a crime.

Originally Posted by ham385

How about taking a different approach and being proactive instead of reactive. Why should we wait for them to victimize someone?? Some people shouldn't have access to guns. Case in point - the VT nutbag, he wasn't a felon, but anyone who knew him was afraid. A straw man argument about interviewing an ex, or a relative you had a falling out with years ago doesn't change my position. How about giving me a real world argument where, when common sense is applied by the interviewing authority, and oversight is in place, where this could possibly work against us.

How about taking a different approach and being proactive instead of reactive. Why should we allow ourselves to be such easy targets for victimization?? More people should have access to guns. Case in point - the VT nutbag. He wasn't a felon, but anyone who knew him was afraid. It's a shame the citizen's already licensed by the state of VA were unable to be in a position to defend themselves from someone known to be a high risk.

We need to better educate the public and remove the stigma attached to being willing and ready to defend ourselves. We need legislation that strongly supports our right to defend ourselves and our families without having to retreat first and then fearing the repercussions after. When a threat presents itself, it should be dealt with, not fled from. It's about time that the BGs are the ones afraid, not the general population.

Originally Posted by ham385

I do get that chipping away at our rights is their strategy, but there will be a point of diminishing returns on that strategy. I'm saying, why not give them what they think they want, and help ourselves and society at the same time.
Educate me, please, because apparently I don't get it.

I honestly don't believe that 'diminishing returns' would matter one bit. They're spending our money, and using it to continue to take our rights away. Short of a literal armed uprising that was successful and took power out of their hands, some of them would never stop. Though I disagree completely with their agenda, their perseverance is admirable. That's why it's so important that those of us on the other side of this issue show the same determination and resolve.

I'm tired of hearing about 'helping society'. If I help myself and my family, and everyone else does likewise, society will take care of itself. If others are too lazy to do what it takes, I'm not interested in exerting any extra effort myself to 'help' them.