<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by USAFNoDak:
Al, you make several good points, especially the point about falsely entering names into a "restricted" data base for political reasons. [/quote]
Glad you agree with me on that.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>That being said, if we could get something like this in place we would not allow recording of the guns being purchased. That would be criteria #1.[/quote]
The Brady Bill, which mandates national background checks, EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS the government from keeping records of gun purchases. But the FBI is doing it anyhow, and the courts have decided that they're doing nothing wrong. What makes you think they'll obey _your_ law when they won't even obey the restrictions in THEIR law?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>We would need no other special ID other than some acceptable photo ID which we already use, such as a drivers license for example.[/quote]
You're still buying into the notion that background checks of legal purchasers will reduce crime. That's simply not true. John Lott has done research on the subject, and found NO BENEFIT from such checks. By accepting this argument in _any_ form, you're surrendering the moral high ground to the gun-grabbers. Any objections can and will be spun as willingness (on your part) to sacrifice innocent lives for your own selfish desires.
Besides, your proposed system is indistinguishable from the current system in at least one important way. The CURRENT system is a comparison of your ID info against a database of prohibited persons. If you're not on that list, you are supposed to get a clearance. How does that differ from your system?
In addition, if you accept the background check argument at all, you have to agree that the system is worse than useless if people can successfully present false ID. But in order to assure that no false IDs are being used, you'll have to have some way to positively identify someone without error--so how can you object to being photographed or fingerprinted? How can you object if, next year, they decide that DLs are too easily forged, and demand an expensive, federally-issued Gun Owner ID Card with your photo, fingerprints, mental health status, etc., imbedded in a smart chip?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I would propose this only as a measure to swing the political atmosphere back towards our side.[/quote]
I'd be much happier if, instead of this scheme, you worked toward simply repealing the requirement that identifying information on the GUN being bought be supplied to the feds during the check. If they are never _told_ what gun you're buying, they can't record it. And if they claim that their only purpose is making sure you are legally entitled to own a gun, then they can't complain if you demand that they simply check YOUR background...and that what kind of gun you're buying (to say nothing of make, model and serial number) is none of their goddamned business.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Then we could continue to work on locking up criminals who use guns for a very long time.[/quote]
No. I don't want people locked up for using a gun to commit a violent crime. I want them locked up for committing a violent crime. Period. The weapon is irrelevant--agreeing to get tough on "gun crime" is just another way of ceding the argument to the gun-grabbers. Death or injury inflicted with a gun is no more--and no less--awful than death or injury inflicted with a knife, club or a fist. [Not to mention that when owning a gun, carrying a gun, and using a gun become crimes, a self-defense shooting becomes justifiable cause to send YOU to prison for life as a three-felony loser. And don't think that they won't prosecute _that_.]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>This would drop the crime rates down and we could then begin to roll back the other onerous laws towards where you have said we should be. No background checks. No bans. No $200 tax. No regulations on interstate sales. I would like to get there as well, so on that point we agree. We are a long way from this politically today. We need to start pulling in the rope. If we merely cut the rope, I believe we will go in the wrong direction, that is fall further down the slippery slope. I understand that some people want to do that to get to the fight sooner rather than later. If we can shift the political winds first, we may be able to avoid physical conflict. It may come to that anyway, but I would hope we would have at least tried some other method before hand.
[/B][/quote]
You don't _fight_ background checks by _proposing_ background checks. You fight them by...fighting them. Demonstrating that they don't work, can't work, and are waste of LEO resources and an unacceptable infringement of your liberties. You fight them by announcing your ideal (no background checks of any kind), but "compromising" by repealing a couple of the most onerous restrictions this week...then targeting a couple more next week.
Background checks don't work.
Licensing doesn't work.
Registration doesn't work.
Worse, they turn rights into privileges, and lead to ever-greater restrictions.
Don't try to "fix" them. Eliminate them. (You'll have to eliminate them slowly, incrementally, the same way they were imposed, most likely. But move--always--in the direction of LESS interference, not more.)
[This message has been edited by Al Mondroca (edited October 17, 2000).]
