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 02-07-2013, 20:30   #151
FireForged
Millenium #3936
 
FireForged's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Rebel South
Posts: 4,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
What difference does that make? The government is required to prove you DID buy it illegally. It isn't your burden to prove you did not.
exactly.
__________________
"I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan
FireForged is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2013, 20:41   #152
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwalchmai View Post
Bill, no one has misread what you're saying. We just disagree.
That's what these "gun owners" that keep pushing universal background checks don't get. We understand fully what they are saying. We just disagree..
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 02:49   #153
K9Cops
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Will be moving to Florida
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisville Glocker View Post
Hard to comment without specific legislation proposed yet, but I'd think that the enforcement would come at place of purchase.

Now if you have a gun, they could ask where and when you got it. But I'm thinking the seller is the one who could potentially get in trouble, not someone with a gun.

The feds know about every one of my guns, and personally I don't mind. But I've got nothing to hide, and I welcome police and military friends over to my house.
Having been in law enforcement for 30 yrs, I can tell you I personally would VERY POLITELY tell the person asking that unless there is evidence that my weapon has been used in a crime, when, where and how I obtained my weapon is a personal matter that I will not discuss. If an officer then says they DO suspect a weapon I purchased has been used in a crime, I would then tell the officer that althought I have nothing to hide and wish to cooperate, I wished to speak with my attorney before answering any questions.

Now to be more blunt about it, it is not ANYONES business what I own, where I own it or who I purchased it from (all legal of course) and it will be a cold day in hell before I register my weapons with anyone. If ATF wants to know, they can go back and check form 4473.
K9Cops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 03:01   #154
K9Cops
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Will be moving to Florida
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bear62 View Post
I hope someone will respond to your question. I've often wonder EXACTLY what goes on with the "FFL records" myself. Is a copy of the record sent to some government agency or not? How long are the records maintained?
If ATF wants to trace a gun, they do the following:

1. Using the serial number, find out from manufacturer which distributor the weapon was sent to (and the date shipped)
2. Using serial number, find out from distributor which retail store the weapon was sent to (and the date shipped)
3. Have retail store pull the sales information (ATF form 4473)
4. Contact the original purchaser to find out where the weapon went. More than 90% of the time, the original retail purchaser has no records as to who he sold the weapon to, at which point the ATF is at a dead end. And NO, if you do not have an FFL, you are NOT REQUIRED under Federal Law to keep any sales records or information as to who you sell your guns to in a šPrivateš sale.
5. The FBI swears they do not keep a record of pre sale background checks, but personally, I think the FBI keeps everything in a computer archive. (They keep records on everything else)
K9Cops is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 04:34   #155
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,155


From GOA: http://www.gunowners.org/news02042013c.htm
gwalchmai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 05:49   #156
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 9,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
I use to rotate - 3 weeks in Texas then 2 weeks in California - did this for about 2 years straight -

California is nice place to visit - but I would not want to live there.

I can't understand how so many misread what I am saying.

In general all I want is for pro gun legislators to take a leadership role instead of just always playing defence. Be willing to work on real solutions that keep guns away from criminals and crazy people - and negotiate to eliminate some anti gun BS stuff that doesn't work.

Why not try and develop a better way to keep guns from criminals and mentally ill?

Who do you think can do a better job coming up with things that would actually work - pro gun or anti gun officials?

We may even increase gun ownership and expand the rights of legal gun owners?

California may be too far gone to save - further proof that just playing defence doesn't work.

Lose enough elections because of ideological stupidity (not just gun issues) and you end up with SUPER MAJORITIES of "progressive liberals" that love to tax and hate guns.

Writing more infringements for the leftards will work. It just won't work for people who want to own guns and lack high political office or millions of dollars.

California already has a requirements to go through an FFL and fill out another 4473 and state form.
It is not enough!
CA also has a 10 day wait before being able to take possession of your own property.
It is not enough!
Requirement for stupid bullet buttons on ARs and other detachable magazine EBRs.
It is not enough!
Handgun Safety Certificate to buy a handgun.
It is not enough!
Can only buy one handgun a month.
It is not enough!

