GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-26-2013, 17:07   #101
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleWide View Post
I don't necessarily like the idea of it on their driver's license unless they're on probation.

Felons and guns - it's one of those things that I don't have a solid stance on yet. "Shall not be infringed" - the 2nd amendment states it. People get by stating felons lost their rights. If something's a right, it shouldn't be taken away. If that's the case, government can start taking away rights by lowering it to misdemeanors or make misdemeanors felonies.

I think I'm leaning more towards everyone can have guns, but stiffer penalties for gun use in crimes. Not just longer terms, but death penalty and hard labor.
You may be right about all that. But this idea is based on the laws as they stand at the moment. Agree or not, by law a felon can't buy a firearm.

One thing that might be looked at is that if a convicted felon has served both their time in prison and any associated probation time, implement a "Shall-Issue" type of system to reinstate their rights, to include voting and firearms. Make it a system that unless there are exigent circumstances - i.e. someone with a history of domestic violence or something - then those rights are automatically reinstated rather than forcing them to petition to have the rights returned. I certainly don't see any problem with that.

But this idea is about more than just felons. This would apply to those who are ruled as being mentally insufficient. That's why the tag would likely need to be non-descriptive. You don't need to explain WHY you can't own a firearm. That only matters to the police.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 18:58   #102
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 9,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Here's a challenge - rather than rhetoric, someone please show me EXPLICITLY where this idea compromises even ONE Constitutional right. Just one. Any one. Give me one valid example where this idea would limit the ability in any way of a law-abiding, non-felon from purchasing a firearm. Give me even one rational answer as to what additional burden this places on anyone other than a felon who, by law, should have no problem with this because they shouldn't be asking to buy a gun anyway.

If anyone can demonstrate any of these things with a rational example, I'll ask the moderators to lock this thread.
I already posted about how such harassment functions in CA and you ignored that post because it doesn't fit your agenda. Having gun owners line up and start surrendering points to the gun banners would be stupid. Such peop0le would not deserve to keep their guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G26S239 View Post
EVERY firearm transfer in this state run by your POS Dim party already has to go through an FFL and it does not stop a damn bit of crime. What it does is mandate a 10 day wait on private party transfers to prove you not a felon. There is no presumption of innocent unless proven guilty.

Furthermore the state takes $25, allows $10 to the FFL and then mandates that a lock MUST be bought for every PPT allowing the FFL to buy a bunch of cheap ****ty 50cent locks and sell them to the transferee for $8.95.

Also the fact that this state does harass gun owners here to such a great extent does not ever stop scum like Mark Leno from pushing for yet more bs. Anyone who thinks that the pro 2nd amendment side throwing a bone to the libtards by volunteering for more bs is going to engender their goodwill and result in no more pushing for Feinstein and Lautenberg type proposals is a damn idiot.

You pretend to be pro 2nd amendment but your DU style trolling is as obvious as a fart in an elevator.
You got the government you voted for now line up like a good prole and turn in your firearms if you actually own any WarCry.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 21, 26 X 2, 32 and 36.
Proud member of the PigPen. Embrace the Pignose.
G26S239 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 19:58   #103
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by G26S239 View Post
I already posted about how such harassment functions in CA and you ignored that post because it doesn't fit your agenda. Having gun owners line up and start surrendering points to the gun banners would be stupid. Such peop0le would not deserve to keep their guns.


You got the government you voted for now line up like a good prole and turn in your firearms if you actually own any WarCry.
"If you disagree with me, you must be a liar and a troll".

You're talking - AGAIN - about the exact OPPOSITE of what I'm proposing here. You're talking about, and I quote:
Quote:
EVERY firearm transfer in this state [...] already has to go through an FFL
(Yes, I eliminated the name-calling because it's petty and pointless to the discussion)

What I'm talking about is a way to AVOID requiring people going to FFLs AND it would involve no fees or registration or anything else of the sort.

Quote:
Having gun owners line up and start surrendering points to the gun banners would be stupid.
And I again ask you to, please, kindly point out ANYTHING that I've suggested that would any action of any kind by law-abiding gun owners.

Just because you live in a system you don't like, don't project that onto me. I am absolutely NOT calling for a California- or Illinois-style system. As I've stated, and as you've repeatedly ignored, what I'm talking about is exactly the OPPOSITE of that.

