What does assembling of a field AR15 have to do with background checks?

[deerslayer303]

When all these Democrats fist pound and say they are for Background checks, what do they want exactly? I just filled out a background check yesterday, we already have them.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[44 AMP]

I would add to that list: the winter mud of Grafenwöhr.

That sounds like the voice of experience!

Boonie troop?? When?? I was permanent party at Grafenwöhr for a while..a LONG time ago...

Today, the memories mostly fade, but some things you remember...the mud, the cold, the heat, the dust, being blown off a tank turret, little things...

and say they are for Background checks, what do they want exactly?

Tis simple, really, what they want it our VOTES. They believe that pushing background checks will get them votes.

People are being sold the idea that background checks will stop "bad people" from getting a gun. In SOME cases, they do, the way a bucket full of holes stops SOME of the water.

Background checks only show if a person has a record, and what it is (if the check is deep enough) and/or show if there are any outstanding "wants & warrants".

And, as we have seen, NUMEROUS times, some people who PASS the checks go on to commit violence, later. And, failing the check does not stop anyone who already has a gun!

It is a curious double standard. The people who sell stocks make a big point of telling us "past performance does not guarantee future results".

And yet, we have no other standard to use.

 

[Technosavant]

The Kander/Blunt race is interesting here in MO.

Kander is playing the veteran card, just as the Republican candidate for governor (Greitens) is doing. Thing is, Kander is a pretty mainstream Democrat.

Kander is playing the outsider card, just as the Republican candidate for President, even though his own party's candidate for President is the consummate insider.

Kander is using his familiarity with firearms (although his own ads describe him as an intelligence officer, and I'm not sure if the intel folks are working with firearms on a daily basis... somebody else with more familiarity with how this stuff works can clear this one up) to justify his desire for more restrictions on the RKBA. That is, he's really aiming for the moderate centrists... the low information folks who don't want outright bans, but don't understand the NRA's recalcitrance on things like elimination of private transfers. There's no way he's going to grab the NRA vote, but he might well grab some votes from those gun owners who are willing to die the death of a thousand cuts as long as their deer rifles and duck guns are the last ones on the block to be banned.

Kander's campaign is something of a study in opposites. While I may not be overly thrilled with Blunt, I know he's been a friend to the RKBA and I know Kander won't be. That's the bottom line here.

 

[rickyrick]

Boonie troop?? When?? I was permanent party at Grafenwöhr for a while..a LONG time ago...

I was stationed near Mainz, but went to Graf' seemingly all the time for training. The tracked vehicles really made for some deep mud. Cold rainy for months and miserable. It makes going to the latrine interesting when the mud is near waist deep.

To us, the politician's act was no difficult feat. We've all been through various hard duty. The average Vet, and most civilian AR enthusiast could do it without rehearsal although it may take a little longer.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

I don't get it, does he think we should vote for him for putting a 4 piece puzzle together? I can teach my 4 year old nefew that!

Somebody should post a nice video of their 4 year old nephew doing just that. And then explaining what real common sense gun laws are.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

There's no way he's going to grab the NRA vote,

Oh, you might be surprised at the number of NRA members who support UBCs.

 

[rickyrick]

Lots of gun owners would vote for background checks and AWBs, many NRA members are among them. Most support magazine caps, registration and many other regs.

Hunters also support the above.

Trul Pro second amendment gun owners are rare.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

Lots of gun owners would vote for background checks and AWBs, many NRA members are among them. Most support magazine caps, registration and many other regs.

I'd be in favor of UBC's if they were implemented properly (a free system that worked right and could be accessed by the buyer and seller with little difficulty). I haven't seen a good plan for doing that yet. The system that is in place right now is screwed up enough that I don't see it ever happening.

The rest of that stuff is pretty much useless.

 

[Moonglum]

I would add to that list: the winter mud of Grafenwöhr

It did not matter what the weather was. It could have been 80 degrees and a drought for 3 months (except we never went three months without an FTX in Graf) as soon as we started to load our M110s on the train it got cold and started to rain.