The scum sucking bastards want more!
http://news.yahoo.com/calif-seeks-ad...220030130.html

Bill I am thinking that this point will be lost on you. I believe that you will continue to believe that surrendering one teensy little point will cause the antigun zealots to reflect and say Gee since they surrendered so easily we should let them alone now.

For anybody reading this who is cognizant of the fact that libtards want to stamp out that nasty 2nd amendment the article I linked is clear evidence.
NOTHING IS EVER ENOUGH TO SATISFY LIBERAL SCUM UNTIL ONLY THEY AND THEIRS CAN HAVE ACCESS TO FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION!
They don't care if you are robbed, raped, murdered or stuck in the middle of Florence and Normandy during the next big riot! You are not to have guns!
__________________
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 02-08-2013, 05:54   #157
dango
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,547
Universally speaki n, "IT SUCKS" , I 'm not that intimate with my wife !
dango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 06:07   #158
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 9,686
Yet some here at GT seem to want to wish a good outcome via surrender.

This is not a CA only problem. Anyone thinking these scum bags will stop short of your state after turning CA, NY, NJ, MA. HI etc into workers paradise is seriously deluded or just plain stupid.
__________________
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 02-08-2013, 07:37   #159
Mushinto
Master Member
 
Mushinto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne, Florida, USA
Posts: 12,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by K9Cops View Post
If ATF wants to trace a gun, they do the following:

1. Using the serial number, find out from manufacturer which distributor the weapon was sent to (and the date shipped)
2. Using serial number, find out from distributor which retail store the weapon was sent to (and the date shipped)
3. Have retail store pull the sales information (ATF form 4473)
4. Contact the original purchaser to find out where the weapon went. More than 90% of the time, the original retail purchaser has no records as to who he sold the weapon to, at which point the ATF is at a dead end. And NO, if you do not have an FFL, you are NOT REQUIRED under Federal Law to keep any sales records or information as to who you sell your guns to in a šPrivateš sale.
5. The FBI swears they do not keep a record of pre sale background checks, but personally, I think the FBI keeps everything in a computer archive. (They keep records on everything else)
About seven years ago, I was thrilled to learn that ATF was running a trace on an AR15 that I purchased through a dealer. The dealer told me about it when they contacted him.

I am still waiting for them to ask me what I did with the gun.

Most tracing by the BATFE is a sham.
__________________
ML

Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. Be kind, always.
Mushinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 07:37   #160
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwalchmai View Post
Bill, no one has misread what you're saying. We just disagree.
On what? Do you agree or disagree with me on?

That we should try and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people?

That we should be proactive and not just play defence?

That perception matters? -- From the votes who don't really care one way or the other about guns?

That pro gun people are in a better position to develop solutions to help prevent things like school shootings?

That background checks reduce access to guns from criminals and crazy people? Small reduction maybe but still a reduction.

Are you willing to give and inch to gain a foot?

Or is it you don't like UBGC (I don't "like" them either) so no matter what else we lose trying to protect this small thing it is worth it? Or no matter what we could gain by agreeing to UBGC it would not be worth it.



Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 07:40   #161
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwalchmai View Post

But all of that is ok because we will be demanding and getting rid of "gun free zones"... We hold all the cards, not the antis..
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 07:54   #162
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
On what? Do you agree or disagree with me on?
That we should make the first offer of compromising our rights. If the antis want to negotiate it is up to them to propose any type of compromise. I and several others have explained this to you ad nauseum.

Quote:
That we should try and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people?

That we should be proactive and not just play defence?

That perception matters? -- From the votes who don't really care one way or the other about guns?

That pro gun people are in a better position to develop solutions to help prevent things like school shootings?

That background checks reduce access to guns from criminals and crazy people? Small reduction maybe but still a reduction.

Are you willing to give and inch to gain a foot?

Or is it you don't like UBGC (I don't "like" them either) so no matter what else we lose trying to protect this small thing it is worth it? Or no matter what we could gain by agreeing to UBGC it would not be worth it.