But that is, by all appearances, too deep of an intellectual concept for some to grasp. My apologies for having a mind of my own rather than rattling off more talking points of political groups on EITHER side of the aisle.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 20:29   #104
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 9,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
"If you disagree with me, you must be a liar and a troll".

You're talking - AGAIN - about the exact OPPOSITE of what I'm proposing here. You're talking about, and I quote:
(Yes, I eliminated the name-calling because it's petty and pointless to the discussion)

What I'm talking about is a way to AVOID requiring people going to FFLs AND it would involve no fees or registration or anything else of the sort.



And I again ask you to, please, kindly point out ANYTHING that I've suggested that would any action of any kind by law-abiding gun owners.

Just because you live in a system you don't like, don't project that onto me. I am absolutely NOT calling for a California- or Illinois-style system. As I've stated, and as you've repeatedly ignored, what I'm talking about is exactly the OPPOSITE of that.

But that is, by all appearances, too deep of an intellectual concept for some to grasp. My apologies for having a mind of my own rather than rattling off more talking points of political groups on EITHER side of the aisle.
Advocating ceding any ground what so ever is providing aid and comfort to the antis. So you either are an anti, who is not doing a very good job of concealing that status, or you are what Lenin referred to as a useful idiot. In either case the antis will always want more more more and more.

I very deliberately brought California into this discussion because I live here and I know the laws here pretty well. What CA, NY, MA illustrate is that the antis will NOT EVER be satisfied with existing infringements. They will always want more. They will always demand more.

Any of you not living in CA, NY, MA or some other crap hole controlled by the antis keep this in mind - GUN BANNING SCUMBAGS NEVER STOP WANTING MORE HARASSMENT, MORE RED TAPE, MORE FEES, MORE MODELS ON THEIR SAFE LISTS UNTIL ALL GUNS ARE GONE. Incremental surrender of the type that WarCry is advocating only gives them fewer things to actually fight for. Make the filthy scumbags fight for every millimeter they might gain.

And WarCry since you are so eager to have govt check your prostate why don't you move out here to CA so you can enjoy the benefits of the kind of intrusion you are so eager for others to embrace?

Edit: Just saw that you are in Illinois. Since your state already has some crappy laws you might get better results demanding that your own state reps mandate that all firearms transfers go through an FFL than you seem to be getting trying to line up members of GT for incremental surrender.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 21, 26 X 2, 32 and 36.
Proud member of the PigPen. Embrace the Pignose.

Last edited by G26S239; 01-26-2013 at 20:56..
G26S239 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 22:08   #105
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by G26S239 View Post
Advocating ceding any ground what so ever is providing aid and comfort to the antis. So you either are an anti, who is not doing a very good job of concealing that status, or you are what Lenin referred to as a useful idiot. In either case the antis will always want more more more and more.

I very deliberately brought California into this discussion because I live here and I know the laws here pretty well. What CA, NY, MA illustrate is that the antis will NOT EVER be satisfied with existing infringements. They will always want more. They will always demand more.

Any of you not living in CA, NY, MA or some other crap hole controlled by the antis keep this in mind - GUN BANNING SCUMBAGS NEVER STOP WANTING MORE HARASSMENT, MORE RED TAPE, MORE FEES, MORE MODELS ON THEIR SAFE LISTS UNTIL ALL GUNS ARE GONE. Incremental surrender of the type that WarCry is advocating only gives them fewer things to actually fight for. Make the filthy scumbags fight for every millimeter they might gain.

And WarCry since you are so eager to have govt check your prostate why don't you move out here to CA so you can enjoy the benefits of the kind of intrusion you are so eager for others to embrace?

Edit: Just saw that you are in Illinois. Since your state already has some crappy laws you might get better results demanding that your own state reps mandate that all firearms transfers go through an FFL than you seem to be getting trying to line up members of GT for incremental surrender.
You're so blinded by your ignorance you can't even comprehend how what you're saying has no relation whatsoever to what I posted.

