He is afraid his job may be at risk if the regulators scale back infringements.
This is a discussion on Who's really lying about Universal Background checks? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Came accross this little tidbit from a BATFE agent Stop Lying About Universal Background Checks It's also being used to propogate the anti-nra croud into ...
Came accross this little tidbit from a BATFE agent
Stop Lying About Universal Background Checks
It's also being used to propogate the anti-nra croud into fervor.
He is afraid his job may be at risk if the regulators scale back infringements.
"I've noticed that everyone that is pro-abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan
"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson
You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.
While they're busy investigating us, terrorists run free. While the legislators are busy making more 'gun free zones' criminals are busy more easily plying their trade.
Sometimes I wonder if there isn't a criminal lobby or PAC in Congress pushing these things through...oh wait! :)
Politically-motivated pap, pure and simple.
Correction. It's the most-logical result of a free people choosing to live free, keeping their intrusive, untrustworthy gov't hirelings out of their daily lives.Originally Posted by From the article
What defies logic is that so many tens of millions of people swallow the pap regularly, that depriving citizens of liberty can equate to reduced number of violent felons in the world. Ol' Ben Franklin knew it back then, when he warned those who would trade liberty for a little temporary security are deserving of neither. Some haven't learned anything, since then.
They do "sneak" to private transactions to acquire their weaponry. Among other things, this is where the untraceable examples have always been. Such things aren't stocked on the middle shelf at the average gun shop. In reality, this is an entirely different market, and controlling the above-board citizen market won't stop this other market from rolling along as it always has.Originally Posted by From the article
And it's not as though demanding upstanding citizens comply with an edict to register their transactions will induce felons seeking untraceable weaponry to also register their transactions. One doesn't beget the other; it only begets an infringed citizenry and a springboard for future tyranny.
Yeah, they do. They're lying, and they're seeking control where authority/control over the space has specifically been denied to them. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. Only the liberty-haters twist it to mean something else. And that includes the wordsmiths on SCOTUS.Originally Posted by From the article
I'd suggest a strong case can be made that registration didn't "kill" the select-fire and shorter guns. The demise of Prohibition did.Originally Posted by From the article
In the long run (in the decades since), only the extreme retail cost of such weaponry has precluded its general use.
Trouble is, the "Shall not be infringed" prohibition against gov't intrusion specifies NO intrusion, not that some twisted reasonableness and "necessity" standards be applied.Originally Posted by From the article
That's right. It's the upstanding that are compelled to follow such edicts.Originally Posted by From the article
Felons go right along doing what they've been doing ... acquiring their weaponry elsewhere. And not because private transactions aren't subject to the edicts. Rather, it's simply because it's off the radar, done elsewhere, and is the only source for weaponry not tied to themselves via S/N records.
They are indeed a necessary first stepping stone along that path. SCOTUS is well-known for allowing every infringement under the sun, up to and including the absolute bans in DC, Chicago, NYC and elsewhere. SCOTUS's rulings don't ensure a darned thing.Originally Posted by From the article
A gun gets stolen; a hundred get stolen; and Johnny Felon brings his hundred to a back-room to sell a few to Bob Felon. Always has been this way. Always will be. How will edicts demanding checks get either to stop what they do, when only the upstanding will comply? How, exactly?Originally Posted by From the article
If tracking and tracing of all transactions were conducted, you bet some nefarious hireling somewhere would be cataloging the "take" for posterity. And if BATFE's actions in past years are any indication, the "take" is kept far longer than claimed by the bally-hoo boys for overt government control over citizens' lives in such ways as universal checks. All it takes is the willingness to do so, and then it DOES become de-facto registration of everything that moves.Originally Posted by From the article
Though, admittedly, everything that doesn't move won't be on the radar, if already off the radar; though it will if it ever moves again ... that is, if transacted by the upstanding such that they comply. Felons will continue to do what they do, off-radar. And if all of this is not actually being done for crime control, then it's hard to look away from the real agenda. It cannot be called something it's not: benign; or, not an infringement.
It does make sense to thwart intrusive governance where specifically disallowed by the Constitution. It's a hardship; a requirement; a hurdle; a step in the way of citizens acquiring weapons; ... an infringement, by any other name.Originally Posted by From the article
And for those for whom this is a hurdle they cannot easily surmount, their rights are being inhibited by this blind, head-long attempt at societal control masquerading as crime control. It is what it is, when any one person's rights are infringed in such ways. And if it's so easy to ignore the infringements on a few individuals, it IS only a step away from accepting the precept that infringement of everyone is kosher. It's not. It's just not. Not for one, not for millions. Not for any price, destruction of our liberty. Else, what's the point?