Gunowna, please...
gwalchmai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 08:00   #163
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by G26S239 View Post
Writing more infringements for the leftards will work. It just won't work for people who want to own guns and lack high political office or millions of dollars.

California already has a requirements to go through an FFL and fill out another 4473 and state form.
It is not enough!
CA also has a 10 day wait before being able to take possession of your own property.
It is not enough!
Requirement for stupid bullet buttons on ARs and other detachable magazine EBRs.
It is not enough!
Handgun Safety Certificate to buy a handgun.
It is not enough!
Can only buy one handgun a month.
It is not enough!

The scum sucking bastards want more!
http://news.yahoo.com/calif-seeks-ad...220030130.html

Bill I am thinking that this point will be lost on you. I believe that you will continue to believe that surrendering one teensy little point will cause the antigun zealots to reflect and say Gee since they surrendered so easily we should let them alone now.

For anybody reading this who is cognizant of the fact that libtards want to stamp out that nasty 2nd amendment the article I linked is clear evidence.
NOTHING IS EVER ENOUGH TO SATISFY LIBERAL SCUM UNTIL ONLY THEY AND THEIRS CAN HAVE ACCESS TO FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION!
They don't care if you are robbed, raped, murdered or stuck in the middle of Florence and Normandy during the next big riot! You are not to have guns!
I am NOT saying GIVE THEM UBGC - UNLESS I GET SOMETHING BACK THAT IS WORTH MORE.

Things like --

Only needing to pass a BGC one time every 3 years --
Then using your CHL or GBC (already had a BGC) to avoid the need to fill out a 4473.

Using the CHL or GBC to help facilitate private sales - to prevent criminals and crazy people from buying guns from (otherwise) law abiding folks in private sales (NO FFL NEEDED)

Allow out of state online sales without using a FFL to do the check - if you have a CHL or GBC.

It is you that is just accepting that we have no chance to ever get back any of these lost rights - and it is not worth even trying.

Would you agree to UBGC is you got back all the things I listed?

Just a simple YES or NO.

Do I honestly think we could trade UBGC and get all of this? NO

But we could get something for it that is worth more and if we can't then we tell them to pound sand.

At least appear to be willing to develop real solutions to limiting mentally ill people from buying guns.
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 08:15   #164
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
I am NOT saying GIVE THEM UBGC - UNLESS I GET SOMETHING BACK THAT IS WORTH MORE.

Things like --

Only needing to pass a BGC one time every 3 years --
Then using your CHL or GBC (already had a BGC) to avoid the need to fill out a 4473.

Using the CHL or GBC to help facilitate private sales - to prevent criminals and crazy people from buying guns from (otherwise) law abiding folks in private sales (NO FFL NEEDED)

Allow out of state online sales without using a FFL to do the check - if you have a CHL or GBC.

It is you that is just accepting that we have no chance to ever get back any of these lost rights - and it is not worth even trying.

Would you agree to UBGC is you got back all the things I listed?

Just a simple YES or NO.

Do I honestly think we could trade UBGC and get all of this? NO

But we could get something for it that is worth more and if we can't then we tell them to pound sand.

At least appear to be willing to develop real solutions to limiting mentally ill people from buying guns.
One more time... What you are suggesting is not a real solution to limiting the mentally ill from buying guns. The only thing that is accomplished by what you are suggesting is further encroachment on our rights, giving the anti's another link in the chain that they use to bind legitimate/legal gun owners, and an additional step closer to confiscation. Even by the numbers you "pulled out of your butt" it won't prevent those prohibited from getting weapons.
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 08:22   #165
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwalchmai View Post
That we should make the first offer of compromising our rights. If the antis want to negotiate it is up to them to propose any type of compromise. I and several others have explained this to you ad nauseum.

Gunowna, please...
Who reaches out first is the BIG issue?

I missed that entirely.

Mostly because I am not in kindergarten and don't have a problem telling people what I want - and am willing to also tell them what I am willing to pay.