Enjoy your life, because I can already tell you have no grasp of anything outside of your own narrow view of life.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 22:14   #106
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 9,694
WarCry in this thread http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1466644 you jumped right on the premise that more govt power over gun owners was the go to position instead of wondering why that scumbag was released at age 21 after murdering his mother. He didn't mind murdering his mother so why do you believe he would respect firearms laws? Scum like that do not change for the better.

Edmund Kemper III was released at age 21 after murdering his grandparents at age 15 and went on to murder 8 other people.

Kenneth McDuff murdered 3 people and was on death row in Texas when Furmen Vs Georgia decision took him and every other scumbag off of death row. McDuff up serving 13 years for murdering 3 people. After release he murdered at least 11 other people.

Arthur Shawcross served 14.5 years of a 25 year sentence after murdering 2 children. After being paroled he murdered 12 more people.

Sob sister scumbags who can't bear the thought of executing people like ^^^ those offenders and don't want the poor dears locked up are morally responsible for their post release behavior.

I absolutely reject the premise that non violent decent gun owners should have ever more restrictions placed on them and would believe that even if sob sister weren't getting Shawcross, McDuff, Oberender and other scum out of prison after minimal time served.

The same NYC govt that so enthusiastically kept The Sullivan Law on the books and had it enforced for decades was also enthusiastically in cahoots with the Cosa Nostra scum from the old Tammany Hall days to the 1990s and had everything to do with NY state passing their 7 round bs.

I am sick of all of this crap. Offering to surrender on any point to try to placate the antis is a stupid strategy. It did not work for Chamberlain and it will not work now.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 21, 26 X 2, 32 and 36.
Proud member of the PigPen. Embrace the Pignose.
G26S239 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 22:15   #107
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 9,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
You're so blinded by your ignorance you can't even comprehend how what you're saying has no relation whatsoever to what I posted.

Enjoy your life, because I can already tell you have no grasp of anything outside of your own narrow view of life.
Sell your appeasement elsewhere Neville. It isn't flying here.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 21, 26 X 2, 32 and 36.
Proud member of the PigPen. Embrace the Pignose.
G26S239 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 22:20   #108
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
And don't forget raising taxes to pay for all the new jail-space that would be needed and the people to manage them, and the food to feed them, and the medical staff to care for them...


....except we can't talk about increasing taxes, can we?
No, we cant talk about sacrificing my rights under any circumstances.

Oh i see, you think its cheaper to not arrest them and just let them keep committting crimes then? Piling the losses on the insurance companies, police ot, courts etc is just dirt cheap.

And who says we need more jail space? Id dare say we just mostly keep re-arresting repeat offenders who shouldnt have been released in the first place.
__________________
Avenge me...AVENGE ME!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z2d4IxltHJ...on%26Fence.png

Last edited by G29Reload; 01-26-2013 at 22:24..
G29Reload is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2013, 22:29   #109
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone_Wolfe View Post
How about something like an 'Eligible' card? Similar to a FOID, but only means the holder is eligible to buy a gun. Renewable every year or so, and in no way tracks whther a gun was bought or not.


Interesting. Chp could do the same thing. In fact in some states it does.
__________________
Avenge me...AVENGE ME!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z2d4IxltHJ...on%26Fence.png
G29Reload is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 01:37   #110
Lone_Wolfe
CLM Number 226
Sandbox Refugee
 
Lone_Wolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: This side of a tombstone
Posts: 26,343


Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyGunFreak View Post
NO FOIDS.

It doesn't work to keep the gun violence down in Chicago, it's not going to do a thing anywhere else.

If there was ever the idea that some sort of "FOID" would fix things... Chicago is perfect proof that it's just not true.
Not a FOID. Not even intended to identify gun owners at all. More like a 'good guy' card, a pre-done background check that you can carry anywhere and is good for a pre-set amount of time. You can buy zero guns, of you can buy a hundred on it. All the card would show is that you cann do so legally.



Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
I can say I have not seen you recently. However, I've not seen you not-recently, either. Still feel pretty confident in my initial assessment.

I knew I liked you for a reason!

This is the thing I don't get, and it's coming out in full force here in this thread. Most folks agree that, for the good of law-abiding gun-owners, the best thing we can do is reduce the guns in the hands of non-law-abiding citizens. Because every time a criminal uses a gun, the Powers That Be turn around and point the finger squarely at ALL gun owners. But the SECOND there is a suggestion like this, a suggestion that puts absolutely no burden on people that are NOT felons, then suddenly it's "all you want to do is take my guns, compromise, and sell us out! OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!"

