Back ground checks on private gun sales

Do we need it ?

I think we do....to stop what is referred to as straw buyers. Take cities like Chicago with strict gun laws and yet the number of shootings rank at the top in the nation. (Truth is I'd as soon give them all the guns they want and let them kill each other off)

In Memphis a gun shop here is rated one of the top (if not the top) in nation for guns sold that later end up somewhere in violent crimes....this isn't happening because of people like me and you. It's quite scarey to go in the store and look at the clientele....it's not uncommon to hear...."man i'z look'n fr an A Ra' 47 or an Uewzi" and they are legally selling the hell out of guns.

I'm willing to bet that a high percentage of the guns were bought legally by blacks and later sold to thugs either intentionally or non intentionally.

Only thing that's going to stop it is to make it where the only way an individual can sell a gun is to go through a licensed dealer and transfer ownership through the registration process that's already in place.

There was another gun shop here owned by a fellow named Glen Faulk who refused to sell guns, ammunition or magazines to a black person unless they met his visual and then verbal screening qualifications....I've been in there several times when one of the brothers came in looking for big magazines or 9 mm ammo and witnessed Glen tell them he didn't have any with them in plain sight...if questioned he'd reply those are sold. I've saw them ask to look at a Glock sitting in the display case and Glen would tell them "it's sold". Sadly Glen has passed....his tales of being sunk at sea twice in WW II will always be remembered by me.

A few years back I sold a hand gun to a guy....I called my buddy at the gun shop and asked him should we come in and transfer ownership to him he said no just get his drivers license number....which I did.

Truth is I'd just as soon gotten the gun out of my name.

Hey Joe- we don't need the registration BS- we need more guys like your pal the late Glenn Falk-- Our dealer here in an area that gets some Hispanics in season (lots of apples and vine grapes) for the Manuel-Labor they excel at apparently-if they come in looking to buy any: firearms, magazine or ammo- tells them he must see a valid photo MI driver's license (SOP for all gun sales here in MI- so no PITA ACLU lawyers need concern themselves) their employer's name, phone number and address, a valid paycheck or stub, a Green card, and a Passport- if they pass all that, he has them fill out the 4473 NICS and gets both their drivers license and ss numbers- calls it in with them standing behind the counter on a designated phone ( a dummy) as they can't hear what is NOT coming in the earpiece- then after a few minutes pause, tells them they will have to come back 3 days later, as there is an apparent "computer" problem- then they can pay for their gun- when they come back, the gun has been "sold" and what is Speedy Gonzales, making campensino/peon wages going to do- hire a lawyer and sue him? Problemo- Finito, Y muy bien alreadedor!!!!

Joe and Fox have just written the best posts I have read on the internet in a long time.

Registration is the penultimate goal of the gun grabbers. It is a Necessary step in order to be able to confiscate firearms which is the socialist's true ultimate goal.
Firearms registration must be fought at all costs because not only is it worthless (Think Canada here) but it's expensive with a cost in the billions. However if all firearms were registered confiscation would be relatively easy as was done with "assault weapons" in california.
I personally think less Americans would comply than the Canadians did before they scrapped their system.
Jim

Why would anyone assume that the great majority of guns used in crime in Chicago are aquired legally? If you are a hood on the streets of south, you don't have to work that hard to get a gun.
Like Jim says, a similar boondoggle was attempted in Canada. Billions poured into it, not a single crime prevented or solved to show for it. Scrapped.
No need to repeat history or not learn from the mistakes of others.


Best,
Ted

This proves Homey jOe is unbalanced.

Yep... all dem bruthers gonna register every gun dat come outa some B&E.

Sho nuf, man!

It's dat bro in the White House we gotta stop!

I think jOe has written one of the worst post I've seen on the internet about this subject. This is a general thought about compromise and sounding reasonable, and shooting oneself in the foot. I'm all for stopping crime, but there are laws in place that could be enforced and if stories like the Memphis shop are true, then they are true without registration. If jOe wants a gun out of his name, then do whatever he thinks would work for him, why drag three hundred some odd more million folks along with it.

Personally, I don't suspect confiscation of all guns is a true goal. I believe a more likely goal is to slowly make general ownership distastefully costly through registration, annual licensing and death taxing for inheritance. The eventual smaller number of holdouts will gladly be seen as a tax on the rich and the revenue will gladly be wasted.

Why doesn't someone just wake up one morning and proclaim the government will abolish all paperwork and start distributing ten free guns of choice to every citizen who filled out a return. Then look to the left and start negotiating. Maybe give them back a little of what they want, say cut the number to five free guns. Where's the flaw in the logic. Why not just start a federal progun campaign, call it antismoking or we need universal healthcare and within time it will be so.

Not only do they(blacks) sell their legal guns to the bad guys they lose them in games of chance or have them taken from them from bigger and meaner brothers in altercations that are never reported to police. This is a common thing here in Blackhawk county Iowa and is documented by my own experience and that of the leo's that I know.

As is often the case, you are misinformed. Confiscation has been and is being proposed in CA, but it has never been passed by the state legislature nor has it ever been signed into law. The CA "assault weapons" ban did not require confiscation, but prevents the sale or transfer of certain guns within the state. Owners of grandfathered or banned guns are free to move them out of state or to sell them to buyers in other states.

[quote=italiansxs]Registration is the penultimate goal of the gun grabbers. It is a Necessary step in order to be able to confiscate firearms which is the socialist's true ultimate goal.
Firearms registration must be fought at all costs because not only is it worthless (Think Canada here) but it's expensive with a cost in the billions. However if all firearms were registered confiscation would be relatively easy as was done with "assault weapons" in california.
I personally think less Americans would comply than the Canadians did before they scrapped their system.
Jim [/quoteI couldn't agree more, Jim. I am a NRA Life member, and many years ago, my first wife was taking the girls over across the bridge from Detroit (her home town, and today a sewer, like Chicago, reeling from corrupt mayors, etc.) to her folks' summer cottage just East of Windsor-- when the Customs official on the Canadian side spotted the NRA membership sticker on the rear lower bumper, he ordered her to pull aside and they searched the car and the luggage for firearms, especially a handgun. They found none, but told her that they were trained to do this on all vehicles entering Canada with any form own stickers than might infer gun ownership. They were polite- when she called me later on, I told her to scrape the sticker off-which she did- when they returned to America, they sailed through without a hitch. I do NOT have any stickers or hunting/gun related insignia on any of our vehicles- and when we go to area gun shows in Grand Rapids or Lansing, we park the vehicle 3-4 blocks from the facility and walk- so no BATFE Gestapo-types can get our license plate numbers. Just a precaution-

Take two ass burns jOe and call me in the morning. Ya gotta fever.

And the crowd, in anticipation of his arrival, chants "KEITH! KEITH! KEITH!"

And the government states a few decade later, you know, speeding and parking tickets may lead to other criminal activity later in life, so lets add that to our growing list of offenses. "Give them an inch and they'll figure out someway to take a mile"

and house to house searches to be sure you comply !

“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

They claim it was "mistake: to let that slip in there !These liberal politicians and the libtards that voted them in are no worse the the fing Nazi's in their need to disarm the public.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html

Hawaii is a universal registration state. Fortunately pre-1898 guns are exempt. For long guns you have to get a permit to acquire. There is a 14 day waiting period. You have to sign a medical release and get finger printed the first time you apply. The long gun permit is good for as many guns as you want for a year and must get renewed each year to remain valid. You only get finger printed the first time you apply. The only fee is the one time FBI fingerprint charge, which is around $16.

Hand gun permits are only valid for a specific gun. Again there is a 14 day waiting period.

However, the main problem is that on Oahu you have to go to the main police station. There is one desk. This serves a population of a little over 1 million people. Before Obama's re-election and the Ct. shootings the line was about 1 hour. Now the line is 4-6 hours. For a hand gun that means you satnd in line 4-6 hours to get the permit application, go back 14 days later and stand in line for another 4-6 hours to pick up the permit, then go pick up the gun and then stand in line for another 4-6 hours with the gun in hand to register it. For a long gun only the initial 4-6 hour line is avoided once you have a permit (which requires 2 4-6 hour waits once a year).

It is estimated that only 1/3 of the guns in Hawaii are legally registered. Can you guess why?

Hawaii was the site of one of the oft sited mass shootings around 15 years ago. The guy had a history of mental illness. He had about 6 legally registered guns. The system simply does not work, but makes a criminal out of those of us who legally import a gun but don't have 2-3 days of time to register it.

People that think we need this shit should have their rights taken away first.

Because the ONLY reason they need to know who has what is so the know what to take and from whom to take it next.

Perhaps a better solution would be to register all Liberals before they are allowed to open their mouths...after all, its not any less reasonable to have a mandatory registration of all Liberals than it is for all guns....after all freedom of speech is subject to reasonable limits as well.

And I personally think mandatory registration and taxation of all liberals is very responsible and reasonable considering the mess leftist liberals have cause over history.

As usual one of our resident gungrabbing libtard's doesn't really know what he's talking about. I direct the other intelligent memebers to line 5 of this attachment.
Jim

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/xcibviewitem.asp?id=195


Here's another source:

http://gunowners.org/nws9911.htm

If universal background checks and registration passes nationally, my guns will not be "illegal" .... they will just be "undocumented" like the aliens Obama gave amnesty to.
Universal background checks will do nothing to deter crime in any way and will only be the stepping stone to further registration and pain in the ass red tape to law-abiding responsible gun owners. My gun collection is a definite investment worth a lot of money and is none of the government's business.

I don't think most were stolen.....I'm betting most were acquired legally by someone.

The facts point 180 degrees in the opposite direction. A high percentage of the recovered crime scene guns are in fact stolen. In Chicago, anyway. There is no reason to buy new, when slightly used will do...


Best,
Ted

I hate to disagree with some guys here who I am more often than not in agreement with, but universal backround checks is the single issue we should be MOST concerned with in the current assault on firearms. As has been stated, this is the means and ends to the anti's long sought Gun Registry. This is what the backround check has always been. If their only concern was to keep guns out of the hands of felons, mentally ill, drug abusers, domestic violence offenders, etc., there would be no need to specify the make, model, and serial number of the firearm being transferred. This information is kept in bound logbooks which can be inspected at any time by the BATF, and eventually become the property of the BATF when the FFL quits or retires. Having this information has never had any impact upon crime nor has it ever been much help in solving crimes. For the most part, this is because the only folks who totally comply are law abiding citizens. They are also the only ones who bear the costs which far exceeded projections in Canada. Canada eventually repealed its' Long Gun Registry because it was costly and totally ineffective, but Quebec still has not complied. And there is no reason any reasonable person would believe that anti-gunners did not keep copies for future use in the other provinces. It's too easy to store large amounts of data in 2013.

Consider that in 2009, the FBI referred over 71,000 cases to the Justice Dept. where someone who was prohibited from legally buying a gun attempted to do so. Only 77 of those 71,000 cases were prosecuted by Obama's DOJ. This is only a fraction of the total number of people who lied on a Form 4473 and were turned down during the Instant Check. The Instatnt Check itself is a problem because many states are negligent in updating data on criminals which allows offenders to still legally buy guns. Somehow, this negligence is your fault. These are some of the people statistically most likely to misuse a gun, yet the Obama DOJ chose to let them walk free and continue their search to illegally buy a gun. At the same time, they want to track and register the guns you and I own.

Under the proposed new Universal Backround checks, every gun you currently own would have to become part of this unconstitutional registry. If you gave a gun to your son or daughter, there would have to be an FFL transfer using a Form 4473 and a backround check. If you died, every gun in your estate would have to be similarly transferred, but your heirs would have to acquire additional death certificate copies, and have a probate lawyer petition the Probate Court to do the required transfer. Just the hassle and cost in legal fees would be more burdensome than many guns are worth. Think of the multiple 4 to 6 hour waits DrBob spoke of on steroids. All this to track the guns and gun buying activities of law abiding people who ARE NOT THE PROBLEM! And all the while, criminals, drug users, and mentally ill folks are allowed to continue their illegal pursuit of a gun... over 70,000 of them in 2009 alone that were referred to DOJ for prosecution by FBI. This grievous sin of omission is being committed by the same Obama administration which says that we need all of these anti-2nd Amendment proposals if it will save only a few lives.

Gangbangers would still get guns. They would simply have to get Straw Purchasers who could pass a backround check to buy them at jOe's Memphis Gun Shop. They would use the same women they use to raise their illegitimate children and defraud the Welfare System. They would continue to steal guns. They could get them from foreign sources just as they do right now to get cocaine and heroin. Criminals are not going to follow any new law just because The Magic Negro signed it. So when the new Registration scheme and limits on certain semi-autos and large capacity magazines becomes a dismal failure, the anti-gunners will do what they always do and call for more and stricter restrictions on you and me... WHO ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!

Don't give them a fraction of an inch. This is the game we have been repeatedly warned about from gun guys who saw their rights slowly stripped away in Great Britain and Australia. They keep telling us not to fall for it. Those of you who are falling for this divide and conquer tactic need to see it for what it is... one small step in the steady march toward elimination of the private ownership of guns in the U.S. He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

I'm not that good with words....I should have said expand what we have to include private gun sales in stead of universal gun registration.

And that would not have stopped even one of these tragedy's and is a foot in the door for gun registration.

The first problem is that according to the FBI, between November 30, 1998 (when NICS first started up) and December 31, 2012 there were 987,578 denials. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between when the Brady Bill was passed and NICS got up and running there were approximately 312,000 denials for a total of 1,299,578. Since there are, like, no records from that period I am going to pass lightly over it and just use the (much more accurate and documented) NICS figures.

Second those are initial denials, and an analysis of 2009 NICS data by Dr. John Lott showed that approximately 94.2% of that year’s 70,010 denials were false positives. So assuming that 2009 was an average year, the NICS system has prevented not 1.9 million prohibited people from buying guns, nor even 987,578, but rather 57,280 (or about 4,067 per year).

Third, as everyone knows, in our judicial system, people are innocent until proven guilty. So just how many people have been proven (or pled) guilty for violations of the Brady Act? I found five reports on the NCJRS website for 2006, ’07, ’08, ’09 and ’10 and totaled up the number of convictions for those years. This amounted to a whopping 209 convictions (and no, that 209 number is not a typo).

According to the figures in Table 1 of the reports, in those five years there were a total of 347,455 denials which gives us a conviction rate of 0.060%. When we apply that across the decade and a half of NICS checks we find that a mammoth 594 “dangerous people” who were kept from getting guns. Over the course of 14 years and one month. Which boils down to a whopping 3.5 people a year.

If I buy a gun from my neighbor or he buys one from me, I don't give a tinker's damn we're not reporting it. They can kiss my ass.

No one will who is is smart enough to realize what it is,and who wants their wife/children to have to drag every gun they own to a gun shop-and get ripped off with the transfer fees-or worse the guns,when they drop dead ??

All this is a backdoor gun registration,and it most importantly does not solve the problem of protecting the children in schools.

1)Get rid of the damn Gun Free Zones (aka hunting preserves for nuts bent on making an name for themselves).

2)Armed guards in the other 2/3 of the schools,not just the ones for the privileged children.

Gorsh... I'm not dat good wit werdz either...

But I can sure as hell smell national gun registration when its in the room!

Yep. "Here you go, son. You can have my Purdey before I die. But you gotta register it with Barack Obama first."

That's brain dead. And that's Homey jOe.

The reason for the "gun-show loophole" in the 1968 Gun Control Act was that the Federal Government at that time thought it had to satisfy the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution. What the "loop hole" does is except out intra-state sales from the FFL transfer requirement of the Act. That is what allows you (that is the private citizen) to sell or bequest or give a gun to someone who lives in the same State you do without the background check.

All the FFL dealers at any gun-show are still required to complete their background checks just as it they were in their shops. The exception is only for the private citizen, and it is limited to same State citizens as purchasers. I trolled a Husqvarna sxs through the local show here this weekend and the only 'buyer' was a guy from Florida. I told him I couldn't sell to him unless we had one of the FFL dealers at the show document the sale. He declined because those guys were charging $40 to do the background check...Geo

PS: On the other hand he may have declined because he was an undercover BATF&E agent and I didn't fall for his scam!

The "gun show loophole" is a misnomer used by the progressive/dems to try and get to registration-confiscation.

Nothing that goes on inside a gun show is any different then gun sales that go on outside.Geo would not be able to sell that Husqvarna to a non resident of Ga either place,and any dealer would have to do the 4473 and the NICS for any sale in the show and back it is shop-same rules.
They make it sound like dealer sell the guns with no background check and just write "sold at gun show" in the distribution section of the bound book.Not so.

Let me see if I can make this easy...

Since the US Constitution was ratified until today, NO Federal, State or Local gun law has had ANY effect on crime.

Gun registration is simply another step toward slavery.

There. Even Homey jOe can understand that.

I think.

Gold star, Bob.

The only required universal regulations we need besides required PHOTO ID's at the voting stations....are 100% universal Liberal registration. SO we know what where the liberals are when we need to send them to CUBA or some other suitible Utopia.

Perfect Bone!!! Might I suggest Devils Island? Antarctica?

Some Hell hole that has no value to any human..and no natural resources. And its tens of thousands of miles away surrounded by water.

There are some who might think Hell an improvement from what I read here!

I don't know if you realized it, but you make a very important point here. The Liberal Democrats are vehemently against any voter I.D requirements because they falsely claim that such a requirement will "disenfranchise" poor and minority voters and prevent them from exercising their right to vote. Yet they have no problem with requiring photo I.D. and a criminal backround check before they allow millions of law abiding gun purchasers to exercise their Constitutional Right to acquire a firearm. They are so zealous in this infringement which is costly in terms of both time and money that they now wish to expand this requirement to all private sales. The filthy hypocrites who cry about disenfranchisement have no problem with disenfranchising us or even poor and minority folk who wish to own a gun for defending home and family in these cesspool cities that useless gun laws have only made more dangerous.