If they don't want to trade - or the price they want is too high I say NO thanks - but try and leave the door open.

So if the anti gun folks made the offer - to give up X,Y and Z and in return they wanted UBGC on private sales - then you would be willing to negotiate?

But

You would not be willing to ask them for X, Y, Z, L, M, N, O and P in return for giving in on UBGC?


Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 08:29   #166
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
One more time... What you are suggesting is not a real solution to limiting the mentally ill from buying guns. The only thing that is accomplished by what you are suggesting is further encroachment on our rights, giving the anti's another link in the chain that they use to bind legitimate/legal gun owners, and an additional step closer to confiscation. Even by the numbers you "pulled out of your butt" it won't prevent those prohibited from getting weapons.
Not a 100% solution - maybe a small impact (3-5%??). But

So what - if I get the things I want in return it is still a WIN.

Say you have an old beat up 9MM Hi-Point (UBGC) - you know it is worth $50.

Some guy keeps talking about how great 9MM Hi-Points (UBGC) are - makes a BIG deal out of it all the time until it makes you want to puke.

So you go ask him if he wants to trade you your 9MM Hi-Point (UBGC) for a new GEN3 G19 (See my list from above).

He agrees to the trade - or says - I can't do a G19 how about this mint condition no lock S&W revolver?

Do you say - NO that Hi-Point (UBGC) is not worth anything - it only works 5% of the time?


Last edited by Z71bill; 02-08-2013 at 08:35..
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 08:40   #167
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
I am NOT saying GIVE THEM UBGC - UNLESS I GET SOMETHING BACK THAT IS WORTH MORE.

Things like --

Only needing to pass a BGC one time every 3 years --
Then using your CHL or GBC (already had a BGC) to avoid the need to fill out a 4473.

Using the CHL or GBC to help facilitate private sales - to prevent criminals and crazy people from buying guns from (otherwise) law abiding folks in private sales (NO FFL NEEDED)

Allow out of state online sales without using a FFL to do the check - if you have a CHL or GBC.

It is you that is just accepting that we have no chance to ever get back any of these lost rights - and it is not worth even trying.

Would you agree to UBGC is you got back all the things I listed?

Just a simple YES or NO.

Do I honestly think we could trade UBGC and get all of this? NO

But we could get something for it that is worth more and if we can't then we tell them to pound sand.

At least appear to be willing to develop real solutions to limiting mentally ill people from buying guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
Not a 100% solution - maybe a small impact (3-5%??). But

So what
- if I get the things I want in return it is still a WIN.

Say you have an old beat up 9MM Hi-Point (UBGC) - you know it is worth $50.

Some guy keeps talking about how great 9MM Hi-Points (UBGC) are - makes a BIG deal out of it all the time until it makes you want to puke.

So you go ask him if he wants to trade you your 9MM Hi-Point (UBGC) for a new GEN3 G19 (See my list from above).

He agrees to the trade - or says - I can't do a G19 how about this mint condition no lock S&W revolver?

Do you say - NO that Hi-Point (UBGC) is not worth anything it doesn't even work?

You and your bad analogies again..

The bolded part shows you aren't willing to work on real solutions. When it's proven that what you suggest doesn't work, the anti's true to their previous history, will keep the existing laws and only add to them. Therefore, you are continually losing and never gaining. You can spin it however you want. Negotiating for something you know will not work is tantamount to lying and deceiving. I would rather stand up for my rights and so NO to all of it rather than negotiate my rights away for something that I know will not work, has been proven not to work, and only gives in to their incrementatlism. You have proven to be just like the Brady's and all the other Antis. You advocate for something you know will not work while saying with a straight face it will work. What is that the definition of? It's either insanity or lying. You pick..
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 08:49   #168
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 9,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
I am NOT saying GIVE THEM UBGC - UNLESS I GET SOMETHING BACK THAT IS WORTH MORE.

Things like --

Only needing to pass a BGC one time every 3 years --
Then using your CHL or GBC (already had a BGC) to avoid the need to fill out a 4473.