Whatever. As someone posted above, they're not interested in RATIONAL discussion. So what will happen is that the anti-gunners will stop asking for ideas and will instead simply shove their control-ideas down EVERYONE'S throats.

I can take being called names, I'm a big boy. But I can also think and act rationally, not simply blindered as so many folks here are.

BTW, hope your road on the way to recovery is going well and smoothly.
Well, I'm interested in rational discussion. I'm not opposed to the Felon stamp on a driver's license, but don't think it's the ideal solution. Not that there is an ideal solution. I presented one that I like a little better, but it's still not going to keep everyone from selling a gun to a prohibited person.

And thank you, I'm working on the recovery part.



Quote:
Originally Posted by G29Reload View Post
Interesting. Chp could do the same thing. In fact in some states it does.
Yep, Arizona is one of those states. This would be good for people that dont want that, for whatever reason. Maybe the don't want to get the training some states require, etc.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member++++++SAF Life Member+++++++++++

To those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while defending American freedom, you will not be forgotten.

RIP my friends Greg and Florence, see you again on the other side.
RIP Jeff (23Skidoo) - 1962-2012 and Gloria (Silent_Runner) - 1964-2013
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE

Last edited by Lone_Wolfe; 01-27-2013 at 01:39..
Lone_Wolfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 05:26   #111
IndyGunFreak
RIP My Friends
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 29,697
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone_Wolfe View Post
Not a FOID. Not even intended to identify gun owners at all. More like a 'good guy' card, a pre-done background check that you can carry anywhere and is good for a pre-set amount of time. You can buy zero guns, of you can buy a hundred on it. All the card would show is that you cann do so legally.
OK.. and what other reasons would this "good guy card" be used other than buying firearms?

That "pre set amount of time"... That is exactly what a FOID is, or similar to a few states that require a "permit to purchase".

Come on LW.. You can't put perfume on a pig. This is a FOID, w/ a warm fuzzy name.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioaJack View Post
The fire is no longer my major concern since I am leaving immediately on an unexpected road trip to Indianapolis. Watch the national news over the next couple of days, I'll wave... well, only if I'm cuffed in the front.
RIP Jack

Last edited by IndyGunFreak; 01-27-2013 at 05:28..
IndyGunFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 09:18   #112
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone_Wolfe View Post
Not a FOID. Not even intended to identify gun owners at all. More like a 'good guy' card, a pre-done background check that you can carry anywhere and is good for a pre-set amount of time. You can buy zero guns, of you can buy a hundred on it. All the card would show is that you cann do so legally.
Actually, for clarification, this is what a FOID card does in part. Gun shops still have to call the NICS, but it's a state-level "good guy" card. It's not tied with any particular gun or anything. I had my FOID for over a year before I bought my first gun. Actually, now that It think about it, I got my original FOID nearly 20 years ago just to use as a second form of photo ID (and in case I'd wanted to buy a gun at the time; I enlisted instead, and they didn't ask to see my FOID before giving me a rifle. )


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lone_Wolfe View Post
Well, I'm interested in rational discussion. I'm not opposed to the Felon stamp on a driver's license, but don't think it's the ideal solution. Not that there is an ideal solution. I presented one that I like a little better, but it's still not going to keep everyone from selling a gun to a prohibited person.
I don't think the FOID card is the kind of evil that others here do - and watch as the lunatics in the asylum go nuts over THAT blood in the water. The reason I suggested the "disqualifying" stamp idea is because it shifts the burden of proof off those who ARE eligible.

I look at it the same as a "May Issue" vs a "Shall Issue". Rather than me carrying a card that says I CAN have a gun, the "bad guys" have to carry one that says they CAN'T. It would mean everyone is assumed a "good guy" until they do something to prove otherwise.

Of course that's the part that so many people here are willfully ignoring just so they can attack me and call me names. That's okay, I've heard much worse names from much better people, so I can deal with it.