 

[44 AMP]

Graf was a fun place,
Rain, sleet, snow, and sunshine on the same day
nearly bottomless mud holes, covered with a layer of dry dust, wonderful natural camouflage...

you haven't lived till you try to fix a machinegun in the dead of winter on range 6 with the combined temp and wind chill at -70F

Summers in the 90s, with humidity to match.

Still, there are worse places....

Can't remember the name of the stripper bar anymore..was it Mickey's??

As to a UBC system, what we get, and ALL that is seriously proposed is the gun controller's dreams.

First off, I dislike the general idea of prior restraint on a Constitutional right.
and, that IS what background checks are. Don't be mistaken.

Second, as I've pointed out before, they will not eliminate shootings, and I doubt seriously one could create a believable case that they will reduce them.

The stated goals of keeping prohibited persons from buying a gun ALREADY EXISTS in law, and has for some time. And, no background check can stop, or even IDENTIFY someone with evil on their mind.

Can someone please explain the usefulness (from a public safety point of view) of doing a background check on people who already own guns????

These things are being taking to barking ridiculous extremes in some places. I know a place that as the law is written (though, fortunately, currently not being enforced), if a friend & co worker whom you have known for 20 years, someone you know and trust, if you visit their house, and they hand you one of their guns to look at, they have just broken the law. IF YOU HAND IT BACK, YOU have just broken the law, and if he takes it back, he breaks the law, AGAIN....

Under the law, as written, we would both have to go to an FFL dealer, with the gun, PAY THE FEE, and have the check run, so he could hand it to you, and then HAVE ANOTHER CHECK RUN (with fee) so you could hand it back!!!

AND this applies simply because we own guns. Clean records, not even a traffic ticket in decades, either of us, but under the law, we are ALL GUILTY (of I don't know what, other than being gun owners), until PROVEN innocent (via a background check) and have to put up with these drastic impositions, or risk being criminals.

Its not fair, its not right, and its not ever going to do what they claim it will do.

 

[Moonglum]

Summers in the 90s, with humidity to match.

In Germany? I seem to remember 80 degrees being exceptionally hot.

It might have felt like 90 after a week with no shower and wearing MOPPII but I don't think it actually got that hot for an extended period

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

Can someone please explain the usefulness (from a public safety point of view) of doing a background check on people who already own guns????

Just because you own something does not mean that you are allowed to possess it. The same is true of guns. If you lose your rights through one of the many ways you still have vested property rights in the guns. The courts say that you are allowed to sell them or dispose of them in some other way (unless they are evidence).

If a couple of cogs come lose upstairs and I am lucid enough some days to go about my business but other days I am chasing grandma around with a SXS I probably should not be allowed to posses guns. I could be a deadly danger to everyone around me.

Second, as I've pointed out before, they will not eliminate shootings, and I doubt seriously one could create a believable case that they will reduce them.

One can hardly argue that allowing criminals unfettered access to gun purchases is a positive thing. In my state if I want a gun all I have to do is look on line, call a seller, bring him cash and I can get any kind of gun commonly for sale in the US.

This is nice from the standpoint of the vast majority of law abiding gun owners. But it is also nice for criminals who buy guns.

 

[rickyrick]

Its to discourage new ownership and nothing else.

I think you should have an indication on your state ID if you have a restriction on constitutional rights. Otherwise it's the same ole game of probing infringement.


Second amendment is a wall.
It seems that legislation is being thrown at the wall to see what sticks.
Once the wall is covered with legislation, it has a gooey covering that someone could still reach in and touch if a person really wanted to.
One person sees the gooey obstruction and decides not to breach it. Too much trouble, not convenient.
The criminal wants a gun and just gets one no matter how much goo is stuck on the wall, because they see it for what it is, goo that can just be reached past.