Just this summer, I bought a very abused and incomplete Lefever parts gun that was totally disassembled. Since this gun was way beyond restoration and several serial numbered parts were missing anyway, I asked the seller to just keep the stripped action because it wasn't worth paying $30.00 for a FFL transfer of a receiver which would never be used. I have totally passed on bidding for similar parts actions because the transfer fee tipped the balance when added to price, plus shipping, and made the deal impractical.

The statistics DaveK provided are eye popping when you consider the number of transfers that have been done over the years, the tiny number of illegal sales which are stopped, and the even smaller number of crimes which are prevented. Think of the total dollars that have been spent by us which could go to better things... like ammunition.

jOe, often-times when I read my long and wordy posts, I wish I could convey my meaning as short and sweet as you do. So all I'm really trying to say is this:

If we give these bAstards an inch, they'll take 37 miles.

I guess it's better to let one of his ol'buddies rip her off than take them to a licensed gun dealer and get them appraised.


I don't believe any kind of gun registration is going to stop a psycho from shooting people......but it could slow the brothers down in the mall parking lots.

I saw one yesterday in a gun shop....red hat cocked side ways, bandana hanging, red and white football coat he was looking for an extended magazine for his pistola'

I propose we register snide old men who can't spell, own shotguns and prowl internet BBS sites to start streams of thinking that do nothing but incite anger toward our beloved government and precious President.

Any ideas about who should be first in line?

"I guess it's better to let one of his ol'buddies rip her off than take them to a licensed gun dealer and get them appraised."

If you don't leave good instructions/records your going to get 50'cents on the dollar one way or the other.Most wives/children have no want for them and planning is the key (auction house for mine)
Poor planning by some is a poor reason reason for all to allow back door gun registration-aka universal backround check.


"I don't believe any kind of gun registration is going to stop a psycho from shooting people......but it could slow the brothers down in the mall parking lots"

Point out 1 just one incident of multiple gun murder/shooting that would have been stopped !It would not have stopped Newtown-killed his mother and stole the gun,Aurora and the others NO records.What would do they ALL but two since 1950 have in common?????Gun Free Zones

From John Lott's study

"If we finally want to deal seriously with multiple-victim public shootings, it’s time that we acknowledge a common feature of these attacks: With just two exceptions, the Giffords attack in Tucson and another at an IHOP in Carson City, Nevada, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. Had some citizens been armed, they might have been able to stop the killings before the police got to the scene. In the Newtown attack, it took police 20 minutes to arrive at the school after the first calls for help.


Again, to take away millions of lawful gun owners Constitutional Rights when there is zero proof it would stop even one of these tragedy's and IGNORE the real cause shows what the real objective is :registration to get to confiscation.

From the NRA ILA,not the last paragraph:

THESE ARE THE FACTS — READ THEM — LEARN THEM — SHARE THEM


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TALKING POINTS

NRA and NICS
The National Rifle Association supported the establishment of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) [1], and we support it to this day. At its creation, we advocated that NICS checks be accurate; fair; and truly instant. The reason for this is that 99% of those who go through NICS checks are law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to exercise their fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Dealers
Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur.

Private Sales
Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.

Mental Health Records and NICS
According to a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS; and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.[2]

Gun Shows
A common misrepresentation is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows.

A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.”
Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.[3]

Prosecutions
In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.[4]

“Universal Background Checks”
While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.

According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration.[5] In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.

I have another more diabolical suggestions for the Liberals/Antis-- Clinton, Obama, Biden, etc-- sentence them to guard duty in a remote harem full of beautiful naked or near naked women-- But they will be on a restricted diet-- Milk (white or chocolate) laced with saltpeter, tuna fish or egg salad sandwiches with the mayonaisse also laced with saltpeter, and lots of salty potato chips and pretzels-- then "let the good times unroll"--

You're too kind Foxy. Spread eagle the low lifes naked on the North Dakota prairie and lay their gentitals in a saucer full of water. It's only -17 below zero today.

"Stirred, not shaken H2O?"" Machts nicht, meine Fruend.

I would be meaner than that....I'd shove a piece of PVC pipe up thier but and pour honey in it..as well as their genitals...and stake them on an anthill in the summer.

Problem is the Sick SOB's might like the stimulation.

They would freeze to death way too soon in -17 F weather.

lets see now...dealer background check on all firearms transfers. dealer collects transfer fee. atf send irs quarterly reports of transfer transactions...irs invoices dealer for transfer fees. dealers sends check to irs for transfer fees. so, now we have a new tax in place. whats new?

Nada!

foxe: wana bet?

ISS, I have been away from the computer for a few days, but I wanted to respond to your inane post. We know from your numerous prior posts here that you cannot consistently spell or punctuate correctly, and you have amply demonstrated your inability to follow a logical line of thought or to comprehend the written word. You have now demonstrated that you can't count too well, either. Your post, cited above refers to "line 5" of the attachment. "Line 5" states:



Nothing about confiscation in that line. Perhaps you were attempting to refer us to lines three and four, which state:



The problems with that citation are that it is a 14-year old article that cites an unspecified radio commercial allegedly running in one city, and the information is simply incorrect. Perhaps you could provide some primary source citation to support your position. California has not yet passed any mandatory confiscation laws or regulations, neither 14 years ago nor currently. There are guns that one can no longer sell or transfer within the state, but one can simply ship them out of state to an FFL or to your own address in another state if you are fortunate enough to have another address out of state. When CA passed the drop-test regs for handguns a few years ago, a number of retailers who had large inventories of guns that could no longer be sold in CA simply moved out of state and took their businesses with them. When certain "assault" weapons were banned (including AR and SKS models), owners had the opportunity to register them as grandfathered under the regs, or to sell them before the new regs took effect, or to move them out of state. No mandatory confiscation if one followed the regs.

I'd also like to address another portion of your post. You referred to me as First, I am not a gun grabber. Your statement has no basis in fact, and once again demonstrates your lack of capacity for rational thought and comprehension. Second, I am not a "libtard." My liberal friends think I am a right wing wacko, and my conservative friends think I lean a bit to the left. So, I am comfortably situated right where I want to be, which is in the middle with slight leanings to both sides of the aisle, depending on the specific issue at hand.

ISS, you are a moron, and seem to be the kind of guy who gives conservatives a bad image. While I agree with you on some issues, your approach and your style are completely inconsistent with those of the more learned members of this forum. Oh, and you are ugly, too.

Well, since you brought it up. Is it unfair to assume your vote goes right to the dems. Actions speak louder than saying you appreciate good guns. Doesn't seem like middle-o-the road to me. Can I suppose you share the veeps leaning towards the double gun.

duh...ware youse guys goin wid dis?

Nothing!!
I just usually ignore this libtard idiot unless he posts something that's patently wrong as he did here in regard to the ongoing "assault weapon" confiscation in California.
If he get's annoying I'll put him back on the ignore list as he has nothing concrete to contribute here.
Jim

You are completely wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about, but that is no surprise.

Well, put up or shut up. Post something definitive about mandatory "confiscation" in CA. If you follow the rules, nothing gets confiscated. Your agenda is out in front of your brain, but that's not much of a stretch.

I wish you would put me back on your ignore list.

Why do they NEED every gun registered? Simple...they fully intend on documenting every gun so they can come and confiscate them at some point in the near future....like next year. After all, that way they know exactly who has exactly what and exactly where it is.

Why should we pay taxes on something like that we have owned sometimes for generations that has never been taxed before? What happens if someone refuses to pay taxes an on antique gun someone has had for 40 years? Right...Confiscation.

Perhaps we should pass a law for "Journalists", News shows, Newspapers...requireing every one to be taxed and registered anually....and be required to follow strict guidlines. Or they will be hauled off and confiscated...AKA sent to a gulag.

After all...Freedon of speach and the Press isn't entitled to a different set of standards and requirements than gun ownership.

I don't really want to get in the middle of a personal conflict anymore than I care to have anyone criticizing my personal conflicts... even though that happens quite often. But I will point out some glaring problems with what has been going on in California. You say that "If you follow the rules, nothing gets confiscated."

Well, the RULES are "...the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed."

This is a Constitutional Right that they're chipping away upon. This is a Civil Rights violation as much as discrimination because of race or skin color. If we're foolish enough to let them incrementally take it away or dilute it, shame on us. We already own these rights. The government does not give them to us. It's up to us to stick together as women and minorities have done, and fight to keep them.

I don't know personally if anyone has actually had the police knocking on or breaking down doors in California to confiscate firearms. There probably are isolated incidents that can be documented. But just the fact that we apparently have the scenario where folks and firearms dealers must either sell or transfer firearms to another state, or relocate their businesses to another state is frightening. These are law abiding people we're talking about. California is not doing things to force out drug dealers and gang-bangers.

What happens when other states pass the same kind of draconian laws that do absolutely nothing to reduce violent crime? Where do we move or sell our Constitutionally permitted property then? Do we sell our guns for pennies on the dollar to dealers who can export them to some country where firearm ownership is still legal as happened in Great Britain?

This whole scenario has been played out before. The camel must get his nose under the tent before he can upend the whole thing. What starts out as a "reasonable" inconvenience leads to outright bans and confiscation.

Why is that so hard to see?

We don't....but I believe we do need private gun sales to go through the back ground checks in place now.

Bull

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile -- hoping it will eat him last." Churchill, Winston

and once again

"Universal Background Checks”
While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.

According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration.[5] In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.

and once again...

Universal backround checks are nothing but a backdoor registration scheme. In an age where millions of firearms transactions can be stored on a few hard drives, does anyone really think that gun purchases by law abiding citizens aren't already being stored? If the only concern is that criminals and mentally ill people do not buy guns, then why do they need to know whether you are buying a single shot .22LR or an AR-15 .223? And why do they need the serial number? It has already been proven that this data does not prevent crime and very rarely helps to solve any crimes. All of this crap is being directed at you, the law abiding citizen, while criminals will still get their guns almost exclusively from illegal sources.

And when Jamal breaks into your house and steals your guns... what happens?

Most of the time, a plea bargain is made, despite the fact that he already has a multiple page arrest record, and he gets little or no jail time. And then he does it again. If the Libtards had their way, you would be jailed for not having your legally owned guns kept securely enough. This is not about reducing violent crime. We already have laws that prohibit felons, drug abusers, and mentally ill folks from buying firearms. Those laws are not enforced. Someone please show us where these stupid and unconstitutional laws have actually reduced crime.

Why? If a guns been in the family why should they have to pay a gun dealer and register the gun for a son to inherit a fathers gun? Particularly when they rarely go after people to lied on their applications in gun shops....

The answer is their real motive is to find out who owns exactly what guns and exactly what addresses they can be found for future confiscation.

Once they get that information....it can't be used for any other reason. And we already know that's their real goal.

More than a few Liberals have publicly admitted it.

Tell you what...lets have 100% registration and licensing on all liberal media, individuals and companies...lets hold them to the letter of the law for truth in advertising like any business that lies about their product. That way they can be taxes and identified more readily when the say or publish a lie that can't be proven.

And we have a lip tax for liberals...before they are allowed to speak...after all that's just as fair as requiring guns to be registered and taxed.

It's ok to feel that way, but I don't think you explained what that would fix. There's no cure if it's needed to make you feel better, but why ignore a fact that Dave K. brought up. Fourteen and a half odd million background checks resulted in sixty-two prosecutions. Does that make you feel safer, or point out that there were only sixty-two dummies.

How many out of sixty-two criminals do you figure are going to submit to your nonregistered, if it's possible, background check. How many jOe averages are gonna wait for delays and eat the cost of background checks. What if you get a clear background check and your buddy shoots his wife with one of your previous turkey guns, you off the hook or on the record.

Craig, see your point but what interests me is not the gnat's eyelash of prosecutions, it's the number of refusals as a result of background checks.

Also, the background check has nothing to do with who's on the hook for murder with a previously owned gun. That's registration, passing from owner to owner.

Let's see here...

Adam Lanza's mom passed ALL of CT's gun checks and laws. Then her kid went out and massacred a school.

Was there a check box she missed?

Like "My son is a homicidal maniac who's been on drugs since he was 2"
Check "yes" here.
Check "no" here.
Check "DNA" here.

Well now. That would have made everything different wouldn't it?

(Check here if you're an idiot parent)

Friendly reminder: The Second Amendment says NOTHING about background checks. Because bureaucrats can't stop crime!

What good is running checks if they prosecute almost NO ONE that gets rejected trying to buy a gun now AT DEALERS? And they go after so few...they essentially go after no one.

I'd think your two point are somewhat related King. If an individual is known to have sold a firearm that was later used in a crime, there could be a better than fair chance that a refusal, at least delay, comes up the next time they want to buy a gun.

I'd tend to suspect that background checks for private sales is a paper trail or a form of defacto registration. I'm not thinking criminals should have guns, only that the facts and the strong encouragement to compromise do not address the criminals or safety interest of the public. It seems to have an ideological purpose though.

You raise interesting points. I'm opening my yap here because Canada went through registration. Since it's gone, we still must pass a safety course and background check to get a license to possess and acquire a gun and ammunition. I mention it because of the possibility of US looking here for something less onerous and restrictive than registration. So, I can buy and sell any of my guns at any time to anyone as long as I buy from a person with a Possession and Acquisition license and sell to one who has the same license. There is no registry but I know that some gunshops keep records in case guns turn up in the wrong hands and wrong places. Perhaps Canadian members will provide additional information of how it works.

Oh, Canada!

Oh, NO!

If The Great White North thinks these "sensible regulations" are good deal, God save the USA!

And you can keep the Molson.

I don't buy Molson, only locally made stuff.

99.9% of us DO NOT think Cdn regs are "sensible".

Only some weirdos perhaps.

The issue is not whether California is completely fucked up on its gun regs. Those of us who live here all agree on that point. The issue is that ISS is bloviating about California's confiscation of guns, and he is simply wrong, as usual. He spouted off with some incorrect info, and I called him on it. We don't like the CA regs, but we have learned to live with them until we can vote the bastards out of office. ISS is an idiot and needs to get his facts straight.

See Dave K's post on page 3 of this thread for the facts and figures which show that 94.2% of the refusals in 2009 were false positives. He elaborates further on the number of refusals that resulted in actual convictions, and the extremely miniscule conviction rate over time.

Not discussed in the data is why it was necessary to collect information on the make, model, and serial numbers of guns that were sold to law abiding folks who passed the backround check. Unless the dealer is selling grenades, rocket launchers, sawed off shotguns, or other prohibited weapons, this is none of Barack Obama's business.

Some monkey done took one of my stars again...

I think you got a bad jar of "moon" jOe. Better go back up in those Tennessee hills and find someone with a better still.

There's as wide a range of what is considered "sensible" on this issue as there is in the political spectrum of governments and opposition parties in both our countries representing all our citizens.

What's puzzling to me is all the spite and fulminations on this board about background checks and registration when there was hardly a peep about the Patriot Act which cuts more deeply into your privacy and sacred freedoms.

Could members explain why America blithely went along with what couldn't pass in any other modern democracy---reasonably, without the usual spite and spleen of killing the questioner, please?

King, I'd say the Patriot Act was just the result of 911. No, we're not very proud of it anymore...Geo

The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor... we rounded up West Coast Japanese for the duration.

Muslims dropped the Twin Towers... we passed the Patriot Act and shot a few arabs.

Germany was defeated in Spring of 1945... and Western Europe along with the British Commonwealth -- including Canada -- still relies on the USA for protection.

Without America and its guns, most of the world would be speaking German or Japanese right now. Or... having to fund their own pathetic armies.

All true, Bob, but the British Commonwealth and Western Europe, sharing home-grown terrorists and the same jihad hit-list as the US, did not impose such draconian measures on its citizens, arguably the most nationalistic and patriotic in the world---or close to it.

Having spent enough of the last 25 years of my life in Europe.....do you actually believe that?

They have fewer rights to begin with...and there is a lot that goes on you never see on the news.

None made laws to allow their governments to diminish citizens rights as Americans gave to their government, to root through phone records, library records of reading interests, medical records, credit card purchases etc and made it a federal crime if they reported to others they were under investigation. Not a peep.

They don't need laws to allow them to do it in Europe..they do it already.

Not legislated as the will of the people as the Patriot Act in the US. My question is not of comparisons. It was 911 provoked for sure but why did the US of all places permit such an unprecedented (some say unwarranted) intrusion and now make a national debate of background checks, magazines and registration, citing a slippery slope to slavery?

Europeans lack many of the rights and Protections we have here in the USA.

They for example..don't have a Bill of rights....every right they have can essentially be signed away with a single act of parliament.

We DO have a Bill of Rights....and they can not be taken away by any president..or any law passed by the Congress.

They can only be added or taken away by a super majority of the States.

And as I said...its not unprecedented because no other nation in the world enjoys that protection from their governments.

Exactly ! Those are God Given rights,not Government given and they can not be taken away by the government.

Posted this on the big boy area,Dan Bongino,US Secret Service

"We live in a society of wolves,you do not fight back by creating more sheep"

King, interesting stuff. I know, I know, the grass is always greener over in europe. When you penned that letter to the maverick, were you thinking 'there'll be compromise anyway' meant you guys should model after europe.

I get entertained by the flowery adjectives that are assumed to be fact, but not trying to be contrary, just interesting stuff to me.

It is written, for sure. Where are these described rights and protections observed and maintained within the Patriot Act? Is the Patriot Act subordinate to the First and Second? Did Congress sign away Bill of Rights sacred guarantees with the Patriot Act? It's one thing or the other: rights were signed away by Congress or they weren't. If they weren't, when did Washington stop rooting through everyone's private affairs: what you say, what you read, what you buy, state of your health, your financial affairs etc?

Craig, we're colonials who've done well on our side of the ocean. Nancy and I envy no one, admire many aspects of European culture and try to get over every year. We don't go for greener spaces. We have more of that here!