Plus, Eric is polite enough to let us use the ignore list.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb

Last edited by WarCry; 01-27-2013 at 09:18..
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 09:53   #113
racerford
Senior Member
 
racerford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,869


Fortunately my state has a "good guy" card. It is a CHL, or maybe a LE ID. If I don't know the person, they are not an FFL or have one of those ID's I am not interested in selling to them. That assumes I have a gun, much less an "extra" gun that needs selling.

WarCry, I see you never answered my question. I see you are good at proposing more complications but not at answering any questions.
racerford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 10:19   #114
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerford View Post
Fortunately my state has a "good guy" card. It is a CHL, or maybe a LE ID. If I don't know the person, they are not an FFL or have one of those ID's I am not interested in selling to them. That assumes I have a gun, much less an "extra" gun that needs selling.

WarCry, I see you never answered my question. I see you are good at proposing more complications but not at answering any questions.
Sorry, I wasn't intentionally ignoring your question. I saw it (both times) and then got caught up with others.

Honestly, I don't know what I would do. If I was meeting someone to sell a gun, first, I'd likely do it somewhere public. Second, I'd have someone else with me, also.

I don't know, I could "what if" all the horrible scenarios all day, but that would make me kinda paranoid like all the people that think CCW will lead to shoot-outs over parking spaces. COULD it happen? Absolutely. But history shows it's pretty low on the list of probabilities.

Like you said, though. I can't see myself in a position to sell a gun. I buy what I want. I don't have enough disposable income to get something just to 'try it out'. And if I did, I'd probably be more inclined to do it through an FFL just for my own piece of mind.

This idea is just something to try and stave off a requirement that all transactions MUST go through an FFL, because I'm pretty sure that's what's coming.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 12:23   #115
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Actually, for clarification, this is what a FOID card does in part. Gun shops still have to call the NICS, but it's a state-level "good guy" card. It's not tied with any particular gun or anything. I had my FOID for over a year before I bought my first gun. Actually, now that It think about it, I got my original FOID nearly 20 years ago just to use as a second form of photo ID (and in case I'd wanted to buy a gun at the time; I enlisted instead, and they didn't ask to see my FOID before giving me a rifle. )




I don't think the FOID card is the kind of evil that others here do - and watch as the lunatics in the asylum go nuts over THAT blood in the water. The reason I suggested the "disqualifying" stamp idea is because it shifts the burden of proof off those who ARE eligible.

I look at it the same as a "May Issue" vs a "Shall Issue". Rather than me carrying a card that says I CAN have a gun, the "bad guys" have to carry one that says they CAN'T. It would mean everyone is assumed a "good guy" until they do something to prove otherwise.

Of course that's the part that so many people here are willfully ignoring just so they can attack me and call me names. That's okay, I've heard much worse names from much better people, so I can deal with it.




Plus, Eric is polite enough to let us use the ignore list.
Why do you constantly resort to name calling and get your panties in a wad when people do it to you?
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 12:45   #116
IndyGunFreak
RIP My Friends
 
IndyGunFreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 29,697
Send a message via ICQ to IndyGunFreak Send a message via AIM to IndyGunFreak Send a message via MSN to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Yahoo to IndyGunFreak Send a message via Skype™ to IndyGunFreak


Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
I don't think the FOID card is the kind of evil that others here do - and watch as the lunatics in the asylum go nuts over THAT blood in the water. The reason I suggested the "disqualifying" stamp idea is because it shifts the burden of proof off those who ARE eligible.


Why is that no surprise?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioaJack View Post
The fire is no longer my major concern since I am leaving immediately on an unexpected road trip to Indianapolis. Watch the national news over the next couple of days, I'll wave... well, only if I'm cuffed in the front.
RIP Jack
IndyGunFreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 16:29   #117
Lone_Wolfe
CLM Number 226
Sandbox Refugee
 
Lone_Wolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: This side of a tombstone
Posts: 26,343


Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyGunFreak View Post
OK.. and what other reasons would this "good guy card" be used other than buying firearms?

That "pre set amount of time"... That is exactly what a FOID is, or similar to a few states that require a "permit to purchase".

Come on LW.. You can't put perfume on a pig. This is a FOID, w/ a warm fuzzy name.
With a FOID card, an FFL check still has to be made, right? This card would eliminate that need. You show the card, you pay your money and take your gun.

Save your perfume, it's a different intent.



Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Actually, for clarification, this is what a FOID card does in part. Gun shops still have to call the NICS, but it's a state-level "good guy" card. It's not tied with any particular gun or anything. I had my FOID for over a year before I bought my first gun. Actually, now that It think about it, I got my original FOID nearly 20 years ago just to use as a second form of photo ID (and in case I'd wanted to buy a gun at the time; I enlisted instead, and they didn't ask to see my FOID before giving me a rifle. )


............
There's where my idea differs from the FOID card. With my card, you wouldn't need an additional background check. I'd also like to see it do away with the 4473. Just like I said above, walk into store/gun shoe/pre-arranged transaction, pick out and pay for gun, show card, take gun home.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member++++++SAF Life Member+++++++++++

To those who have made the ultimate sacrifice while defending American freedom, you will not be forgotten.

RIP my friends Greg and Florence, see you again on the other side.
RIP Jeff (23Skidoo) - 1962-2012 and Gloria (Silent_Runner) - 1964-2013
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE
Lone_Wolfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 17:47   #118
skorper
harborrat
 
skorper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Rustbelt
Posts: 1,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerford View Post
I asked you a question about what YOU would do. You didn't answer, and it was your proposal. Didn't you think about that?

I told you what I would do. Not sell to people I didn't know or that are not an FFL.

I think we should be free to sell to anyone we don't know or have a reason to believe are prohibited.

The guy shows up and has a FELON enblazened on his license, what do you do?
Come on, I've done this a lot. When selling a gun you either text or call or email someone or they text or call or email you. You both have to set the time and place to meet anyway, and so you merely ask if they're good. They say yes. You both go do the deal.

Or they say no and you tell them "sorry, bye".

Or they say yes but they're really lying and want to come rob you of your gun. Right now if they're going to come and rob you of the gun they just agree to meet up and come and do it. Same difference.

You are absolutely correct in that anyone should be able to sell to anyone we don't know or have a reason to believe they're prohibited. In this case, if they are prohibited, you would know. They could always fake it, but you are still covered. It would be a lot easier than having to do a transfer through an FFL. And there wouldn't be a record of the transaction either. Unless you asked for one. Same as it is now.

I firmly believe that all face to face sales are going to be mandated to be done through an FFL with a background check and a record of the transaction, traceable to you. I DO NOT want that. That's going to be a lot worse. It really is. I know it's not enforcable, but it's coming.

How are they going to do it? They'll just mandate it. Then everybody's going to have a big decision to make. Keep going as they have always done or go by the new rules. If you go the former route then just hope that nothing goes wrong, because if you get caught I am sure they would make an example of you.

I don't blame anybody for standing their ground against any further regulation and dismissing this idea. But I think that it would be preferable to what's coming. In fact, this would mean less regulation in the long run because even for buying a new gun from a dealer it could be used as well. There would be no need for a transaction every time. The whole premise would take the wind out of the sails of the main supporters of gun control, who want to mandate checks on ALL private sales in order to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals". (I know, I know, that's all BS, but it would still negate their argument).
__________________

I've seen the quiet dead; and I've heard the living moan. This world's no place to live in, but it's home.

Last edited by skorper; 01-27-2013 at 17:48..
skorper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 17:58   #119
skorper
harborrat
 
skorper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Rustbelt
Posts: 1,800
"Deleted"

Last edited by skorper; 01-27-2013 at 19:27.. Reason: Duplicate post
skorper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 18:07   #120
G36's Rule
Senior Member
 
G36's Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spring, TX.
Posts: 14,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post




I don't think the FOID card is the kind of evil that others here do - and watch as the lunatics in the asylum go nuts over THAT blood in the water. The reason I suggested the "disqualifying" stamp idea is because it shifts the burden of proof off those who ARE eligible.

Nobody is going to be surprised by that.

And quit *****ing about name calling when you do it more than anyone.
G36's Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 18:16   #121
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,216
Quote:
Originally Posted by G36's Rule View Post
Nobody is going to be surprised by that.

And quit *****ing about name calling when you do it more than anyone.
I've not called any one here a name at all. I've made broad, categorical statements. If you feel that it was directed at you or that you fall into that category, that's not my responsibility.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 18:32   #122
G36's Rule
Senior Member
 
G36's Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Spring, TX.
Posts: 14,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
I've not called any one here a name at all. I've made broad, categorical statements. If you feel that it was directed at you or that you fall into that category, that's not my responsibility.
You called anyone who disagreed with your opinion on FOID cards a lunatic. Pretty simple really.