Using the CHL or GBC to help facilitate private sales - to prevent criminals and crazy people from buying guns from (otherwise) law abiding folks in private sales (NO FFL NEEDED)

Allow out of state online sales without using a FFL to do the check - if you have a CHL or GBC.

It is you that is just accepting that we have no chance to ever get back any of these lost rights - and it is not worth even trying.

Would you agree to UBGC is you got back all the things I listed?

Just a simple YES or NO.

Do I honestly think we could trade UBGC and get all of this? NO

But we could get something for it that is worth more and if we can't then we tell them to pound sand.

At least appear to be willing to develop real solutions to limiting mentally ill people from buying guns.
I am not going to play in your yes or no sandbox because I flat out disagree with you underlying premises.

Appeasement did not work for Chamberlain. It will not work now.

As soon as you stipulate that background checks across the board are acceptable and reasonable than you will have ceded that portion of what they want.

Going back on that when they don't agree to give up anything will be played like John Kerry's I voted for it before I voted against it campaign snafu.

You seem to have the misapprehension that the antis are willing to give up their 45 year long crusade.*

I have laid out the facts of what gun banning scum are doing here in the PRK. Back ground checks did not stem the tide of HSCs, 10 day waiting periods, 10 round magazine limits and numerous other onerous laws here.

You can clearly see, well maybe you can't, that the gun banning scum of CA, HI, NJ, NY, MD and IL are clearly not satisfied with just background checks. Just what the hell makes you believe that gun banning scum in the other 44 states are any different?

You appear to be looking at the antis as people who can be reasoned with.

*Dated to 1968. I am aware of the 1934 NFA.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 21, 26 X 2, 32 and 36.
Proud member of the PigPen. Embrace the Pignose.

Last edited by G26S239; 02-08-2013 at 08:52..
G26S239 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 09:00   #169
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
You and your bad analogies again..

The bolded part shows you aren't willing to work on real solutions. When it's proven that what you suggest doesn't work, the anti's true to their previous history, will keep the existing laws and only add to them. Therefore, you are continually losing and never gaining. You can spin it however you want. Negotiating for something you know will not work is tantamount to lying and deceiving. I would rather stand up for my rights and so NO to all of it rather than negotiate my rights away for something that I know will not work, has been proven not to work, and only gives in to their incrementatlism. You have proven to be just like the Brady's and all the other Antis. You advocate for something you know will not work while saying with a straight face it will work. What is that the definition of? It's either insanity or lying. You pick..

I do want to work on real solutions - but also want the best overall result for gun owners.

Plus - Just because something only has a small positive impact it still is worth considering.

Maybe I understand that in a negotiation what something is worth is not just what I think it is worth - but also what the other side will be willing to pay for it.

Face it - most gun owners have already given up the background check.

Have you ever had one?

Will you have one at some point in the future?

Does your state require a BGC to get a CC permit?

Do you ever want a C&R FFL03?

The number of NICS checks is at an all time high - aren't they all submitting to a BGC?

So because - most have already paid the price - given up the right and have - or will get a BGC - I see it as a low value item.

Trade it in and get something worth more.


If your thought process is correct - and

" the anti's true to their previous history, will keep the existing laws and only add to them. Therefore, you are continually losing and never gaining"

Then we will just keep losing anyway.

I take a different view - fight back - be proactive - try and develop real solutions that work - trade things of low value (if they work or not) for things worth more - gain back some of our lost rights.



Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 09:02   #170
gwalchmai
Lucky Member
 
gwalchmai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Outside the perimeter
Posts: 44,155


In any case, Bill, your surrender compromise isn't even on the table, so why are we arguing about it?
gwalchmai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 09:03   #171
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by G26S239 View Post
I am not going to play in your yes or no sandbox because I flat out disagree with you underlying premises.

Appeasement did not work for Chamberlain. It will not work now.

As soon as you stipulate that background checks across the board are acceptable and reasonable than you will have ceded that portion of what they want.