I don't know who's the maverick you mention but I think my reference to "compromise anyway" is that our side of the gun control debate won't get out unscathed. None in fierce struggles with governments ever does.

It appears to me now as then that there's only so much that's doable, as they say, with the governing party's legislative reach. It pales by comparison with the afflictions of the Patriot Act (to get back to my original question).

As with the current hysterical rush toward diminishing the Second Amendment, the Patriot Act was quickly proposed and passed with minimal debate and maximal emotion. Even still, there was and remains a great deal of controversy and disagreement over it. But to answer why there is less protest about the Patriot Act, you only have to look at the numbers of affected persons. The Patriot Act certainly has the potential to infringe upon various Constitutional Rights, but most Americans who don't wear turbans or worship in mosques don't see any clear and present danger to their own personal freedoms or any real intrusion into their lives. So far. For most of us, the biggest deal is the fact that we have to arrive at airports earlier and undergo a more thorough security check before boarding a plane. We shrug and say that if the FBI wishes to waste time looking into our library book choices, we have nothing to hide or nothing to fear. We understand that there are countries where there is way less personal freedom in the name of perceived security. Still, a lot of us are concerned that, in the name of political correctness, the rights of the many had to be infringed to contain the bad actions of a very few. I was very pissed when I watched my elderly parents and my 8 year old daughter go through a very rigorous search at an airport shortly after 9-11, while an obviously Arabic family in robes and turbans with enough luggage to outfit a caravan whizzed right through boarding.

To me, if the government feels it absolutely feels it needs to infringe upon someones rights, they probably should narrow it down to the group that is actually causing the problem. Similarly, most of the violent crime and murder that goes on in our cities is perpetrated by a certain ethnic group of a certain sex and a certain age range. Yet Obama and crew are centering their crosshairs on law abiding citizens who are not, and never have been the problem. If you gave most of us here a choice between Obama's Gun/Magazine Ban/Universal Registration scheme, and rounding up all gangbangers and summarily deporting them, I think you know which we'd choose. And I think you know which choice would have the most positive effect on reducing gun violence. There is more protest about the current proposals simply because we know it will have a more direct effect on more of us, and we've spent decades actually seeing the toll gun control has taken on gunowners around the world without tangible net benefits.

But certainly, you already knew that.

Well HJ will get his wish-including registration in the senate,we all need to call the RINO's .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/s...3d_story_1.html


"A bipartisan group of senators is on the verge of a deal that would expand background checks to all private firearms sales with limited exemptions, but significant disagreements remain on the issue of keeping records of private gun sales, according to aides familiar with the talks."

Democrats say that keeping records of private sales is necessary to enforce any new law and because current federal law requires licensed firearm dealers to keep records. Records of private sales also would help law enforcement trace back the history of a gun used in a crime, according to Democratic aides

Senators are considering whether to establish a new online portal where buyers and sellers could conduct the background check or to allow federally licensed gun retailers like Wal-Mart or Dick’s Sporting Goods to charge a small fee to conduct background checks for private dealers, aides said. A record of the sale then could be turned over to a licensed retailer, sent to the gun’s manufacturer or kept by the seller.

the power to tax is the power to destroy...ie obamacare...

when we have universal backgrouond checks, we will also have federal firearms transfer taxes?

Hell why stop there...

The Obama zombies will slap a $5,000 a year tax on each gun after forcing 100% registration.

Then claim they aren't disarming anyone....then they claim all they have to do is pay their taxes and they can keep their guns. Knowing most people could not afford it.

I believe Dr. Bob gave an example of Hawaii's 100% registration requirement and the estimates that compliance was some small fraction of that. Maybe a good model to look at because of the geographic isolation. The only reason would be to criminalize regular folks. How about a spot check at a local range, shooting grandpa's old gun on loan, felony?

I saw an article on cigar taxes. I believe it said 53% tax with some localities much higher. Also, regulations for use are extremely prohibitive. Only difference I can see is cigars are consumable and don't lend themselves to future regulating and fees once a sale is completed.

The grabbers know joe average gun owner is safe and responsible with their use and transfer of any firearms, but they are identifiable and controllable.

Thank you for answers to my question above.

I've been googling unsuccessfully for requirements of US gun ownership, and would appreciate knowing what is required to buy---to keep it simple---a shotgun or rifle. I read of FFLs and what appears to me to be overlapping state and federal legislation i.e. selling at gun shows or out of state etc.

I'm curious because for all Canadians have been through with background checks, burdened and getting rid of the long-gun registry, it seems to me that our system, regulated as it is, is simpler, less onerous and restrictive than what is currently legislated in the US and, from the senators above, batten your hatches!

I'm interested in the nuts and bolts, not comparisons of rights and freedoms with others. Today a gunner called who wants to sell me some interesting shotguns. I've done safety, feds done background, I have a PAL Purchase and Acquisition license and can buy or trade on the phone without reporting to anyone.

It is prohibited to buy or sell to a person without a PAL license. Canadian members may correct my understanding of the system. I mentioned this earlier because from what I'm reading here the US may be thinking of something similar because registration is clearly beyond its reach and proposed private/public record-keeping a charade.

Your thoughts, please.

Long gun (or handgun) in most states

From a 01 FFL dealer,he/she fills out a 4473 (retained ONLY in dealers records) post 1998 the dealer calls in NICS
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics
If he/she has no criminal record good to go(Record of NICS check is NOT kept)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

FTF sale in the same state from another gun owner,again most states.Seller does not sell to felon.

It should be noted that there is virtually no evidence that criminals buy guns,they steal them or kill someone to get them.

Out of 10 plus pages of comments, these two quotes above pretty much say it all........

jOe initially said he wanted the gun out of his name so he cold FEEL BETTER, what he doesn't understand, evidently, is that even if you loan a gun to someone and they kill with it, YOU DID NOT COMMIT THE CRIME AND ARE NOT LIABLE, the killer is........

King goes on and on about his Canadian registration card, so what, if your car is registered or is not and someone borrows or steals it and kills ten kids on the sidewalk ARE YOU AT FAULT....does the registration of your car STOP THE CRIME.....

Come on people, wake up and smell the roses.........

Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker didn't buy their guns at Humpy's Hardware Store over 85 years ago.....they stole them, all of them, some from a National Guard Armory, some from the police and some from private parties........SOME OF THESE GUNS WERE REGISTERED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, SO WHAT.......DID IT STOP THE CRIMES THAT TOOK PLACE........

Every city U.S.A. is overrun with stolen guns of all types, some with serial numbers, but most without.....many of them for sale day in and day out.......gun crimes run rampant daily in places like Chicago, New York City, Miami....all with illegal guns......I wonder if registration will solve or slow down this continual crime spiral.....I wonder if jOes hand gun he sold will show up in Miami and the police will come knocking......duh.........

Same today, you can register whatever you want, wherever you want and it will not stop shit........registration is a useless and fruitless HIGH DOLLAR EXERCISE BY THE GOVERNMENT, WHO WILL ULTIMATELY PASS THE ENTIRE EXERCISE COST ON TO YOU AND ME.....AND THERE WILL BE NO REDUCTION IN CRIME, THEFT, OR WARM COZY FEELINGS OR ANYTHING ELSE........JUST MORE STUPID, USELESS RESTRICTIONS FORCED ON THE INNOCENT.......

IF YOU WANT TO REGISTER SOMETHING, REGISTER THE GHETTO'S IN EVERY STATE......

ABSOLUTELY THE FAILED FRONT OF STUPID PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THIS OR ANY INCREASED FIREARMS REGISTRATION EFFORT..........

Agree to the above, Doug. I've said registration will change nothing. Everyone here knows it and why. I've written to the senator described by Jim as a RINO, preferable to writing to the confirmed.

Thanks, Dave. An American must have a background check to buy or sell. A dealer calls NICS to confirm the buyer does not have a criminal record or conditions preventing him from possessing a firearm.

What about a person-to-person transaction within and outside a state? Who calls NICS: the buyer or seller? Do all sales and repair transactions go through FFLs? Are FFL's the go-between for gunners and the federal government?

Which raises record-keeping---or not. Canadians had reasonable expectations of registry records being destroyed because the Conservative Party of Canada which rid us of the registry is the governing party.

There is no reporting in Canada. Money is exchanged from Atlantic to Pacific to Arctic coasts; the deal is done. With government's arbitrary measures everywhere, and small-business FFLs operating on their permit, why the confidence no one is keeping records?

It doesn't ring right from all that I'm reading on this board. I'm sensitive because I've been struggling lately with governments favouring a grassroots forestry program, everyone's smiling, but there's no victory for landowners if they surrender control of their destinies.

Have your confidence in the current system but from my decades of struggling with the chicanery and dishonesty of liberal, conservative and socialist governments, sleep with an eye wide open, please.

Hey Doug, I think my comment was pretty good bordering on brilliant if I do say so myself.
It will be a chess match. Senator Reid won't make a large move until 2014 because he has too many seats up for re-election to protect. I believe there are 14 seats up for re-election in 2014 and 2 empty seats right now he is fighting for. He wants to remain majority leader, the President cannot be re-elected so he offers no help and Senator Reid will do everything in his power to delay bringing a major gun bill to the Senate floor.

That is until 2014 and if 2014 is anything like 2012 where Republicans LOST seats in both the Senate and the House Pelosi will again be Speaker and nothing will stop their agenda. Needless to say, 2014 is importtant.

King, in most states, person to person sales between residents of the same state are perfectly legal and there is no background check. As long as I don't know or have a reason to believe you cannot own a firearm I can sell it to you. That's for rifles and shotguns but, regarding the sell of handguns, I have no clue.

King,

I think you have it a bit confused,an American does not have to have a backround check to buy or sell in many cases.

If he buys from a licensed dealer 01FFL he must fill out a 4473(that no one but the dealer sees and is retained by that dealer),since 1998 a NICS call is made to,if there is no record then he passes a buys the gun-that record of the NICS is not to legal to be kept by them.That is the only case when a backround check is used-again NO record is kept

To sell or for private purchase [b]NO[b] backround check.

Most importantly there is virtually no proof that criminals buy guns they steal them.Also none of the multi shooting gun tragedy's involved guns purchased by the killer.

I think you got your wires crossed....

I'm betting the statistics will show that most criminals use guns that were purchased legally by someone else then scrupulously sold on the street.

Kind of a hood version of Obama's "fast and furious".

Ahh, now that makes sense. Maybe, we need a new 'scrupulously' law that says agents can spot inspect any 'collection' to make sure mr. straw buyer still has them. Still wondering which of these characters is going to follow laws that are already in place, and why betting carries more weight than the facts.

I'm all open for facts....

where are YOURS ??????????????????????


Criminals STEAL guns
"A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.”
Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.[3]


HJ will not back up ANY of his ideas for gun control and continues to IGNORE facts that criminals steal guns and "universal backround checks" will REQUIRE,registration.
Just because your done buying guns, Joe why do you want to stop others ? "Hooray for me and F everyone else"

Where did you get "steal" from street/illegal sources or "friends or family" ?

I'm not for gun control...I'm just for controlling people that buy and sell guns to people that can't purchase a gun themselves. You tell me how it can be done ?

Dave how long did you think it took people to figure out to answer "yes" to the question on the ATF form "Are you buying this gun for yourself ?"

If private gun sales have to go through back ground checks just like the back ground check that you and I go through when we buy a gun from a gun dealer it will slow these people down....and I think the NRA thinks like I do.

Even if this was the case... and statistics and facts show it is not... the scenario you are describing here is already a Federal Felony. This is called a Straw Purchase. It's a felony, just the same as if they broke into your house and stole your guns. So even if we had Universal Backround checks, criminals could still easily find someone who had no criminal record, and they could buy the gun from either an FFL dealer, or a private seller with no problems. Then they could pass that gun on to a criminal who could not pass the backround check. Or they could continue to do what they do in most cases now and steal their guns. Then the criminal would mis-use the gun to rape, rob, or murder. The only thing that gave us a reduction in violent crime is mandatory sentencing that kept repeat offenders off the street. And that's something Liberals always oppose. Why?

We're talking about criminals here. Making a Straw Purchase and breaking another law means nothing to them. Not a damn thing changes except that you've now given Obama and Company the backdoor Gun Registration that they have been seeking. Then when the stupid laws they pass fail again, and they go for more laws which eventually lead to outright bans or confiscation, you will have enabled them. Is that what you want?

Keith....I could go today and buy a handgun legally take a short ride to the hood and I'm betting I could double or triple my money and I've not broke any law.

If my 'intent' was keep to myself.

jOe, in my state, it is already required to transfer any handgun through an FFL even if it's a private sale. That's true in many states, but it hasn't decreased violent crime one bit. But the point I was making is that even if Universall Backround checks were required for every firearms transaction... even a gift or bequest to your own son as Obama wants... criminals will still mostly get their guns through theft. The criminals who want to buy them from either a dealer or a private individual will still use a Straw Purchaser who can pass the NICS system check.

Nothing changes except that you will have made Obama's goal of outlawing the private ownership of guns easier. He has said that he doesn't believe Americans should be allowed to own guns. He reversed the Bush Administration's position on the U.N. Small Arms Treaty. He reversed the Bush position that said individuals have a Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms during the Heller case.

I know you wouldn't piss on Obama if he was on fire. Why do you want to help him on this issue?

Bull !

Your ass will be in a Federal Prison

"Private Sales
Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm."

Again Bull

criminals do NOT buy guns,they steal them as PROVEN by the statics you continue to ignore !

"A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.”

Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.[3]

According to F.B.I. published statistics, the answer to your question has been available for many, many years......

The majority of criminals STEAL GUNS......The majority of crimes are committed with STOLEN GUNS......

The F.B.I. statistics show that among juveniles, minors under the age of 16, 17 and 18 depending on legal jurisdiction, serving in correctional facilities, 86% had owned a gun with 66% having a gun by the age 14.....There was also a tendency for juvenile offenders to have owned several firearms, with 75% owning three or more.....Criminal Juveniles most often acquired guns ILLEGALLY from family members, friends, drug dealers and street contacts.....over 95% of these weapons were stolen.....

Inner city youths cited "protection" as the top reason for carrying a gun.....In Rochester, NY, 22% of young males have carried a gun ILLEGALLY most for only for a short time..........

F.B.I. statistical trends show the rising trend in homicide rates was most pronounced among lower income and especially unemployed males..... The rise in crack cocaine is often cited as the reason for the sharp rise in gun violence across the United States among youths.....

Violent gun homicides show that the majority of the offenders have serious prior criminal records and this statistic has risen from 73% to over 95% in recent years......These criminals steal or purchase their guns by illegal means......

Youths and Hispanic and African Americans were the most represented, with rapidly rising injury and death rates more than tripling for black males aged 13 thru 17 and doubling for black males age 18 thru 24..........

Gun violence statistics are also available state by state....

The incidence of homicides is much greater in the U.S. than in other advanced countries.....The U.S. has 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants.....

For comparison, Switzerland, ranked THIRD IN THE WORLD FOR GUN OWNERSHIP PER CITIZEN and with very open gun laws, has very low gun related intentional homicides with 0.52 per 100,000 inhabitants........

You can put blame where you want, but facts are facts.....

Therefore, we need politicians and intelligent citizen voters who understand WHERE THE PROBLEM IS and who will act accordingly to correct the violence where it is most obvious and prevelant.....

We can start by getting rid of this entire administration which is full of losers..........

I don't believe the NRA thinks this way at all. Many of the stats that are repeat beaten to death here, because they are ignored, were uncovered and presented by the NRA. I thinks it's important that the 'facts' were not created by the NRA, but are backed by searchable footnotes. The sources, many of them, are from the very folks who're ignoring them and writing the regulatory and legislative gun control measures.

I also note that if friends of the sporting gun are willing to ignore the facts about how ineffective the proposed gun control measures would be against criminals, who could fault the logic and tactics of antigunners.

Of course the NRA does not support what Joe is saying-once again he makes statements and has NO proof

I think we ought to require hillbillies to get a government background check before they reproduce.

The form would have a check box question:

"Is there a history of insanity or alcoholism in your detectable family? Yes? No?"

Maybe that would prevent threads like this...

I think the Hillbillies have a far better track record of responsible behavior than the liberals have as a whole.

You're right Bone. I still think jOe just got a bad jar of moon. We will have to wait until it wears off.

The video doesn't address the NRA's stance on the registration of private gun sales.

If you would just join the NRA and subscribe to the American Rifleman as part of your membership, you will easily prove to yourself that the NRA is absolutely against Universal Backround Checks, closing the so-called gun show loophole, and backround checks for all private sales. Don't believe us. Join up and see for yourself.

While it is true that they supported the backround checks done now by dealers, and pushed hard for the NICS system as a sane alternative to longer and longer waiting periods, they have seen that this did not give the promised reductions in violent crime, and they see that this is nothing but a backdoor registration scheme.

You keep hearing from the liars in the Liberal Media that most gun owners support these measures, but you should also be able to see that almost everyone here is against. Doesn't that tell you something? The polls they are citing are fiction... pulled out of their ass to fool gun owners into going along with this crap. Use common sense and don't fall for their lies.

Join NRA and see for youself. Do your own poll and see what the guys at your gun club think. See what the guys here think. You know the Magic Negro is a filthy liar. Don't let him get away with it.

“Universal Background Checks”
While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.

According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration.[5] In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.


If my attachment works, it should give some idea of what the NRA sent out on 18 Feb. Maybe not good enough for you jOe, but I still don't think the NRA agrees with your private sale background checks concept.

I've been an NRA member for years.

You guys keep jumping off the deep end and confusing what I said.

Back ground checks on private gun sales has nothing to do with mandatory registration of all guns.

We have back ground checks on guns from dealers now...only someone with criminal intent would be against having back ground checks done on private gun sales.

Yes it does...because firearms handed down from parents to children WOULD bee effectively tracked...because they can now say...AHA! there are more we didn't know about...that we now know where they are.