I call anyone who makes a comment and then says they didn't say what they actually did a liar... If you feel that was directed at you, well, it was.
G36's Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 19:44   #123
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by skorper View Post
Come on, I've done this a lot. When selling a gun you either text or call or email someone or they text or call or email you. You both have to set the time and place to meet anyway, and so you merely ask if they're good. They say yes. You both go do the deal.

Or they say no and you tell them "sorry, bye".

Or they say yes but they're really lying and want to come rob you of your gun. Right now if they're going to come and rob you of the gun they just agree to meet up and come and do it. Same difference.

You are absolutely correct in that anyone should be able to sell to anyone we don't know or have a reason to believe they're prohibited. In this case, if they are prohibited, you would know. They could always fake it, but you are still covered. It would be a lot easier than having to do a transfer through an FFL. And there wouldn't be a record of the transaction either. Unless you asked for one. Same as it is now.

I firmly believe that all face to face sales are going to be mandated to be done through an FFL with a background check and a record of the transaction, traceable to you. I DO NOT want that. That's going to be a lot worse. It really is. I know it's not enforcable, but it's coming.

How are they going to do it? They'll just mandate it. Then everybody's going to have a big decision to make. Keep going as they have always done or go by the new rules. If you go the former route then just hope that nothing goes wrong, because if you get caught I am sure they would make an example of you.

I don't blame anybody for standing their ground against any further regulation and dismissing this idea. But I think that it would be preferable to what's coming. In fact, this would mean less regulation in the long run because even for buying a new gun from a dealer it could be used as well. There would be no need for a transaction every time. The whole premise would take the wind out of the sails of the main supporters of gun control, who want to mandate checks on ALL private sales in order to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals". (I know, I know, that's all BS, but it would still negate their argument).


How do you figure their argument will be negated? They don't work on logic. They use automatic weapons, assault weapons, and gun show loophole as fact. When they have demonstrably been proven to be false. They don't deal in facts or truth. That's why your idea won't work. They don't care about the facts, truth, or crime.. All they care about is control. That's why your willingness to give them more control or even a false sense of security is drawing some much ire from those of us that deal with facts..
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 19:57   #124
skorper
harborrat
 
skorper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Rustbelt
Posts: 1,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
[/B]

How do you figure their argument will be negated? They don't work on logic. They use automatic weapons, assault weapons, and gun show loophole as fact. When they have demonstrably been proven to be false. They don't deal in facts or truth. That's why your idea won't work. They don't care about the facts, truth, or crime.. All they care about is control. That's why your willingness to give them more control or even a false sense of security is drawing some much ire from those of us that deal with facts..
It wouldn't be negated as far as the gun grabbers are concerned. As you said, they don't deal in facts.

The thing is, both the gun grabbers and the strong 2A rights activists are both in the minority. The majority couldn't care less or are on the fence. Those people are the ones who are going to see universal background checks as a good common sense thing to do, and that's why it has so much public support. Those are the people that we have to make a reasonable argument to when attempting to counter anything.
__________________

I've seen the quiet dead; and I've heard the living moan. This world's no place to live in, but it's home.
skorper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 20:21   #125
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by skorper View Post
It wouldn't be negated as far as the gun grabbers are concerned. As you said, they don't deal in facts.

The thing is, both the gun grabbers and the strong 2A rights activists are both in the minority. The majority couldn't care less or are on the fence. Those people are the ones who are going to see universal background checks as a good common sense thing to do, and that's why it has so much public support. Those are the people that we have to make a reasonable argument to when attempting to counter anything.
I have no trouble comprehending what you are saying. I think it's a terrible idea. The antis don't care about the the facts and neither do the fence sitters. All it takes is a little research and they can see the facts for themselves. I will not promote a feel good idea to appease people not smart enough to find the facts and make a rational decision. Specifically one that has been proven not to work and that will cost money, grow the government. How can you call what you are proposing a reasonable argument when you know it won't work and has not worked?
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:54.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 749
203 Members
546 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42