Going back on that when they don't agree to give up anything will be played like John Kerry's I voted for it before I voted against it campaign snafu.

You seem to have the misapprehension that the antis are willing to give up their 45 year long crusade.*

I have laid out the facts of what gun banning scum are doing here in the PRK. Back ground checks did not stem the tide of HSCs, 10 day waiting periods, 10 round magazine limits and numerous other onerous laws here.

You can clearly see, well maybe you can't, that the gun banning scum of CA, HI, NJ, NY, MD and IL are clearly not satisfied with just background checks. Just what the hell makes you believe that gun banning scum in the other 44 states are any different?

You appear to be looking at the antis as people who can be reasoned with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gecX6ofQJHc

*Dated to 1968. I am aware of the 1934 NFA.
Have you ever gotten a background check to purchase a gun or get a CC permit?
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 09:08   #172
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwalchmai View Post
In any case, Bill, your surrender compromise isn't even on the table, so why are we arguing about it?
For fun? Aren't you having fun?

The reason it is not on the table is because many of the elected types that are pro gun are afraid to even try and work out a better deal - are afraid to even try and offer real solutions - because the reaction will be the simple minded

Any gun legislation bad.

So instead they play defense 100% of the time - and hope that a school will not get shot up next week.

Hope is not good strategy.

Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 09:12   #173
whoflungdo
Senior Member
 
whoflungdo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: MS
Posts: 6,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
I do want to work on real solutions - but also want the best overall result for gun owners.

Plus - Just because something only has a small positive impact it still is worth considering.

Maybe I understand that in a negotiation what something is worth is not just what I think it is worth - but also what the other side will be willing to pay for it.

Face it - most gun owners have already given up the background check.

Have you ever had one?

Will you have one at some point in the future?

Does your state require a BGC to get a CC permit?

Do you ever want a C&R FFL03?

The number of NICS checks is at an all time high - aren't they all submitting to a BGC?

So because - most have already paid the price - given up the right and have - or will get a BGC - I see it as a low value item.

Trade it in and get something worth more.


If your thought process is correct - and

" the anti's true to their previous history, will keep the existing laws and only add to them. Therefore, you are continually losing and never gaining"

Then we will just keep losing anyway.

I take a different view - fight back - be proactive - try and develop real solutions that work - trade things of low value (if they work or not) for things worth more - gain back some of our lost rights.



I have found your problem. You think inviting the government into transactions between individuals is of low value and all of the negative consequences associated with that and the possibility, nay inevitability, that it will lead to confiscation.
__________________

GTDS Certified Member #9

Last edited by whoflungdo; 02-08-2013 at 09:13..
whoflungdo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 09:14   #174
G26S239
NRA Patron
 
G26S239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: PRK
Posts: 9,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
Have you ever gotten a background check to purchase a gun or get a CC permit?
Yes. As I have stated more than once when replying to you ALL firearms transfers here in the PRK have a back ground check.
The gun banning scum did not stop there! They consider it a good starting point. Same as HI, IL, MD, NJ and NY.

1. Again I ask you what would make you believe that the gun banners in the other states are any different?

2. What makes you believe the antis are ready to give up their crusade? Especially with the White House and news media on board?
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 21, 26 X 2, 32 and 36.
Proud member of the PigPen. Embrace the Pignose.

Last edited by G26S239; 02-08-2013 at 09:15..
G26S239 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2013, 09:18   #175
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoflungdo View Post
I have found your problem. You think inviting the government into transactions between individuals is of low value.
If you have already had a BGC then the government is already there. I must have had a dozen of them in the last 5 years.

HAVE YOU EVER HAD A GUN RELATED BGC?

Under my system once you have a BGC then you don't need another for 3 or more years.

When you buy or sell a gun in a private sale your CHL or GBC is used as proof - no additional government involvement required.

I think the problem is you (and a few others) have already given up - and have just accepted that all lost rights are lost forever.

I don't see it this way.
Z71bill 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 02:11.



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


Users Currently Online: 782
187 Members
595 Guests

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