Because THOSE are considered private sales...

Hi jOe, thanks for reading the attachment that I took right off an NRA email. I was so proud of myself to actually stick it on to my post. I'm easily entertained, tomorrow I'm going to try and make a stack rocks in the back yard.

NY Senator Chuck(you can tell I'm lying cuz my lips are moving)Shumer originally said universal background checks had nothing to do with registration....then later was caught admitting that the main focus the dems had was on Gun Registration, which everyone knows is the prelude to gun confiscation or turning them in. Even the studies Obama ordered on gun violence show banning, background checks, registration, etc. will do little to prevent gun violence. So why are the lib/dems still insisting on having these restrictions? (one can discount Senator Diane Feinstein as she is a slobbering San Francisco gun ban idiot) As always with the dems, one will not know their true agenda until it is already done....transparency my ass.

Back ground checks on private gun sales has nothing to do with what you guys are ranting about.

You are very confused Joe....think about what you are saying here and common sense should prevail.....

First off the Government, your friend LOL, WILL NOT separate private sales into categories....I.E. , private trades, private family heirloom hand me downs, gun show private sales, local state private sales, private friend to friend give away's, private neighbor to neighbor trades, private firearm presentations to friends and so forth.......Private will mean private, period.........The tort system in our country will make this air tight as written by a bunch of liberal tort worms in D.C.....

Your Government, run by this Magic Negro, will lump the WORD PRIVATE INTO JUST THAT....."ALL PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS".......the rest would be history, for all honest gun owners to anguish over for many, many years to come......

Is that what you want, the Government/ATF involved in everything concerning the Second Amendment....where their previous actions have proved useless in crime reduction........Should they be involved in Black Powder firearms as well, just a stepping stone away......give them an inch and they will bury you......

Actually it does....its called incremental firearm registration and tracking.

Its part of the Democrat strategy..taken straight from Rules for Radicals..

If you can't do it all at once...you do it one small step at a time.

Hmmm, I wonder what a good definition for 'universal background checks' would be. I'm gonna help jOe, you're going for the record of longest thread ever, right?

Lets see jOe, we have been round and round,Doug,Keith,Craig,BH and others have shown you fact after fact for everything you have come up with,and we are back to this.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2...onable-n1520082

Back-round check do indeed have EVERYTHING to do with what we are talking about:

"The nine-page document says the success of universal background checks would depend in part on "requiring gun registration," and says gun buybacks would not be effective "unless massive and coupled with a ban."


jOe,we have proven with facts to back all of this BS coming from you,where are YOURS?

The NRA does NOT, agree with you

Criminals do NOT buy guns they steal them

You can NOT go buy a gun and resell it to someone "in the hood" without bracking a Federal law.

Universal Backround checks DO require registration !

The back ground checks they do now don't require "registration" do they ?

Why would back ground checks on private gun sales be any different ?

because the Gov is going to be doing them !

now here is the reason they want them,right from the Brady Campaign;


An American gun registry has been an aim of gun-control advocacy groups for almost 40 years — and not always as a stand-alone measure. Reinforcing the worst “slippery slope” fears held by Second Amendment advocates, the chairman of the Brady Campaign explained the role of gun registries in 1976:

"The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal."

Tell me would Newtown or ANY of the other tragedy's been stopped by a universal back round check ? NO

Dave...you guys keep twisting and turning and ranting and raving about an entirely different issue.

who is twisting and turning ??? You must be kidding

Your the one in FAVOR of universal back-round checks AND registration,even when proven it would NOT stop one of these shootings and a path to-as proven by the Brady Campaign confiscation !

I give up,jOe you have either been taken over by some sort of outer body libtard or there is something you on,seriously you have gone off the deep end.

Back ground checks on private gun sales has nothing to do with an "American Gun Registry"...."Newtown or any other tragedy"

THe background check shows Joe Schmo at the Adress od 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC is applying to transfer/pruchace a Beretta shotgun with a SN of xxxxxxxxx from Joe Schmo Sr.


THey will know WHO at WHAT adress is buyine Which type gun and what Serial number is is.

Exactly why would the government need to know all that info if they didn't want to know exactly who has exactly what firearms....except to make a database of who owns what so when they come to confiscate them....they know what they missed.

And they didn't know this before because Joe Schmo Sr. got his from his father...and there are no records of it to know he owns it.

Perhaps we need to register condoms too...and make sure they are correctly used....

Because we all know unlicesned trouser Trouts cause far more problems every year than unliscenses firearms do.

Here's what it could do...

Example...

I buy a new handgun....few years down the line I sell it...it's sold again and again and finally ends up in the hands of some crazed crack head.

The said gun is used in a crime...it can only be traced to it's original purchaser.

If the gun had gone through a licensed gun dealer each time it was sold it could be better traced should it be used in a crime.

Only way that it would ever work would be to make it a felony to sell a fire arm without going through a back ground check at a licensed gun dealers shop.

That would stop all da baby mommas buying guns....

Ps...I think you guys are just too paranoid

OK, let's try again. Currently, there is no official firearms registration in the U.S. But the anti-gunners have been pushing for that for decades. The NRA and gunowners have spent a lot of time and money keeping registration at bay. However, under the current system of FFL transfers and NICS checks, there is a written record in the Form 4473 and in the dealers bound ledger books. This information includes not only your name, address, age, eye color, etc., but it also includes the make, model, caliber, gauge, and serial number of the firearm you buy from a dealer. Can you tell us why they need this information if you are a law abiding citizen who has not been adjudicated as mentally ill? Although Gun Registration is not legal, the government has been accumulating all of this data. When a FFL dealer quits, dies, or retires, all of his bound ledger books go to the BATF. Obama and Company have been very eager to expand this collection of who owns what to include every transfer by any means. They know it has not, and will not reduce gun violence or help solve crimes. Since they have not been able to get Congress or the American public to go along with Gun Registration, they are taking the backdoor approach which is Universal Backround Checks.

There is so much evidence that the anti-gunners would use this information against you. There is so much history in other countries to show what anti-gun politicians eventually do with this kind of information. Why would you trust them? Why does this seem so innocuous to you?

I think most of us wouldn't mind a system where the only requirement to buy a gun was some sort of criminal backround check that did not have any requirement to know exactly what gun you are buying, or even if you actually did buy one. Maybe a magnetic strip on your drivers license that could be scanned by any dealer that would simply show if you have a criminal record or have been diagnosed as mentally ill, just as scanning a credit card shows if you have exceeded your credit limit. The system could be updated to show if you had been convicted of a crime just as easily as your MasterCard is updated to show how much you owe and how much you have left on your credit limit. The same magnetic strip could also show poll workers that you are a citizen and are legally registered to vote. I'll bet the Liberal Democrats would howl about that.

I believe you really are an NRA member. But it is obvious that you have not been reading the NRA magazines to know what their positions are on these proposals, and why. Your NRA has been warning you about this for years, and especially since 2007 when Obama was running for office. It might have sounded like hysteria to some back then. Now that it's coming true, it ain't sounding so hysterical.

You are correct that the backround checks they do now don't require registration. In fact, it is forbidden. But they are doing it anyway. They are keeping that data. They now want it to include every gun and every gun owner. But the criminals aren't going to register your pistol when they steal it from you. And 99% of the time, when they use it to rob or kill, they won't be leaving it at the crime scene, so it isn't going to be traced at all.

So tell us why you want to help Obama?

No it would NOT,felons are NOT required to register or use a background check,look up Haynes vs US


Very little thought is necessary to render as a sick joke the oft-repeated claim that police benefit from knowing who has guns and who hasn’t. A registry tells authorities which law-abiding citizens have weapons and which don’t — which at best is useless information, and at worst is yet another case of government’s failing to do anything about the criminal and so going after the rest of us instead. The reductio ad absurdum of this tendency has been well documented by the historian Clayton Cramer. “The U.S. Supreme Court,” Cramer writes,

ruled in Haynes vs. U.S. (1968) that convicted felons have a Constitutional right to not register a gun, because to register a gun would be self-incrimination. Only people that aren’t criminals can be punished for not registering. If the criminals aren’t required to register, but you and I are, why bother?

Advertisement
As Cramer noted, the Supreme Court thus ruled that on Fifth Amendment grounds “a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, [can] not be punished for failing to register it.” I have no great objection to this principle, but it does highlight the absurdity of an approach that would see constitutionally protected individual liberties being strictly guarded in the case of criminals but restricted when it comes to the law-abiding. Practically speaking, the Haynes decision legally exempts from any future registry the very people whose behavior is used to justify its necessity. Surely, if we are going to become so strict about the Constitution, then the Second and Fourth Amendments should share in the bounty?

Dave K, I forgot about Haynes vs. U.S., but you are absolutely correct. Excellent point!

Also jOe, people who use guns to rape, rob, and kill are already felons. What makes you think they will give a fat rat's ass about committing another felony by either stealing a gun or buying it in an illegal transaction?

And once again... why do you want to help Obama?

I'll add to the length. Again, here's a direct statement from the NRA that they recommend members and gun owners be aware of as 'facts' of the pRivate sales bAckground cHeck proposed laws.

Oh look, mr straw just walked into his local police station and claimed his 'collection' was just stolen. How come he and mr criminal buyer didn't just do the background check like you want them to. Maybe mr straw knew how the check would come out so he figured why skim lap dance cash off the top for the fees. Or, maybe they expect the lawful folks to follow the law, because they weren't gonna.

Truth is I'm as anti Obama as they come....I'm sure "they" won't care how they buy a gun but the baby momma that originally bought the gun legally and then sold it illegally will.

Keith:

"Although Gun Registration is not legal, the government has been accumulating all of this data. When a FFL dealer quits, dies, or retires, all of his bound ledger books go to the BATF"

I think this above point is well known but I have never been able to find out exactly what the BATF does with these turned in records. If they are just using them to trace a firearm from it's initial sale to the original owner that's probably fine if the gun does turn up as one used in a crime.
However; I have long suspected there records are being computerized as the start of an online registration system but can't prove it.
My intent is to NOT want to redirect this thread and agree we must resist a gun registration system at all costs.
Perhaps you or some other member here can clarify this?
Jim

You're absolutely right, Jim. My little raggedy-ass province of Nova Scotia passed a law six years ago to protect Canadians from the Patriot Act, as did British Columbia. Enormous amounts of Canadian data are stored in places like Texas.

Nova Scotia amended the "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to address the perceived threat to privacy posed by the USA Patriot Act if the processing or storage of personal information is outsourced by Nova Scotia public bodies to companies operating in the US (or US companies operating in Canada)."

Canadian private businesses pulled data storage from the US because they couldn't permit the FBI or any other US agency rooting through their files. When Nova Scotians on a peninsula jutting into the North Atlantic make legislation to protect the integrity of information, Americans realize what's going on, too.

Another point is that commerce registers highly in the minds of men---sorry, the gender is an age thing. The FFLs seem a fragile link in protecting privacy. Guns are their bread and butter, reporting a regulation. Are their voluminous ledgers in pen and ink as in Dickens? Or filed digitally as you and I do our business?

I follow what you are saying King; but what I'm trying to find out exactly is what the BATF is doing with the 4473 records every firearms purchaser filled out at the time of sale and that the dealer had to turn in when they ceased business. To be clear; Turning these records in is a requirement for anyone who had a 01 FFL and is no longer in business. My concern is that the BATF is creating a database from these records which would be the start of firearms registration at the Federal level.
Jim

Not sure I understand this. If you are still suggesting that Universal Backround Checks will stop, or even slow down illegal straw purchases, I think you are very wrong.

First off, as we have repeatedly said, most criminals get their guns from illegal sources with theft being the largest source. The few that are getting their guns from an FFL dealer by using a straw buyer as a middleman will still do that. And those that get their guns from a private sale will now use a straw buyer to handle the Form 4473 and NICS check. The straw buyer will then either trade the legally acquired gun to the criminal for money, drugs, sex, or food stamps. The straw buyer won't become a felon until the gun is left at a crime scene where it can be traced back to them, and they are charged tried, and convicted. When that straw buyer can no longer legally buy a gun, the criminals will find another drug addict or prostitute to buy whatever gun that they wish. And of course, they will continue to get the vast majority from the crack-head who breaks in and steals your collection.

The straw buyer can also claim, as craigd has pointed out, that the gun they bought was stolen. They can buy several guns and claim they all were stolen. Your baby momma daddy still get the gun and still do the drive by shooting. So the bad guys still win, and you get stuck with Gun Registration which is the beginning of the end of the Second Amendment and private ownership of firearms. Nothing changes except that you have been suckered into giving up more of your Constitutional Rights under the guise of "reasonable gun legislation".

That's it... I'm done with this. No hysteria, no name calling, no paranoia... just facts, reasoning, and the ability to learn from the history of gun control here and abroad.

So are you with us... or are you on Obama's side? Will you do as the Framers of the Bill of Rights warned, and jealously guard your rights, or will you be a sucker for slick talking Liberal Liars? Are you with us or against us?

Ain't no middle ground here.

Only thing I'm suggesting....is back ground checks on private gun sales.

Just like we have now on any gun we buy from a licensed gun dealer.

Which will let them know exactly who has exactly what so then they decide to put a $1,000 a year "TAX" on what is now a right...or they decide to confiscate....they know where to go.

Because right now they have NO idea who has guns bought buy your granddaddy...or your father and passed down at their death.

And they will do anything to find out....and tell any crooked lie to justify it.

jOe it's just like Bone says the government wants and needs this information to get ALL the guns, even that big blunderbuss you hunt turkeys with. I don't know about you but I trust a politician about as far as I can throw my grand-dad's anvil.

I've spent most of the last 27 years around a lot of government stuff and people. Most of it I can't discuss if you get my drift.

I've got some very real reasons to distrust politicians. Not from stuff I've heard from others...but stuff I've seen for myself.

Put more plainly, I came from a very high-level government meeting today where one department had units working toward different purposes. One could swear truthfully that it didn't know what the other was doing. My side said, of course, there is no need for you to know at this stage, is there? It's better that you don't if there's monkey business going on. We agreed that just because one sector doesn't know what's going on, there isn't another with ulterior motives---or one outside government. This isn't a revelation. It goes on everywhere. Where this notion exists that no one keeps records, scout's honour, or that they're destroyed beggars belief. Governments do what governments do.

The discussion about the government database is pretty much moot, as far as I am concerned. Even if they are not building a database right now, there will be plenty of copies of the bound books and the other transfer records from places like CA and MA and IL, and they can use those records in two years or 20 years to track and register at least some of your guns. All of the paper records have already been microfiched or digitized and it's easy do an OCR scan to convert the information to any database format they might choose. Digital information has a half life longer than uranium tailings, and it's almost impossible to erase. Like it or not, we will be screwed if they choose to screw us.

Me too, amigo. I have one of the anvils from the heat treatment area of my late Grand-dad's machine shop, and two of the Parker & Snow bench mounted vises too- plus all the good American made mikes, verniers (one Helios- made in germany) no Jap crap-- My Grandfather always advised me that sooner or later, he'd end up hiring some numbnut who could break an anvil- he was joking of course-- but as far as politics was concerned, he shared, as do I, your distrust of them ALL- he used to tell that mastering a skilled trade was man's best guarantee of earning a good and honest living- that politicians didn't start out to be that "profession" which he viewed as possibly one step up from being a whorehouse pimp, but after they had Fubared everything else in the way of an honest way of earning a living, they either became bank robbers like Dillinger, or politicians-- Dillinger robbed banks with guns and bravado (for a while) politicians robbed them with pens- like Joseph P. Kennedy Sr- when FDR made him heard of the SEC in the Dirty 30's- Old FDR must have figured that if Kennedy was crooked enough to become a millionaire with prohibition and bootlegging, and smart enough to bail out of Wall St. before the Fit hit the Shan in late Oct.1929, he was smart and crooked enough to be the right man for the task. Set a thief to catch a thief maybe?? I'll register my gun collection when the Jews decide to forgive Hitler--not until!!

There was an interesting social dynamic when the federal government introduced long gun registration in Canada. Many did not register their guns. I registered some and not others, with the expectation of reason prevailing over time.

Federal teams infiltrated every part of the country to assist gun owners to register. They made out the form, took a picture for the PAL Possession and Acquisition License and did everything but lick the stamp to send it off.

I think many citizens went along with the charade for the same reasons as mine: it was the law but more importantly it allowed me to buy ammunition and buy and sell guns and go afield without fear of carrying an unregistered gun.

For all the bravado of "from these cold hands" it was easier to go with the law, to have the pleasure of the shooting sports without being the criminal that registration had made us, and I think most Americans would, too.

I have never seen a conservation officer in the woods, near water-fowling or on rivers, lakes or streams. The same may be said for the wild open spaces of the US. But for most hunting I suspect they're there. And there's the Patriot Act.

That Act deferred to unwarranted fear and subordinated every sacred human value to it. The US debate of gun control is another dissolving phantasmagoria that has the appearance of going the same way.

your "suggestion"(which is same as Schumer,Feinstein and Obama)
as PROVEN on here by Doug,Craig,Keith, I and others

1) will have ZERO effect on crime

2) REQUIRES registration to be implemented

3) would NOT have stopped even one of those tragedy's

4) WILL lead to confiscation-as the left admits is the plan


So jOe are you with us and the NRA or do you stand with Obama,Schumer,Feinstein and Obama with "sucker" stamped on your forehead ?

Only an idiot would suggest that a law could stop an insane person from committing a mass shooting.

I am for doing something to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

What do you suggest..doing nothing ?

If so you might be wearing the Obama stamp.

jOe it's early in the morning and I'm still shaking last nights cob webs out of my head. Right now I'm so mad the only suggestion I have is to go back to public executions and use Obama's stimulus money to pay a bounty on gangbangers and illegal aliens.

Dave, before labelling Joe, I'd like to know why checks to determine if a prospective buyer is a felon or nuts has anything to do with gun sales.