Malum prohibitumOriginally Posted by From the article
Malum in se
Such crap is only unlawful because it has been made so, not because it's inherently bad or evil. And, at the end of the day, everyone has the right to arms for lawful defensive purposes ... even the potentially violent. Despite our distaste of the concept, they're still citizens.
Statistics since the 1960's have shown that the rate of homicides in which firearms have been used as the criminal's tool have been on the decline since then. One has to wonder, then, if the smear campaign against those against government intrusion is really the smokescreen here, that improving socioeconomics and huge increase in the availability of weapons amongst citizens are really the driving factors.Originally Posted by From the article
Ah. A federalist, statist.Originally Posted by From the article; the author's "colors"
Myself, I'm a citizen. A free citizen, intent on remaining so, thank'ee very much.
Last edited by ccw9mm; June 23rd, 2013 at 03:23 AM. Reason: spelling, grammar
The problem is entirely the definition of what is reasonable. The governments idea of reasonable would be to add additional agencies and thousands of hirelings to generate hundreds of pages of forms that would necessitate additional agencies with thousands more employees to study the impact on trees blaming over forestation, chemical pollution of lakes and rivers used in paper production on guns. The term reasonable when applied to the government is an oxymoron. Applying the word moron to our government would be a more accurate and reasonable description.
Seems clear that any infringement is patently unreasonable, unauthorized, unconstitutional. So long as we've got so-called "judges" in the back pockets of the liberty-haters and statists on this question, we'll continue to be chasing our own tails.
As you say, a government hireling's definition of "reasonable" is wholly different from a citizen's, particularly when control versus liberty is on the line along with the hireling's "gravy train" employment.
I find it amusing that in his opening paragraph he saysimplying that this can be done anywhere, anytime, then just a few paragraphs later he describes how well the NICS system works. Uh, which way is it?a firearm can be purchased with no record of the transaction, and no review of whether the purchaser is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm.
Easy to answer..... Bloomberg keeps talking about the "gun show loophole" ..... and "unlicensed dealers selling guns @ gun shows" .... neither exist. You won't come to any gunshow I've ever seen, and buy a gun from an "unlicensed dealer" or even be able to find a "unlicensed dealer" able to get in the door and set up a table to sell guns.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
Excelent points gentlemen.
I made almost all of these points, so they deleted my posts.
Typical lib site fair, lose discussions so just delete and ban people from posting...
Their idea of upholding and recognizing constitutional rights...
Last edited by gtfoxy; June 22nd, 2013 at 10:54 PM.
There is precious little truth being told in this debate. The truth is, gun control doesn't make anyone safer. Not even their vaunted background checks can actually be proven to do that. There's also not a whole lot of evidence that loose gun laws make people safer either. The fact is, in any society, there are always a few worthless excuses for human beings running around and causing trouble. The real question boils down to, will we be a society that respects the rule of law (shall NOT be infringed) and the basic morality of letting people defend themselves as they see fit, or will we turn to an act of tyranny and disarm/handicap those who obey the law.
NRA Life Member
Charter Member (#00002) of the DC .41 LC Society - "Get Heeled! No, really!"
He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave. - Andrew Carnegie
There was never a real bootlegger problem in my area, their products were readily available and at half the price of legal liquor. I bought mine on highway 49 just north of Gulfport by the creosote plant and got a discount if I brought my own Mason Jar.
US Army 1953-1977
We, the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.
Ask the people in D.C and Chicago about " Reasonable" laws.
Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
I think a talented 7th-grader could shoot a lot of holes in that article, starting with the underlying premise that anonymous purchases are necessarily bad. And if you're really tuned into logical fallacies, the article is a "target-rich environment."
I wish the author would respond to two questions of mine:
1. Nearly all the NICS reasons for denial have a 1:1 correspondence to the Form 4473 questions, and providing false answers those questions is a Federal felony offense.
Of the "one million" instant check denials [FBI web site says 700,000 today], how many prosecutions have been attempted and how many were successful?
2. You state "Universal Checks... will make transfers of firearms to prohibited persons easier for law enforcement personnel to detect, deter, and punish."
What potentially illegal gun buyers who are not currently exposing themselves to the NICS-validated purchases would pursue firearms purchases if all future transactions are subject to UBCs?
Stated differently, do you seriously think that criminals will expose themselves to background checks to buy guns?
AZCDL Life Member
NRA Patron Member
NROI Chief Range Officer