To own and buy and sell guns as you do now, isn't there a US requirement for the safety course and a background check that you're good to go?

If there is, why record-keeping at all for where the guns go?

I,and others have PROVEN to you that your "suggestion" will do NOTHING to keep guns from criminals and you IGNORE the facts-hence the "sucker stamp".

Where are YOUR facts jOe,all conjecture with NO proof,just bs !

I never suggested to do nothing.

1) Prosecute the ones breaking the law now for one !

"National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), which found in 2010, of 6 million Americans who applied to buy a gun, less than 2 percent -- or 76,000 -- were denied. Of those, the ATF referred 4,732 cases for prosecution. Of them, just 44 were prosecuted, and only 13 were punished for lying or buying a gun illegally."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/.../#ixzz2M6fuLhuj

NO,as I,and others have tried to show you and its not getting through
One more time

There is NO backround check requirement to buy (except from a 01dealer)or sell (no requirement)or any safety course.

If you knowingly-or should have known( like a hillbilly who buys and flips it to a "brotha" for 3 times its price) sell a gun to a criminal its a felony now and has been since 1968 !

On second thought, I believe jOe has a point.

Let's pass some laws to keep guns from the hands of:

Mental defectives, convicted felons, illegals, straw buyers, and people under indictment.

Only a few problems with that: (1) the first would rule out jOe. (2) the rest are already on the books.

And somehow, crimes just keep on comin'.

But he may have an idea about keepin' da bruthers disarmed... (until their next B&E that is).

Thank you. I can almost see you from here, Dave. You don't know if I or a neighbour down your street is a criminal, white or of colour.

Government can sell to general public background checks with gun sales, backing you toward the registration cliff. It IS a dissolving phantasmagoria, best of luck.

NRA took years to wise up, so cut some slack for me, please.

And, finally, I am amused by the nibble, nibble, slippery slope chatter here. You're facing a quick-and-dirty open major assault before your eyes; there's nothing subtle or sinister in the sense of evil omen about it.

King,

but you still do not have it correct

the Government does not sell guns (they do give them to Mexican cartels and killers however)

I have no clue what your talking about with neighbor or you being a criminal.And yes I do know my neighbor is not a criminal,he is a CLOE for the town next to me

For those who recall,what happened 20 years ago ??


Feburary 28th 1993

The problem is jOe, you want to do something based on your betting hunch. If you kNow criminals are breaking the law, then enforce existing law. Second, law enforcement should profile. If you know who the criminals are and they know who the criminals are then resources should be concentrated.

You keep assuming all guns are registered, but many never were and many have an original registration that has long since faded into the woodwork by hand shake sales. What would stop known unregistered guns from being transferred withOut a background check when all the new owner has to claim is 'I got it before the new law'.

The dept. of just., as noted many times, advised the administration that private transfer (not just sales) would require 100% registration to be effective. Ok, no registration, I hear you like a broken record, but why won't you acknowledge the strategy of defacto registration. Some want to flush the ole closet guns out of the woodwork for reasons that have nothing to do with gun violence.

The landscape is changing quickly. Why you wanna help, and are we going to recognize this part of America in twenty years.

So why keep repeating that reason prevailed in Canada. What's reason when a different party regains control. What, I'm curious to know, does bringing the Patriot Act out of left field contribute to the reasoned assessment of this issue. Doesn't injecting unrelated controversy cause the need for compromise. The strategy works for the anti's, since they are interested in ideology not facts.

Dave, I was referring to your message that I was slow to understand that there are no checks, no safety courses, just Americans making certain they don't commit a felony by selling to criminals.

I made no reference to government selling guns. I said you have no way of knowing who is a criminal, neither me across the Gulf of Maine from you or your neighbour down the street.

Under these circumstances, it's easy for your government to sell to the general public---not just gun owners but Jane Q. Public---support for background checks for gun sales, which pushes gun owners backwards to the registration cliff.

Federal checks and reporting of gun sales to BATF is registration light. Canadians are trying to assist NRA but it's hard to help an organization that thinks it knows everything, even advice from survivors who've seen all of it.

Got it now?

I have no idea of what this relationship is, but is it possible that it's difficult to receive assistance from someone who thinks they know it all. Have you, or other Canadians, advised the NRA to follow the Canadian model of firearms laws.

"I was referring to your message that I was slow to understand that there are no checks, no safety courses, just Americans making certain they don't commit a felony by selling to criminals."

That is correct,and has been for many years.Felons,criminals-and the statistics support this- do not buy guns (or much of anything else except drugs and booze),they steal what they want.

King, if you where not in another country or state,and down the road from me in NH and we traded guns,would we both are pretty sure we are not selling to felons? I say yes and NO need to have either of our guns registered with the Government or involved in our business transaction.

On the flip side,purchasing a gun with the intent to "triple" your money by selling it to "someone in the hood",would,and will get you federal prison time and probably robbed of the gun or worse .

Agree there is no need to have guns registered but that's the way the US is going with proposed legislated checks and reporting to BATF. It's registration light. All the talk of bad guys and ineffectiveness of what's proposed isn't moving the shooting sports fraternity forward. It's mowing the lawn with the roof on fire.

Allowing what they want is the equivalent of opening Pandoras box.

Hummmm...there goes that song again, dammit
Delta Dawn, wh.....

THe left never gives up...if they can't get it all at once...they keep hammering away one little bit at a time until they get what they want....a total destruction of the dill of rights.

Sometimes it really IS black and white.....

That's a twisted statistic.....

True felons don't buy guns from licensed gun dealers but they most definitely buy them on the street and also at some gun shows....they don't steal them all.

A Felon who never steals- isn't that a bit like a virgin prostitute? of course they steal guns- they are FELONS_THAT'S WHAT THEY DO AS A PROFESSION- SORTA LIKE LAWYERS!!!

Saying Criminals get their guns through legitimate means..is like claiming not all Cocaine comes from outside the Country.

I recall that song- Helen Reddy= the fem-lib-lezzie with her "I am woman, hear me roar" anthem to Gloria Steinem and Helen Gurlie Brown- what a load of crap-- But what does opening Pandora's fabled box have to do with Delta Dawn, what's the flower you have on?? Pray Tell. I don't recall any lines in that song about opening boxes--

Excellent point, I wonder if anyone ever thought about closing that gun show loophole.

Wrong, and once again you have NO PROOF !
Like all your other your "views" you can NOT prove,tell us again how the NRA agrees with you or you can sell a gun in "the hood" and break no law.

jOe you can not refute the fact that criminals STEAL guns and universal backround checks- registration will do nothing to stop them.

Even ABC-not by any means on the NRA's side can prove your wrong and criminals steal guns,not buy them.

And if they don't actually steal them, themselves...they buy them from other criminals that did steal them. They are still STOLEN guns.

The answer is yes and yes, with one Ontario organization on the record as doing so.

Craig, the Patriot Act wasn't from left field. I referenced it in a post concerning social dynamics of why Canadians went along with registration. Americans accepted a far more draconian assault on liberties with the Patriot Act. On that evidence alone, Obama asking the general public to support proposed checks and sales reporting would be a much easier sell. And that, my friend, is registration light. It's not a question of Reason prevailing. It's caving in big-time to unwarranted arbitrary measures. That's not "injecting unrelated controversy" but a needle of reality.

No offense King, but I'd rather not live under Canadian firearms laws. That patriot act may be an assault on liberties, but the libs are assaulting a constitutional right.

Nothing's offensive where conversation is not rude or mischievous, Craig. I wasn't comparing our firearms laws with yours. The Patriot Act was a big-time infringement of your constitutional rights. Canadian provinces passed laws to thwart the Patriot Act's intrusions on Canadian data stored in the US or with US companies in Canada. US conservatives AND liberals didn't say boo.

Craig, help me out here.

Isn't the point of your constitution to ensure your rights and liberties are not unduly infringed upon?

If so, isn't standing up for and defending your liberties as important as standing up and defending your constitutional rights? Actually kinda the same thing?

In fact, the liberties came before the constitution. The constitution's raison d'être is to protect those liberties. So why allow so easily the Patriot Act while getting your collective shirts in a knot about background checks?

I see defence of liberty as paramount, the words written two centuries ago are just another tool in the bag to help you do that.

Allowing the Patriot Act to pass unchallenged should be viewed as a mistake to be corrected by right thinking Americans, those who believe in the value of the ideas and ideals put forth by the framers of your constitution.

I've been away for the past two week and have only occasionally tuned in here. After 18 pages of posts generally going around in circles I have just one point to make:

Firearms registration invaribly leads eventually to firearms confiscation as has been referenced in multiple examples here in other Countries. If you are in favor of firearms registration you are treading with the enemy period.

I hear you canvasback and I understand King's point. As I see it King is here to help, but I can't help but wonder why he'll mix in curve ball or off hand comment for no productive reason. My interpretation, 'Bush bad but he gave you what you deserve in the patriot act so you can accept public safety gun control measures for the children'.

King says he wants American gun control to resemble Canadian gun control, so his help is undermining progun efforts by calling for compromise at every twist and turn for no other reason than it works for me so it should for you. My take on the patriot act, it's a response to an act of war against the US. Where gun control is the assault against a constitutional right for ideological reasons. I'm no fan of the patriot act, but I can't equivocate here. Identifying and stopping an enemy vs. criminalizing citizens for ideology.

It refers to a comment I made in a previous thread.
Comment was made in reference to postings by a certain "source", who (IMHO) is a very accomplished troll, using reporting techniques (learned, and "liberally" used even today by our Canadian liberally subsidized network) to goad people into losing their patience and then being painted as "racists" and "radicals".
The postings from that source remind me of the line "What's that flower you have on, Could it be a faded rose of days gone by?"

Craig, The problem with the Patriot Act is the same problem that gun control has....it turns law abiding citizens into criminals and it give big government entry into areas of our lives it has no business being in until we've committed a crime. And the anti gun people would describe the gun "problem" in the US today as a war they need to fight.

A couple thoughts having finally read most of this thread.

First, as noted by a few way back, the devil is in the details. The anti gun people will construct laws and publicize what they are proposing as the most reasonable of actions. Until you read the fine print of what actually gets enacted.

Second, the oft repeated statement here about back ground checks being the Trojan horse for registry is, IMHO, correct. Much better, again, IMHO, if you have to have something, to have a licensing system like ours in Canada. It is divorced from the specific gun. As long as the transaction is between licenced citizens, then no one is telling anyone about any specific gun. And yet, the person you are selling your gun to is unlikely to be a gang banger. Please don't take this as support for licensing. It's just not as bad as registries.

Finally, you are going to lose the fight. Maybe not this time. But you will eventually. Because in protecting the specific 2cd amendment right, the pro gun lobby never wins a convert. Too much logic and not enough emotion. The other side has been whipping our asses on this for 40 years straight now. And we keep responding the same way.

My 8 year old boy was selected to represent his grade three class at a public speaking contest. While waiting to hear him, I listened to a cute and appealing little girl from grade four give her speech on why guns are bad. They kill people. Until we figure out how to counter that, our cause is lost.

Duplicate post. iPad issues. Lol

Simple..if THEY don't drop it...we pursue a progran to deny them freedom of speech...under the same argument that its not unlimited...and idiots flapping their gums like them are more dangerous than bootleg liqueur or homemade drugs are. And certainly far more dangerous than any gun is.

Dear god, Craig, where does Bush come into it or curveballs or undermining pro-gun efforts? I've written to a senator, the NRA and posted here, as Jim noted above, recognize what is going on for what it is: registration.

Chatter about slippery slopes and nibbling away at constitutional rights is mewling to the converted. Nowhere have I said I want "American gun control to resemble Canadian gun control." I fought gun control, period.

I've said, plain as pudding, that none of the proposals for gun control will have a gnat's eyelash of effect on gun violence. I've quoted the Harvard study here and reminded McCain of Canadian experience so cut out the nonsense, please.

Integrity of a conversation demands respect, candour and trustworthiness. Imputing motives without evidence and saying what is not true is disrespectful, only making the world safer for fools.

Any time you're taking on the stately edifice and authority of a national government trying to saddle its citizens with unwarranted arbitrary measures, look to help wherever you can get it, not obfuscate and declaim as you're doing.

Unfortunately, some of these guys have pudding for brains. Logic doesn't often intrude upon their world.

P.S.: King, I'm not referring to you.

Ok King, here's my version of pudding. Bush comment...if you have any integrity please note that's my and my alone 'interpretation'.

Didn't your note to the senator state that compromise was inevitable. Didn't you just earlier today answer 'yes and yes' about your advice to the NRA.

No disrespect intended, but I recognize the butting of heads. I believe in the past, I've acknowledged when I've misread you. My opinion is you're not remembering or selectively disregarding some of your comments.

Trustworthy....imputing motive without evidence.....I've admitted I tend to point out the 'flowery adjectives' that you lay down as factual assumptions. If I don't buy them, why can't I point them out. You have some very pointed opinions about my character, some of your assumptions rub me wrong.

BHD, I hope you are kidding, although I share your frustration. But seriously, to win the war, it won't be because you have stopped Obama or Congress from enacting some stupid law in the next year or two. You will win when you figure out how to get Hollywood and school teachers on our side.

All this "cold dead hands" stuff, while satisfying to express, just digs us further into the hole. It won't be won because of the 2cd amendment right, it won't be won with logic. It will only be won, long term, by changing the terms of reference. And the left have made the terms "guns are bad. guns kill people".

I'm actually being serious......WHY you might ask? Because unlike the second amendment that stands in the way of their world domination plans....they actually like their freedom to lie and spread propaganda with impunity or restriction.

If you hit them back with something they would actually understand...you might get through the 3 inch thick skulls most of them have.

And besides....if they take way the second amendmnet away......do you think they are going to waste any time going after our freedom of speech next? Look how they act now when anyone questions the decrees and judgment of their Messiah now....they are absolutely intollerant of anyone that disagrees with their propaganda now....it would only get worse later...

Look what Happened under Stalin, Mao, Castro....etc...to anyone who had the audacity to speak against them.

Bone,
How about this? If someone has done something so serious as to cause him(her) to lose his constitutional right to guns, shouldn't they lose all their constitutional rights, such as the right to vote? Have voting registrars use the same background check for voting, as for gun owenership. Then see what the liberals have to say.You either have civil rights or you don't,if its in the constitution; it's a civil right.We need to start calling 2nd Amend. rights, civil rights.
Mike

Actually...in cases of Felony Convictions...They already do lose the right to vote, as well as posses a firearm. And can only get them back by petitioning the Gov of the state they reside...(but what about federal elections?)

I firmly believe in requiring photo IDs at the voting precincts...Nation wide.

Most other countries require it...the same countries that have socialized medicine the lefties love the idea of so much. (but wouldn't if they ever experienced the realities of it)

Mike, that's exactly what I'm getting at. Civil rights instead of 2cd amendment rights. Words are powerful. The words we choose to use define the debate and predict the likelihood of our success.

You have now and will have for the foreseeable future an activist Supreme Court. IMO, that means no rights, except those championed by the left, are safe, regardless of what your constitution says.

Like it or not, the Supremes bow to the court of public opinion over time and gun owners are losing badly there. We are now raising the generation that will have had the full impact of anti gun sentiment from their schools, media and government.

Bone,
Not all felony convictions cost the right to vote in all states,in Alabama it has to be a felony of "moral turpitude", in some states, a violent felony.For gun ownership, they don't make these distinctions.Actually, you don't even have to have a felony conviction to lose your right to own guns;in some cases not even a conviction of any kind is needed.Under the "Lautenberg(sp?)Ammendment", if your wife decides she wants her boyfriend to have your bass boat and takes out an "order of protection" to keep you from connecting it to your truck; then you won't be able to buy a deer rifle to replace the one she also gave her new boyfriend.The whole time, you didn't do anything wrong.
Canvasback,
You are right, we have to beat them at their own game.
Mike

This bears repeating.

Alcohol prohibition became law because the temperance movement made an emotional argument that was accepted as "common sense" by even some drinkers. And we all know how well that turned out. You could take many of the early 20th century anti-alcohol jeremiads and substitute "gun" for "liquor" and they would be all but verbatim for the current anti-gun positions. Logic and reason go out the window when the other side says they're in favor of childrens' safety, and by default we're not.

JonR,
Plus I can remember when "Separate But Equal", and Poll Tax, was considered "Common sense".Didn't they learn then, that there are no "common sense" restrictions on peoples freedoms?
Mike

You may have noticed that I have been referring to infringement of the Second Amendment as a violation of Civil Rights within this thread and within other threads for some time now. That's because that is exactly what it is. And I have been preaching that the proven way to call attention to, and reverse Civil Rights violations, is for the segment of society that is being violated to stick together and make it clear to their elected representatives that the violations will not be tolerated.

Similarly, I have wondered for many years how on earth a politician can put their hand on a Bible and swear an Oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution..." and then proceed to attempt to eviscerate the Second Amendment. Violations of the Oath of Office is grounds for impeachment. There is a legal process for adding or removing an Amendment from the Bill of Rights. I don't think the use of Executive Orders to bypass Congress was part of that prescription. The process was designed to be difficult to prevent irrational knee-jerk responses.

It became all too clear that we lost one vote during this thread. Homeless jOe has somehow come to the conclusion that a mentally ill criminal or gangbanger will pick up a gun and look at it and say, "I'd better not shoot anyone with this because its' serial number has been recorded during the universal backround check that was done on the person I stole it from, or the Straw Buyer who bought it for me." It became clear to me that jOe has been suckered in by the Anti-Gunners and he wishes to side with Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Schumer, Soros, Bloomberg, and all of the anti-gun crowd and give them the Gun Registration that they have been after for decades. I asked him if he was with us or against us. He gave us his answer. On this issue, he stands with Barack Hussein Obama. His feet are firmly planted and we aren't going to change his mind.

I don't think that makes him like nca225 or one of our other anti-gun trolls. I'd bet all my guns that jOe is an Honest to God gun guy. But I know he's mistaken on this. If you go back to jOe's very first post in this thread, he was complaining about a Memphis gunshop where it is not uncommon to see scary clientele saying, "man i'z look'n fr an AK 47 or a Uewzi" and that they are "legally selling the hell out of guns." So he apparently never asked himself, if these sales to questionable customers are being done legally through an FFL dealer, how would thing go any differently if there were Universal Backround Checks that included every sale at every gun show or private transaction, even one that was a gift from father to son??? None of us were able to convince him that Universal Checks would do absolutely nothing to stop criminals from acquiring guns, and would only place a costly burden on law abiding gun owners while supplying anti-gunners with information on the owners and where-abouts of every gun sold through legal channels. That's why I just stopped trying several pages back. I'm not mad at jOe, but I am disappointed that we weren't able to convince him over the course of a 20 page thread. I can't believe he chose to side with Obama on this issue when he knows Obama can't be trusted to tell you the correct time. I believe he'll eventually come around, but hopefully that happens before he loses a little more of his freedom and gets nothing in return.

So, it's time to move on and divert our energies to someplace where they might actually do some good. If we lost one supporter here, we need to put our efforts toward finding two supporters elsewhere. We need to call, write, and e-mail our Senators and Congressmen again, assuming we already have. We need to get our shooting friends to take a few minutes to do the same. The number one concern of most legislators is getting re-elected. We need to remind them that we will not vote for them if they violate our Civil Rights, in this case, the 2nd Amendment. We need to think about joining NRA or spend $25.00 on a gift NRA membership for a young shooter. We need to put this thread to bed and move on to greener pastures.

Keith, you are making my point for me. If in the course of 180 posts to this thread, we can't, as you suggest, change jOe's mind, an honest to goodness gun guy, what progress do you hope to make with the larger society. It has become apparent to me that the tactics are wrong. Facts, logic and a dependence of the "rights" conferred by the 2cd amendment will ultimately fail.

You make mention of the oaths of office, the systems in place for checks and balances. Those may all be true and real. But so far, in my lifetime, I don't really see them stopping the actions of those who would seek to dramatically change things. Why? Because before they change the laws (legally or illegally) they changed public opinion first.

We have either been missing that point, haven't thought it important up till now or been remarkably ineffective in our own public opinion swaying efforts.

I'm just convinced that most of the anti-gun crowd...much like Obama voters (not refering to people here in that comment) just aren't smart enough to be able to understand much less digest things like facts.

No matter HOW you present it...they just take the word of their propaganda minister as to what they should think. Because few of them are capible of thinking for themselves.

If that's true (I don't think so) then why would continuing to pound them with facts help our cause. Wouldn't we likely be more effective to appeal to then in a way they can accept, understand and ultimately agree with?

Definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Because that would require kidnapping their entire Propaganda network...and replacing them with thinking people so a new docterine can be diseminated to the useful idiots.

Something thats not likely to happen.

I believe there's sound reasoning here, and it fits well with King's 'take the help where you can get it' advise. I'd hope the effort takes on a 365 day a year, forever schedule and not just ramp up to respond to the lefts schedule. I'd like to see 20 second rap utube videos depicting black and latino gang actors handling ban list firearms with the hammer repeat message 'our guy's alright, but DON'T let him take our guns'.

My prediction, and there have been a few strategic public 'compromise' concessions, the list gets paired down some and the magazine issue withers. But, cooler heads prevail and we get universal back ground check and likely stiffer regs on ammo and components in the name of mental health precautions. Not a person in America will be safer, but they'll tap a vast new source of legal compliant citizens for fees and taxes.

IMO, the way to counter an emotional argument is with a stronger emotional argument. If I were a pro-gun billionaire (think Bloomberg/Soros money) I'd fund an advertising campaign featuring citizens who have successfully used a firearm to defend themselves, their families or innocent third parties. Have them tell their stories on camera and in print ("I'm alive today because I own a gun...", better yet "My children are alive today because I own a gun...") Preferably women telling how they stopped a rapist or killer because they were legally armed.

Flood youTube, Facebook et al with the ads if TV and magazines refuse to accept them. Having LaPierre say "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" rings hollow for most non-gun owners. Hearing it from hundreds of ordinary people might not.

Bone,
There are "dyed in the wool"Anti-gunners, and then there are those that believe the hype they are bombarded with,not knowing any better. The real "Antis" are lost to us,but we have to try to reach the others.They don't know that the felons(and others)can't be required to register their guns,under the law.They think we are saying they just won't,we need to make sure they know the facts and many will come over.The problem is, he have to do it locally,through respectful letters to our representives and "Editors";we sure won't get any help from the National Media.
Mike

Letters are part of it, Der Ami. "Education," however, must advance on the broadest possible front. Those of us who work at it every day---"it" being changing opinion and providing greater influence with power structures---have a few rules.

One is to keep the dark side close to your chest, to sup and drink with them and be respectful of their notions of protecting their interests however you feel about them. Persuasion not punching in the teeth. There are more of them than us. Use their strengths to overcome, like black belts.

Second, adjust when your strategy is not working. My organization just turned around public participation in a province-wide program from 23 to 90 per cent without a letter, ad or radio spot. Our opponents were a powerful industry and government. Big guys don't have the franchise on brains.

Canada's great Marshall McLuhan hypothesized decades ago that the medium is the message and that we now live in a global village. NRA's good-bad-man with a gun resonates with our hairy-chested but to others it's too much of frontier vigilante justice. Please don't shoot the messenger; I'd ditch it.

This is a a roundabout way of cautioning against pigeon-holing anyone, as some would to our member Homeless Joe. There's a long twisty road to protecting our shooting sports. There's no unanimity in anything. Use care not to push others into corners, forcing them to fight. Better to have them talking to us during the looming struggles ahead.

Canvasback, you are correct that we have been doing the same thing over and over, and we find ourselves fighting the same battles. But just because we are once again under assault does not mean we are losing the battle. On the contrary, we have more guns and more gun owners in the U.S. than we ever have, and at the same time, the total amount of gun violence has fallen dramatically. We do need to advance that message more effectively. Der Ami's last post gets a resounding +1.

What we are continuing to do, which is not working, is failing to utilize our numbers and our great strength. This is a theme I have been repeating ever since the current attack began. Actually, I lamented that we did not utilize our great numbers when Obama was first running for president. If more of us understood the threat and stuck together, we could have cut the head off the serpent before it had a chance to bite us. We are not a minority. Despite what you hear in the so-called unbiased polls right now, a majority of Americans have consistantly been in favor of an individual RKBA and the 2nd Amendment. MSNBC might tell us that a majority of gun owners, and even NRA members, are in favor of the Obama/Biden plan, but that's not what we see and hear among our friends or as we're standing in long lines at gun shows and shops.

So, to summarize, the biggest problem gun owners have is themselves. We have the numbers to convince lawmakers to vote our way. We still fail to utilize those vast numbers. 4.5 million NRA members are carrying the mail for over 40 million gun owners who still find convenient excuses to not join even when the wolf is at the door. There has been a tendancy among gun owners to finally band together after it's too late... and not just here, but in other countries. There lies the key to our success... not in sleeping with the enemy, making concessions, or falling prey to lulling.

It does not take a super majority to wield influence. Blacks sticking together made great strides in Civil Rights during the 1960's despite the fact that they were less than 20% of the population. Jews have tremendous influence on the politics and policies of the world and they number less than 14 million out of the world's population of 7 billion. There's a powerful lesson in what can be done when small minorities stick together and fight as a team.

I have placed parts of King Brown's previous post above to once again show what I absolutely disagree with. He still is here advising us to sleep with the enemy. The devout anti-gunners will never change no matter how often you "sup and drink with them". They loathe guns and are disgusted by gunowners. Period. He is wrong when he says there are more of them than us. Dead wrong. It is not worth the time and energy to try to batter down Hoover Dam with your head. You don't beat liars by compromising your own principles as has been suggested in the past. Far better to utilize your numbers and remind your representatives what happened to Democrats in the mid term elections after the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban was passed. Far better to win with the truth.

King also once again advises us to ditch the NRA's message in spite of the fact that it has been very successful, especially in the last decade, and has hardly been shown to be a failure now. King is no help to us and I wish he'd just stay out of our battle. Since he claims that his tactics are so very successful, I wish he'd demonstrate by getting Quebec to follow the law and destroy the records of the Canadian Long Gun Registry. If he could do that, he might have some credibility. As long as Quebec has them, you might as well say the Registry still potentially exists for all Canadians. He's still pretending to ignore me ever since he falsely accused me of putting words in his mouth several weeks ago when I was clearly stating my own opinion. He can never admit when he's wrong so he chose the Gnomoron path of covering his eyes and hoping the bad thing goes away. It won't.

I didn't pigeon hole Homeless jOe, although it's pretty obvious that's what King is suggesting. He essentially told us where he stands on Universal Registration. We expended a lot of time trying to show him where his reasoning was wrong. I think we all presented a pretty airtight case, but he still didn't wish to budge. OK. I specifically said, I for one, would not categorize him with nca225 or our other anti-gun trolls. I just couldn't see wasting any more time when our energies could be expended more wisely. I will welcome him back to the team when he sees he has been hornswoggled by Liberal anti-gunners. I certainly haven't backed him into any corners or forced him to fight, and only hoped that he would change his position before he has lost a little more of his Civil Rights and Constitutional freedom... not after.

Credit where credit is due... I actually found myself in agreement with some of what King said earlier in this thread. I held my breath and hoped his position was morphing to something more sensible than sleeping with the enemy and negotiating with liars. Not shooting any messengers... just asking one to stop doing damage. I don't expect that request will be honored.

Anyway James, always good to hear from you and OldStarfire. Nice to know there are a couple voices of reason coming from Canada.

We all have to use the media we have access to, and for most of us that is letters and "face to face". Most, if not all, of us agree that background checks must include mentally ill people.This means changes to "Hepa(?)" and privacy laws;gun laws already prohibit them.Just because we agree with this part doesn't mean we agree with their ideas on "expanded background checks", which really are registration by another name.
Mike

Keith as usual you're twisting what I said....I said I'm for back ground checks on private gun sales.

Nothing more nothing less.



I'd as soon stand with the devil himself as stand with Obama....I stand on having some common sense.

I don't give a tinker's damn how many backround checks you do on private sales they aint gonna do diddly squat to prevent another massacre because a felon is going to get his guns on the blackmarket or steal them. Period! Damnit jOe we aren't going to give your soul to the libtards and sewer rats. Now go back and re-read the gospel according to Jim and Keith.

Couldn't agree more, Der Ami. As the legendary Speaker Tip O'Neil said: All politics is local. Use what you have access to, face to face works best from my experience. Couple other things often overlooked: 55 per cent of Americans have said they have no trust in mass media outlets. The Canadian Council of PR Firms found that while only 10 per cent of Canadians 35 to 54 found company websites to be a trusted source, nearly a quarter of those aged 18 to 34 considered them to be credible news suppliers. If the average age on this board is around 55 (which was indicated here some time ago) this isn't the place to be winning people over.

Projecting from micro to macro, from local to national, all the proof you need for a winning strategy is the current attempt at a GOP makeover. Republicans split in twain will adjust to a message more acceptable than the last one, and from media reports, nominate a candidate of colour to deliver it with conciliatory words rather than divisive ones. There'll be no talk of enemies or minorities tearing the social fabric because a GOP victory can only come from changed loyalties.

Did I show you guys my black gun....

It's a start jOe.

Joe, are they accurate? Minute? I'm old school rifleman. If I need two shots I've done something wrong.

This one is....

Keith, I believe what you say is true regarding the overall numbers of gun owners, the growth in gun ownership etc. I, like many of you, have revelled in the successful expansion of CC laws in across the States and the resulting drop in gun violence. This despite having never shot a handgun. I only buy old shotguns. But I'm fighting for handgun and black gun owners. For me this issue is all about fundamental personal and property rights. Because ultimately, they will be coming for my shotguns.

What I am concerned about is the long term and I believe, if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, that the tide is turning against us. The emotional power of the liberal media, the liberal educational system and liberal Hollywood is going to beat us eventually if we don't, as Der Ami suggested find a way to combat their emotional message with a better more appealing emotional message from our side.

Interesting, so there's one generic constituency and republicans will swing the vote by appearing meek and humble. Is it ok for the dems to continue class and race, attack and division. Or worst yet, how would you counter if the dems appear meek, humble and Santa like.

edit to add, no wonder jOe you're worried about hanging out with the boyz from the hood. I don't see much with the picture of the rifle, but nice group no doubt about it.

jOe, As you can see, I said, ON THIS ISSUE, you stand with Barack Hussein Obama. Nothing in that statement is false or twisting things. I did not say you support Obama in any other way and certainly don't believe for a second that you either voted for him or like him. But sadly, ON THIS ISSUE, you and the magic negro are holding hands. Sorry, but it is what it is.

You and Obama both agree that we should have Universal Backround Checks in spite of the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that it does nothing to prevent massacres such as Sandy Hook, and only provides a backdoor Federal Gun Registry which is something the gun banners have sought for decades. Every single gun that is sold in the Memphis gun shop you referenced is legally sold via Form 4473 and Backround Check. Yet some of the clientele that are walking out with AK-47's and Uzi's are people you would rather not see in possession of a gun. The same thing would happen if backround checks were expanded to all private sales. Bad people would still get guns one way or another because there are over 300 million of them out there to either buy or steal. There will always be a Straw Buyer that a felon can coerce or intimidate or simply pay cash to.

You say you stand on having some common sense. Where is the common sense in expanding backround checks to every private sale between law abiding gun owners when criminals will still get guns? Where is the common sense when you know damn good and well that no criminal or mentally ill person about to pull the trigger will care one bit if that gun was bought with or without a backround check? Where is the common sense in giving Barack Hussein Obama and Company the data to finally have the Gun Registration they have sought for decades, and could not get legally as a stand alone law?

By your wording and spelling in your initial post, "man i'ze lookin fr an A Ra 47 or an Uewzi", it seems as if you are most concerned about gangbanger types buying guns. If that's the case, why don't you just say so and call for tougher laws to control them since they are 99% of the problem when it comes to gun violence and gun crimes. Why don't you call for outright bans on gun possession by young black males and random searches of same? Why don't you call for infringing upon the Civil Rights of the folks that are doing the crimes? Why are you calling for laws that would infringe upon my Civil and Constitutional rights? Why are you acting pissed off at me when it's me who should be pissed off? Why are you standing with Obama and trying to drag us into it?

James, the tide has been against us for most of my life, yet gun ownership, numbers, and CC opportunities have still risen dramatically, so we must have been doing something right. The anti-gunners try to exploit every tragedy even though violent crime has dropped dramatically even as total gun numbers have risen. The Anti's will never admit that or utter the truth that stricter sentencing that has kept felons in jail has done far more than any gun laws. We will likely never change the Liberal media message, and we've allowed the Liberals to indoctrinate our kids in schools with anti-gun messages. So long term, our only hope is to counter the negative messages ourselves. If we really feel strongly about gun rights and the Second Amendment, and we'd like to see our kids and grandkids derive the same pleasures from guns and shooting as we enjoyed, we all have to put forth a little effort that wasn't needed when we were young. We have to bring kids into the sport and support youth and womens shooting programs so they can learn for themselves that the Liberal message is built upon lies. We have to join and support a strong NRA and we have to be active and assertive and tell our legislators in no uncertain terms that we will not tolerate ANY infringements on our 2nd Amendment Civil Rights. If we lose, it will be because millions of gunowners chose to sit on their asses and let it happen.

King is still spouting his drivel that, because the GOP lost one presidential election by a few percentage points, all hope is lost and they can never win again, and we should all grovel and sleep with the enemy. That message is absurd and inaccurate... and just what one would expect from a retired Liberal media reporter.

Always consider the source.

Keith makes very good points above and I would just like to add the following:
You are going to have to be proactive to counter the B.S. in regard to guns your children/grandchildren are being exposed to on a daily basis in the schools due to the extreme liberal NEA(Teachers Union).
I have 6 grandchildren and each of them has been taken shooting as soon as they were old enough. When they are visiting I show them different guns,explain how they work and what they are primarily used for.
This IMO goes a long way to remove the demonization of firearms they are exposed to in school and the "mainstream news media".
If you have friends that will permit you to educate their children as well by all means do so.
Jim

Craig, no one gets anywhere or anything by being meek and humble. That's the road to chains and shackles. My GOP analogy of adjusting the message for greater support was to underline that's what the GOP says it must do to become the governing party.

I mentioned a couple rules that those who work professionally at change follow. What some saw as rolling over with feet in the air, deference and submission, is natural for those who may not have toiled in the trenches and tasted victory.

There is no advantage to submission. I've said the struggle against gun control should be better focussed, smarter. It didn't identify quickly that the ostensibly benign checks were registration by another name. It looked in other directions.

As to your tongue-in-cheek question about Dems being meek, Obama learned what his conciliatory notions got him and now is playing hardball, to the point today the most powerful and influential nation on earth is drifting in an unhappy orbit.

When words might have importance, not necessarily in missfires, I had intended to type 'appearing' rather than being.

I suppose it appears different looking in, but I'm scratching my head in amazement at the ideological motives that would describe any of this person's public actions as conciliatory. We may be adrift, but I thought that's what we asked for.

US polls are clear about how Americans feel about the performance of their legislators in Washington, a pox on all of them. Americans didn't ask for what they're getting today: for all the US brains and creativeness they're appearing before the world as stupid---when they're not.

Nothing in my posts mentioned or indicated meek and humble as appropriate to protest gun control. They were misinterpreted for selfish reasons. I said more satisfactory results are obtained, more antis could be brought to the light, with honey rather than vinegar where there are competing narratives.

Otherwise you get what went into effect in the US today: action caused by the lack of action under which all Americans and many of your neighbouring Canadians will suffer. All because of not talking, not compromising, not finding a better way of managing national affairs.

First off, many polls are skewed to get the results of the people taking them....

Don't blame this on the Republicans....Obama wanted the Sequester...he is on record on audio and video saying as much....despite what he claims now.

He's also had an "It's my way or the hi-way" attitude for well over 4 years now. Its Obama who has refused to negotiate...or budge. In the USA we have co-equal branches of government. That means the President isn't a King...Emperor or dictator...and the other branches aren't subservient to his whims.

And thus far Obama's been strutting around like "Il Duce" and not been willing to do anything that even approaches compromise.

Thanks for labeling me selfish, but didn't I quote your words for clarity. Wasn't the topic GOP strategies, and you just switched it for emotional reasons. Regarding messages, does 'nominate a candidate of colour to deliver it with conciliatory words rather than divisive ones' ring any bells.

To that interesting second point, maybe you're referencing sequestration. At the rate this admin. prints and borrows money could it be contended that 85 bil. is a drop in the bucket. Since you're getting your gloom and doom forecast from mainstream media, previously referred to as your colleagues, maybe you didn't get the memo.

After spending likely billions on a country wide sky is falling pr blitz and pac fund raiser, he now sez it may just be a hiccup. Is he softening for the worse case scenario that the money really is being wasted and isn't necessary.

There we go again, Craig. I didn't label you as selfish. Again, this misrepresentation and imputing of motives is disappointing. It makes discussion impossible.

I hear you and respect your feelings. I only 'discuss' with you because I perceive some value. There are others here that all I can muster is missfires. If I misquote, I appologize.

"common sense" you must be kidding,far from it.
You have been shown fact after fact that,again;

Criminals do NOT buy guns they steal them

The NRA does NOT, agree with you

You can NOT go buy a gun and resell it to someone "in the hood" without breaking a Federal law now.

Universal Backround checks DO require registration !

jOe,
we have asked many times and have NO response

WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS ??????

once again jOe,
you stand hand and hand with Obama,Pelosi,Schumer,and Feinstein with a big SUCKER sticker on your head.

All because,jOe stubbornly-with NO basis in fact, wants to be able to tell one group-who "you" feel should not own guns-and BTW it will not stop even one of them from buying them.

One day soon someone is going to tell YOU jOe,what you can an can not own guess what you helped them !

Things get cock-eyed some days for everyone, Craig. No harm done. Regards, King

Famous anti-gun quotes

DIANE FEINSTEIN (California Senator, author of "Feinstein Amendment" which became the ’94 gun ban): "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it."

SARAH BRADY (Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc.) "There is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to the service in a well regulated militia."

Obama "So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, and they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy toward people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or, you know, anti-trade sentiment [as] a way to explain their frustrations."

Bill Clinton “A lot of these people … all they’ve got is their hunting and their fishing,” he told the Democratic financiers. “Or they’re living in a place where they don’t have much police presence. Or they’ve been listening to this stuff for so long that they believe it all.


FIDEL CASTRO: "Armas para que?" ("Guns, for what?") (Response to a Cuban citizens who said the people might need to keep their guns, after Castro announced strict gun control in Cuba)

Homeless jOe:"I don't believe any kind of gun registration is going to stop a psycho from shooting people......but it could slow the brothers down in the mall parking lots."

Quote from King Brown: "There is no advantage to submission. I've said the struggle against gun control should be better focussed, smarter. It didn't identify quickly that the ostensibly benign checks were registration by another name. It looked in other directions"

Another quote from King Brown: "Nothing in my posts mentioned or indicated meek and humble as appropriate to protest gun control. They were misinterpreted for selfish reasons. I said more satisfactory results are obtained, more antis could be brought to the light, with honey rather than vinegar where there are competing narratives."

Once again, the Muse of Nova Scotia cannot keep his course straight... we have semi-tough talk, and sucking up to the anti's, all within the same paragraph. A cursory examination of his many posts since the Sandy Hook massacre will turn up many instances of his advising us to be concilliatory, to compromise, to reject the NRA's approach, to wait and see what happens before we react, and to sleep with the enemy and try to be civil when engaging liars. In the first quote above, we are once again being lulled and advised that we should not call a spade a spade... that we should not quickly identify "ostensibly benign backround checks" as "registration by another name." Why not, pray tell? Since when is the truth something to be avoided? Should we really avoid annoying those folks who hate us and want to steal our Civil and Constitutional Rights?

King still thinks we can get Obama, Biden, Feinstein, et al to listen to the voice of reason if we ply them with honey rather than vinegar. He apparently has never heard or read their own words. We would have an easier task removing all the salt from the oceans. In his posts, he still acts as if those who share my opinion have "never toiled in the trenches and tasted victory", yet he still has not provided us with a verifiable resume of his accomplishments in the pro-gun rights arena in Canada. I wonder if he once gave advice to Neville Chamberlain or vice versa. And he once arrogantly accused me of probably having done nothing more in the arena of gun rights than buy an NRA membership. Again, I must ask why he's trying to lull us here, when the Long Gun Registry records have not yet been destroyed in Quebec as mandated by law. I think he'd be more credible if he was actually trying to do some good for Gun Rights in his own country. He says his words have been misinterpreted for selfish reasons. I'd like him to explain that statement, but he's still pretending to ignore me... for selfish reasons.

Keith, Obama, Biden, Feinstein et al are only important in the short term, while they are elected officials.

While recognizing the need to respond to and counter their specific, short term actions, what I am trying to do in this thread is get people thinking about how to make it so elected officials don't have an anti gun band wagon they can jump on when it suits them.

And that's why I say we have been failing. That bandwagon has been growing bigger, every one of my 54 years. And it's picking up steam. A man was arrested and charged recently in Canada because he was walking to the gun range with his firearm properly cased. Doing nothing illegal. But someone noticed him, figured out what kind of case it was and called the cops. And the cops felt it their duty to make up some BS charges. It will be thrown out of court but not before some hefty legal bills are incurred.

It's that atmosphere that allows politicians to get traction. It's that atmosphere that allows LEO's to overstep their bounds. It is that atmosphere that will allow your Supreme Court to emasculate the 2cd amendment.

We had a Supreme Court ruling last week that put one's right not to feel "offended" well ahead of free speech. Constitutions and Bills of Rights are fluid and WILL be changed over time to suit the will of the masses. The will of the masses is influenced by appeals to emotion, not reason. History proves that.

If you want to keep your rights, you better figure out how to get emotion on your side that sways the masses. I stand by my earlier comments. We have been failing at doing that.

Join the NRA you say. Great idea! Gun owners should be speaking as one you say. Very true. But even if every gun owner in America did as you suggest and joined up in 2013, that emmensely powerful lobby would diminish over time. Because, I believe, we are totally losing the next generations.

We have been fighting with logic and reason. We need to find a way to add emotion to our arsenal. We need to have Hollywood and the MSM deride those who say silly things about guns, just as they now deride our NRA spokespeople. Tall order I suppose but I believe it's what we need to accomplish to safeguard ourselves. Because I believe, within a 100 or so years, we will likely need to be armed to protect ourselves from overzealous governments, if things continue as they are.

As universal backround checks-AND the required gun registration continues from the,left.Obama pardons the guilty criminals.

Amid the push for more gun control for law-abiding citizens, President Obama exercised his pardoning power for Larry Wayne Thorton, a Forsyth, GA man who had been sentenced to four years probation for firearm-related offenses.

Thorton was sentenced after being found guilty of possession of an unregistered firearm and "possession of a firearm without a serial number."
- See more at: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...h.pIKzgM28.dpuf

univeral background checks on all firearms transfers just provides too wonderful an opportunity for the federal gubmint to impose a new tax...in the end thats what it is and will always be about?

This is incredible!

A record-setting 24 pages of posturing and pontification, and Democrats STILL plan on registering all gun owners.

Come on, guys... we need at least 10 more pages!

Well Put Bilious...Its scary isnt it...? On Friday last, I sent 3 Faxes, emails being too easy to ignore, and made 2 phone calls to Colorado legislators urging them to fight 1224. I suspect thats more action than has taken place during this entire thread...

I'm not "pretending" to ignore you, keith. I'm not replying to you because it makes me complicit in your behaviour, corrupted by your manners, reinforcing ignorance.

Each member has a responsibility to contribute in good faith, with respect and without rudeness and misrepresentation regardless of how we feel about members' opinions.

Even in Misfires.

This comment King seems largely based on feelings. I'm not looking for answers, just wondering out loud....if actual words are quoted, what's someone to think if the next comment is to the effect of 'I never said that'.

B. Bob and LD, I was kind of thinking this one was going for the record. As in the struggle for gun rights, every little bit helps. Can I count on a comment or two when things start to slow down. Everyone have a nice Sunday.

When they say they want "common sense restrictions", I'm reminded of the times in my youth(many years ago)when "separate but equal" and Poll taxes were considered "common sense" and "reasonable".The courts then made it very clear that no restrictions on civil rights are reasonable and we shouldn't have to pay to exercise our constititional rights( ie liability insurance).This was the liberals view then, maybe they need to be reminded of this every time they talk about "commonsense" or "reasonable" restrictions.Also every time they talk about registration or programs that are the same as registration,they need to be informed that the very people they say they are trying to keep guns away from, cannot be charged for failure to register. Of course the leaders know this,we need to reach the well meaning people that are being lied to and fooled by the leaders of those against us.
Mike

Everything conversational is "feelings," Craig. I remember when my entire class almost walked out because of what it saw as an impossible assignment. It worked out great when I said, "Whoa, whoa, all I am asking you to do is what you do every day: talk of what you do and how you feel about what you do."

As to the second part of your question, there is no such thing as perfection, absolute or otherwise. Putting the technical aside, I think in conversations of what we do and how we feel, we know of the respect and tolerance required of civil society to provide reassurances of our humanity.

Rudeness, insults, foul language, ignorance don't do it for me.

Since it's a given that the libtard anti's ultimately want a total gun "prohibition" I thought it would be interesting to see just how the earlier experiment in "prohibition" actually turned out. Keep the "Law of Unintended Consequences" in mind as you read this.
Jim


Prohibition in the 1920s

Thirteen Years That Damaged America

I have always taken an interest in the Roaring Twenties and that is why I decided to write my English term paper on an event that occurred in the 1920s. What follows is my term paper which concentrates on prohibition and why it was not effective, namely because of lack of enforcement, growth of crime, and the increase in the drinking rate. I hope this may be of some help to you.

“Prohibition did not achieve its goals. Instead, it added to the problems it was intended to solve” (Thorton, 15). On Midnight of January 16, 1920, one of the personal habits and customs of most Americans suddenly came to a halt. The Eighteenth Amendment was put into effect and all importing, exporting, transporting, selling, and manufacturing of intoxicating liquor was put to an end.

Shortly following the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment, the National Prohibition Act, or the Volstead Act, as it was called because of its author, Andrew J. Volstead, was put into effect. This determined intoxicating liquor as anything having an alcoholic content of anything more than 0.5 percent, omitting alcohol used for medicinal and sacramental purposes. This act also set up guidelines for enforcement (Bowen, 154).

Prohibition was meant to reduce the consumption of alcohol, seen by some as the devil’s advocate, and thereby reduce crime, poverty, death rates, and improve the economy and the quality of life. “National prohibition of alcohol -- the ‘noble experiment’ -- was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America” (Thorton, 1). This, however, was undoubtedly to no avail. The Prohibition amendment of the 1920s was ineffective because it was unenforceable, it caused the explosive growth of crime, and it increased the amount of alcohol consumption.

“It is impossible to tell whether prohibition is a good thing or a bad thing. It has never been enforced in this country” (LaGuardia). After the Volstead Act was put into place to determine specific laws and methods of enforcement, the Federal Prohibition Bureau was formulated in order to see that the Volstead Act was enforced. Nevertheless, these laws were flagrantly violated by bootleggers and commoners alike.

Bootleggers smuggled liquor from oversees and Canada, stole it from government warehouses, and produced their own. Many people hid their liquor in hip flasks, false books, hollow canes, and anything else they could find (Bowen, 159). There were also illegal speak-easies which replaced saloons after the start of prohibition. By 1925, there were over 100,000 speak-easies in New York City alone (Bowen, 160).

As good as the ideal sounded, “...prohibition was far easier to proclaim than to enforce” (Wenburn, 234). With only 1,550 federal agents and over 18,700 miles of (Bowen, 166) “vast and virtually unpoliceable coastline” (Wenburn, 234), “it was clearly impossible to prevent immense quantities of liquor from entering the country” (Behr, 162). Barely five percent of smuggled liquor was hindered from coming into the country in the 1920s.

Furthermore, the illegal liquor business fell under the control of organized gangs, which overpowered most of the authorities (Wenburn, 234). Many bootleggers secured their business by bribing the authorities, namely federal agents and persons of high political status (Bowen, 160). “No one who is intellectually honest will deny that there has not yet been effective nationwide enforcement” (Behr, 161).

As a result of the lack of enforcement of the Prohibition Act and the creation of an illegal industry an increase in crime transpired. The Prohibitionists hoped that the Volstead Act would decrease drunkenness in America and thereby decrease the crime rate, especially in large cities. Although towards the beginning of Prohibition this purpose seemed to be fulfilled, the crime rate soon skyrocketed to nearly twice that of the pre-prohibition period. In large cities the homicide went from 5.6 (per 100,000 population) in the pre-prohibition period, to nearly 10 (per 100,000 population) during prohibition, nearly a 78 percent increase.

Serious crimes, such as homicides, assault, and battery, increased nearly 13 percent, while other crimes involving victims increased 9 percent. Many supporters of prohibition argued that the crime rate decreased. This is true if one is examining only minor crimes, such as swearing, mischief, and vagrancy, which did in fact decrease due to prohibition. The major crimes, however, such as homicides, and burglaries, increased 24 percent between 1920 and 1921. In addition, the number of federal convicts over the course of the prohibition period increased 561 percent. The crime rate increased because “prohibition destroyed legal jobs, created black-market violence, diverted resources from enforcement of other laws, and increased prices people had to pay for prohibited goods” (Thorton, 10).

The contributing factor to the sudden increase of felonies was the organization of crime, especially in large cities. Because liquor was no longer legally available, the public turned to gangsters who readily took on the bootlegging industry and supplied them with liquor. On account of the industry being so profitable, more gangsters became involved in the money-making business. Crime became so organized because “criminal groups organize around the steady source of income provided by laws against victimless crimes such as consuming alcohol” (Thorton, 13). As a result of the money involved in the bootlegging industry, there was much rival between gangs. The profit motive caused over four hundred gang related murders a year in Chicago alone (Bowen, 175).

Incidentally, large cities were the main location for organized gangs. Although there were over a half dozen powerful gangs in New York, Chicago was the capital of racketeers, including Johnny Torrio, “Bugs Moran”, the Gennas, and the O’Banions (Behr, 192). The most powerful and infamous bootlegger however, was Al Capone, operating out of Chicago. One of the most gruesome and remembered gangster shoot-outs of all time occurred on Valentine’s Day, 1929. Because of business differences, Capone had his henchman, “Machine Gun” Jack McGurn plot the murder of the O’Banions, led by Bugs Moran.

McGurn staged a delivery of alcohol to Moran at a warehouse and had his gang members impersonate police officers and pretend to raid the transaction. With a sweep of machine gun fire, McGurn killed all that were inside. Capone had a solid alibi, being in Miami at the time, and no convictions were ever made. This event is an example of how prohibition fueled gang warfare and increased the crime rate in America (Bowen, 175).

“Seldom has law been more flagrantly violated. Not only did Americans continue to manufacture, barter, and possess alcohol; they drank more of it” (Bowen, 154). The Americans that supported the law of prohibition argued that if drinking was not allowed, then Americans would drink less. Although the consumption of alcohol fell immediately after the beginning of prohibition, there was a subsequent increase after less than a year (see appendix i). After the start of prohibition, because manufacturing and importing alcohol were illegal, people needed to find ways to avoid being caught.

Because beer had to be transported in large quantities, which became difficult, the price of beer went up and thus Americans began to drink less of it. Instead, they began to drink more hard liquor, which was more concentrated and easier to transport and thus less expensive. Because of prohibition, Americans began to drink more potent drinks and so became more drunk by drinking less. Another downfall of prohibition was that the illegally made products had no standards. Deaths from poisoned liquor rose from 1,064 in 1920 to 4,154 in 1925.

Although one would think that prohibition would enhance the difficulty of obtaining alcohol, liquor was actually very easy to acquire. The bootlegging business was so immense that customers could easily obtain alcohol by simply walking down almost any street. Replacing saloons, which were all shut down at the start of prohibition, were illegal speak-easies. These businesses, hidden in basements, office buildings, and anywhere that could be found, admitted only those with membership cards, and had the most modern alarm systems to avoid being shut down. “There were twice as many speak-easies in Rochester, New York, as saloons closed by Prohibition” (Thorton, 6).

Bootleggers, having very profitable businesses (one bootlegger was worth more than five million dollars), either illegally imported liquor, stole it from government warehouses, or made their own, making it readily available to customers (Bowen 170). Many home products were sold to those customers who wanted small quantities of alcohol. Vine-Glo, a type of grape juice, turned into wine (15 percent alcohol) after sixty days of fermentation. Wort, or near beer, was legally produced because it had less than 0.5 percent alcohol. When added to yeast, this product quickly turned into beer. Alcohol used for medicinal purposes, prescribed by a doctor, was also technically legal.

There were restrictions, such as only one pint was allowed per person in a ten day period, but these rules were blatantly ignored (Bowen, 164). The sales of medicinal alcohol, which was 95 percent pure alcohol, increased 400 percent between 1923 and 1931. Another factor that proves the increase of alcohol consumption is the increase in deaths and drunkenness. The drop in alcohol related deaths before prohibition quickly rose during prohibition. Arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, while arrests for drunk driving increased 81 percent during prohibition (Thorton, 7).

“The results of the experiment [prohibition] are clear: ...organized crime grew into an empire; ...disrespect for the law grew; and the per capita consumption of the prohibited substance -- alcohol -- increased dramatically” (McWilliams). It is obvious that this “noble experiment” was not so noble but rather a miserable failure on all accounts. Reasonable measures were not taken to enforce the laws and so they were practically ignored.

People flagrantly violated the law, drinking more of the substance that was originally prohibited. The problems prohibition intended to solve, such as crime, grew worse and they never returned to their pre-prohibition levels. Not only was prohibition ineffective, it was also damaging to the people and society it was meant to help. Prohibition should not have gone on for the thirteen years it was allowed to damage society.

Written by: Catherine H. Poholek

May 6, 1998

Works Cited

Excellent post Jim. The curse of unintended consequences.

One of Canada's great philanthropic and liquor dynasties, the Bronfmans, got its start as bootleggers during prohibition, and the Nova Scotia rumrunner I'm Alone became one of big legal trials between Canada and the United States, with the USCG chasing the schooner beyond international waters and killing her captain "in hot pursuit" with a burst of machine gun fire into the wheelhouse.

It was in the late 20s and maybe five years before me but I became a late witness to prohibition treasures and the bootleggers craft. While working on a road construction crew during high school summers in the late 40s, I sat down with men at lunch on a mossy lump in a swale of roadside black spruce. Scraping away the moss, I revealed a five-gallon keg of black rum.

"Omigod," said Reuben Blakeney, champion drinker of our fishing village. His brother Walter, a hard-shelled Baptist teetotaller, rose up and without a word swung a pickaxe into the wooden keg, sending its precious, dark and wonderfully smelling liquid into the soil. Walter sat down with a so-there look on his face. No one said a word and went on with their lunch.

Thanks, Jim, for a reminder of a boy with men more than 65 years ago. And, yes, it was all so stupid by know-it-alls who decided to do the thinking for everyone---as they're trying to now with registration.

Also, don't forget the "Lion of the Senate's" father Joe, got his considerable fortune bootlegging, also through Canada. Teddy was very antigun.
Mike

It wasn't just "through Canada". I believe there was a tight business relationship between Sam Bronfman and Joe Kennedy. A pair of crooks.

Jim, it seems to me that the "do-gooders" who seem to wish to control everything learned a lot from the prohibition experiment in our Country. When they turned their attention to tobacco, they 1st went for the 'hearts and minds' of the country and keeping the legitimate industry intact, proceeded to tax it practically out of existence. I know that is true because I watched our local tobacco growing economy disappear inside of twenty-five years.

Now they're using the same tactics on guns. First they have turned a lot of the people to a belief that guns and the blood-sports are inherently evil and right thinking people should shun sportsmen and demand protection from evil guns, just as the people were convinced of the evil of tobacco (they were probably right about that)and the mores of society shifted to the point that smokers exercising their right to damage their health are now shunned.

Universal registration is not likely in my mind to be a prelude to confiscation. It is more likely to lead to a list of new gun-tax payers whose identities and location are known and who will be subjected, with the well-wishing of the people, to taxes which will make gun ownership so onerous and so expensive and so unpopular as to get rid of it despite the 2nd amendment...Geo

Quote:
"Universal registration is not likely in my mind to be a prelude to confiscation. It is more likely to lead to a list of new gun-tax payers whose identities and location are known and who will be subjected, with the well-wishing of the people, to taxes which will make gun ownership so onerous and so expensive and so unpopular as to get rid of it despite the 2nd amendment...Geoote:"

That is certainly the approach they've used on alcohol and tobacco. While I certainly don't condone smoking I find the approach used to lessen it repugnent and basically a very high tax on those who mostly can't afford it.
The liberals will continue to use some form of taxation to make firearms ownership far more expensive. Microstamping every bullet is just one example of this.
However; I firmly believe they'll wait for the next madman to help their cause along which is to ultimately eliminate the private ownership of all firearms. Univeral Registration will certainly make this job easier as has been demonstrated elsewhere.
Jim

I'm not giving up my plug tobacco or my cigars and I'm certainly not giving up my guns. I may be paying the tax on my tobacco but they can kiss my ass on a gun tax. Enough is enough.

James (Canvasback), I realize that Obama, Biden, Feinstein, et al are only important in the short term, while they are elected officials. They have moved onto the scene to replace the likes of Lyndon Johnson, Ted Kennedy, Joseph Tydings, and Howard Metzenbaum. When Obama and Co. are gone, they too will be replaced by a cadre of anti-gun politicians who share their idealogy. I wonder how many idiots here will believe Hillary Clinton in 3 1/2 years when she tells them supports the Second Amendment. Interesting to note that all of the above are Liberal Democrats. I'm beginning to see a pattern, but according to the Gospel of King Brown, we shouldn't pigeon-hole them or they will never sing Kumbaya with us.

I still think those who are believing polls provided by liberal news organizations that are telling us the 2nd Amendment is on its' death bed are allowing themselves to be deceived. I agree completely that guns have been demonized in our schools by liberal liars who are tools of the Liberal Democrat NEA, and in society at large by the liberal liars of the liberal media, which has become the propaganda wing of the Liberal Democrats. And while it has been somewhat effective, there are the signs I referenced that their message has not been as successful as they'd like. Gun ownership and gun numbers are at an all time high. NRA membership is as well. We won Concealed Carry in all but Barack Obamma's state of Illinois. Shows about guns and hunting may be gone from ABC, but they've been replaced on Cable and Sattelite channels. There is much to celebrate, and it takes tragic massacres and statistics from cities with restrictive gun laws for the anti-gun forces to get any traction.

In the aftermath of the Democrats' slaughter in the mid-term elections after Clinton got his Assault Weapons Ban, Bill Clinton ruefully noted that the NRA is the most effective lobbying organization in the U.S. Those who still haven't joined... those who are still on the fence would do well to take note of that and help the cause. But joining should be more than carrying a card. The subject matter of this thread is proof that you can be a member and not be involved enough to know the positions of NRA, and why. We have to be informed in order to counter deception. We should never cower and avoid saying what is true in fear that the truth may push someone away. We got our freedoms from fighting for them, not from being lulled into negotiations with liars and those who would steal our Civil Rights under the guise of security.

But that's why some of us have been touting the importance of bringing kids and women and non-shooters into the sport. The excitement and enthusiasm of a kid that has just fired a shotgun and maybe broke a number of clays after proper training and coaching will erase years of anti-gun indoctrination. You can bet they will share that enthusiasm with friends. When he or she sees that the gun is a tool made of wood and steel, and can't in and of itself do evil, it will hit them that maybe they've been lied to. Then perhaps, they will come to realize that they are being lied to about other things like our national debt, socialized medicine, taxes, and a whole litany of the Liberal feel-good things that are dragging us down as a nation.

I went to a gun show yesterday and was pleased to see the largest number of women I have ever seen, and they weren't there for the Indian jewelery. The increase in female attendance was more than just noticeable, it was striking. There were two tables run by pro-gun rights organization collecting signatures on petitions demanding no infringements on our gun rights. One was "manned" by four women, and the other was half women. They were taking reservations for busses to transport gun owners to our State House on April 23 for a Gun Rights Rally that I plan to attend. Those I spoke with were very passionate about this assault on our rights. I wish a few of our members here shared their determination and enthusiasm. None of them would be whining about a thread such as this going on.

King Brown, I know you weren't ignoring me. I said you were pretending to ignore me. Big difference. You started that game right after you falsely accused me of putting words in your mouth, and I called you out on it, with proof. I thought your response then was fueled by an excess of estrogen. Quoting your lame response to me today, craigd noted your disingenuous behavior. Of course you had an equally lame excuse in your reply to him. Again. So don't give me any sermons on misrepresentation or contributing in good faith. Even your response here is just another example of rudely hurling insults under a thin veneer of verbosity. You may not use foul language, but you are no stranger to clever rudeness, insults, and ignorance. Don't worry about becoming corrupted by my manners. You were corrupt long before I came on the scene. Dishonesty still ain't civility. Nice try.

Keith, those are hopeful indicators that you reference. Because I don't live in the US, perhaps my understanding lacks the tempering that exposure to the citizenry would provide to the biased message of the MSM.

I completely agree that one way to combat the lies is exposure and that it the responsibility of each of us to introduce and involve as many non shooters as we can.

My point about the specific politicians, Obama, Feinstein etc is that they can and will be replaced. The only question is by who? As many on here and elsewhere understand, the campaign to replace each of them should have begun the day they were elected.

What amazes me is the in-fighting that allows the real enemy to slip up the middle and win the election. People who stay home on Election Day because their "guy" didn't get the nomination. People who think voting once every four years (federally) is sufficient effort. People who let the lack of "perfection" in the candidate or platform stop them from contributing to advancing the cause.

King's right about one thing Keith. To protect ourselves from the lies and idiocy of the liberal democrats in both nations, what is required is the proverbial "big tent". The rightness and purity of our intellectual positions is meaningless if our side doesn't win the elections. I'd rather be arguing every day with LD, jOe and others here and elsewhere over the details and nuances of what our conservative governments should be doing than fighting to stop the inanity of the liberal democrats in power.

What is sufficient is what gets the job done.

My mother has Alzheimer's now but when she was still very lucid she related to me how in the 1930's the Gestapo came to their house and took my grandfather's registered pocket pistol.

Universal registration is the first step to confiscation.

Registration - never!

When it comes to history, 70% of America has Alzheimers's.

Along with 60% of this BBS.

Because Liberals and the Dumbocrats don't have those sorts of percentages of the American Population.

Care to back that up with some evidence?

History has proven what most of us have said over and over...and not just what happened in Germany.

Bony:
Obama was re-elected. And the Senate is still Democrat.

I rest my case.

Ahhh.... what wuz yer question agin'?

He didn't do it with 70% or even 60% of the vote....he got it within the range they were able to cheat and get enough votes to steal the election...about 2%...

There are a lot of dumb people out there for sure....but not numbers that high. And there were enough questionible precincts in enough of the right places to fudge the numbers that much.

Just look at the numbers of precincts that Romney had ZERO votes...some of them have over 100% turnout....both are statictically impossible conditions without wholesale fraud.

jes giv da blood suckers der tax money an de wil go away! fur awhile...

The entire White house scene has become a fraud...

In view of the recent calls for more gun control by Obama I thought I would give jOe a chance to recant his support for more gun control.

So how about it jOe, do you still advocate more gun control?

Or are you sticking with your buddy ed good?

Listen you perverted idiOt...

I never once claimed I was for universal gun registration.

I did say that I think private gun sales should go through a back ground check....if for no other reason than to get a registered gun that I legally bought and later sold out of my name.

Hey stUpid. You advocated universal background checks.

On that issue, universal background checks, you stand with with Obama, Hillary, your favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein, and a host of other liberals.

And universal background checks could be used to create a U.S. Universal Gun registry.

So how about it pOser jOe, do you still advocate universal back ground checks for ALL gun sales? Yes or no.

Or are you sticking with your Heros I listed above?

Hey stUpid. You advocated universal background checks.

On that issue, universal background checks, you stand with with Obama, Hillary, your favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein, and a host of other liberals.

And universal background checks could be used to create a U.S. Universal Gun registry.

So how about it pOser jOe, do you still advocate universal back ground checks for ALL gun sales? Yes or no.

Or are you sticking with your Heros I listed above?

Listen you stupid perverted tex'azz bass'turd...

I never once claimed I was for universal gun registration.

I did say that I think private gun sales should go through a back ground check....if for no other reason than to get a registered gun that I legally bought and later sold out of my name.

Hey stUpid. You advocated universal background checks.

On that issue, universal background checks, you stand with with Obama, Hillary, your favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein, and a host of other liberals.

And universal background checks could be used to create a U.S. Universal Gun registry.

So how about it pOser jOe, do you still advocate universal back ground checks for ALL gun sales? Yes or no.

Or are you sticking with your Heros I listed above?

You left out this part...

Hey stUpid. You advocated universal background checks.

On that issue, universal background checks, you stand with with Obama, Hillary, your favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein, and a host of other liberals.

And universal background checks could be used to create a U.S. Universal Gun registry.

So how about it pOser jOe, do you still advocate universal back ground checks for ALL gun sales? Yes or no.

Or are you sticking with your Heros I listed above?

I don't stand with any of those bass'turds....

Hey stUpid. You advocated universal background checks.

On that issue, universal background checks, you stand with with Obama, Hillary, your favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein, and a host of other liberals.

And universal background checks could be used to create a U.S. Universal Gun registry.

So how about it pOser jOe, do you still advocate universal back ground checks for ALL gun sales? Yes or no.

Or are you sticking with your Heros I listed above?

Why bother and respond to a copy and pasting bass'turd...especially one that's a pervert.

jOe wrote that this morning, 10/5/2015.

Hey stUpid, you just advocated universal background checks, agAin.

On that issue, universal background checks, yOu stand with with Obama, Hillary, yOur favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein, and a host of other liberals.

too bad dave does not do a background check on sum o youse guys and restrict your ability to trash treads here...

jOe wrote that this morning, 10/5/2015.

Hey stUpid, you just advocated universal background checks, agAin.

On that issue, universal background checks, yOu stand with with Obama, Hillary, yOur favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein, and a host of other liberals.

Whats up you liberal pervert...

jOe wrote that this morning, 10/5/2015.

Hey stUpid, you just advocated universal background checks, agAin.

On that issue, universal background checks, yOu stand with with Obama, Hillary, yOur favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein, and a host of other liberals.

jOe wrote that the morning, of 10/5/2015.

Hey stUpid, you just advocated universal background checks, agAin.

On that issue, universal background checks, yOu stand with with Obama, Hillary, yOur favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein, and a host of other liberals.

jOe wrote that the morning, of 10/5/2015.

Hey stUpid, you just advocated universal background checks, agAin.

On that issue, universal background checks, yOu stand with with Obama, Hillary, yOur favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein and a host of other liberals.

The liberals on MSNBC had a debate about defeated legislation that would have placed people that are on the 'No Fly' list on the FBI list of people who cannot own a gun. The show, after groveling and fawning over Hillary's courageous speech about her defying the NRA, made a big thing over saying how stupid that was to defeat the legislation.

Well, then they made a big mistake by adding a Republican Senator to their debate panel who stated that the legislation was defeated because once a person is on this secretive 'No Fly' list there is no way for that person to challenge it and be removed from this list.

That shut the liberals up pretty good but they went back to fawning over Hillary's courage. There is no limit to their groveling on MSNBC, CBS, ABC or NBC even when confronted with the facts.

the federal government has no constitutional authority to prohibit any citizen their right to keep and bear arms...that authority is retained by the states or the people...

the federal gun control law of 1993, which created federal background checks as a means of approving firearms purchases is a violation of the 2nd and 10th amendments to the u.s. constitution.

jOe wrote that the morning, of 10/5/2015.

Hey stUpid, you just advocated universal background checks, agAin.

On that issue, universal background checks, yOu stand with with Obama, Hillary, yOur favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein and a host of other liberals.

jOe wrote that the morning, of 10/5/2015.

Hey stUpid, you just advocated universal background checks, agAin.

On that issue, universal background checks, yOu stand with with Obama, Hillary, yOur favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein and a host of other liberals.

I stand with sanity...

jOe wrote that the morning, of 10/5/2015.

Hey stUpid, you just advocated universal background checks, agAin.

On that issue, universal background checks, yOu stand with with Obama, Hillary, yOur favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein and a host of other liberals.

And you'd be the first brain dead mO'f'r troller to go...

jOe wrote that the morning, of 10/5/2015.

Hey stUpid, you just advocated universal background checks, agAin.

On that issue, universal background checks, yOu stand with with Obama, Hillary, yOur favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein and a host of other liberals.

On that issue I stand with common sense...

jOe wrote that the morning, of 10/5/2015.

Hey stUpid, you just advocated universal background checks, agAin.

On that issue, universal background checks, yOu stand with with Obama, Hillary, yOur favorite newscaster Anderson Cooper, Joe Biden, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Dianne Feinstein and a host of other liberals.

.
.
The reason jOe made that reply is because hE is a trOll and because hE is tOO stUpid to stOp.

----------------------------------------------------------



I was giving jOe the trOll such an ass whipping down in Misfires that he whined to Dave over and over. Dave got so tired of reading jOe's gIrly little bltchy messages that he shut down Misfires.

I think it is funny that the trOll was asking Dave to protect hIm from someone the trOll intended as a victim.

And jOe was banned from the "For Sale" section for stalking, baiting, insulting and attempting to bully Gerry Addison, Adam Stinson, and many others.

----------------------------------------------------------


.
.
jOe, besides being a trOll, is a liAr.

Several years ago he made several posts arguing against citizen ownership of AR15 type semiauto rifles. In a different and much later discussion I brought up his past support for banning AR15 type semiautos. He lied and said he had never advocated banning citizen ownership of those type rifles. But I was able to find the old thread and dOcument his mendAcity.






























For those that missed it here is what Zumbo wrote and then jOe defended:
"I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are “tackdrivers.”

Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I've always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don't use assault rifles. We've always been proud of our "sporting firearms."

This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don't need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let's divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries [sic] and woods."

For the record, Mr. Zumbo recanted his statement. But stUpid jOe the lyIng trOll never did, even arguing against citizens owning AR15s after Zumbo's recant.


jOe made several pitiful first attempts at insulting me. I will have the last insult. And our feud will go on until Dave bans jOe or bans me. I insulted jOe several times in this post. As it now stands and as far as I am concerned our feud is over. But jOe will make another pitiful attempt at insulting me.

jOe the trOll is tOO stUpid to stOp.

And hE is a liAr to bOOt!