Re: LCG mentioned in WAPO

27
HuckleberryFun wrote:Good article, but duplicates an existing thread in the Firearms in the News section.
Thanks for being on the lookout for articles of interest, though.

See thread: NRA Out of Touch, Mentions LGC, Washington Post Article
Ooops missed that thread.

Along those lines, I really think it's important to publicize that the LGC does have an education program and it should be mentioned more prominently on the web page so people know there are alternatives to the NRA

Re: NRA Out of Touch, Mentions LGC, Washington Post Article

29
Just for funzies, my primary issues with the NRA are their ties/association to the Republican party and their unwillingness to look at background checks as a reasonable imposition on the 2nd. Quite frankly, I think many otherwise conservative gun owners would support an instantaneous background check system if it were convenient, free and didn't impose on the "I gotta get that right now" impulse purchase, especially if it kept them out of the hands of prohibited persons. But the NRA won't go there. It might make inroads with smoothing the skids on over-regulation on other gun aspects (mag capacity, etc.) if the case could be realistically made that every gun legally purchased was done so after a background check and the owner should thereafter be allowed the rights under the 2nd. Dreaming, I'm sure.

Re: NRA Out of Touch, Mentions LGC, Washington Post Article

30
featureless wrote:Just for funzies, my primary issues with the NRA are their ties/association to the Republican party and their unwillingness to look at background checks as a reasonable imposition on the 2nd. Quite frankly, I think many otherwise conservative gun owners would support an instantaneous background check system if it were convenient, free and didn't impose on the "I gotta get that right now" impulse purchase, especially if it kept them out of the hands of prohibited persons. But the NRA won't go there. It might make inroads with smoothing the skids on over-regulation on other gun aspects (mag capacity, etc.) if the case could be realistically made that every gun legally purchased was done so after a background check and the owner should thereafter be allowed the rights under the 2nd. Dreaming, I'm sure.
Well, not for funzies, but you are dreaming.

California has very stringent, if not the most stringent, laws for firearm purchase. Including background checks. Background checks don't work here. Felons can't possess firearms here. Most crimes committed with guns are done by felons. They get guns without a background check. On that point, Martha Stewart is a felon. Why are we afraid to let her have a gun?

You can find people who state millions of people have failed background checks but if you look deeper they don't mention the number prosecuted is low and convicted is hundreds. If you look at those background failures and those who chose to fight it you'll find plenty of keystroke errors, rejected based on a similar name, or just errors. Lots of stories of people who were arrested for a felony and had the charges dropped. The felony arrest is on the record but the dropped charges are not. At that point they hire a lawyer, $$$, to have the records corrected. Looks to me there are a lot more people who should be able to purchase a firearm and getting the run around and spending $$$ than the background check actually doing any good.

Convenient? Plenty of antis will say no to that. They want to make purchases and possession harder, not easier. They say the system is failing because it is too easy to pass They'd like to add mental health and the No Fly List.

Adam Lanza. Read articles from mental health experts on how stringent you'd have to make laws to have a affect on the next possible Adam Lanza. Furthermore we have millions of former military/military with PTSD. They have been abandoned enough. Start having mental health added to background checks and we will have a lot more soldiers not looking for help with mental health issues.

Hey, who in their right mind would want to give suspected terrorists firearms? Except the no fly list throws Due Process out the window. Check the ACLU and what they have to say about using the No Fly List for anything.

FREE? :roflmao: :roflmao: Free Background checks? :roflmao:

I haven't tried this but Google "background checks" and "I do not want to pay for your penis extension". See how many hits you get. I think you'll get the idea on how well will that go over with the antis.

All firearms transactions in CA have a background check. There is a fee, $25, $15 to the FFL and $10 to the State. To cover costs. There is a surplus of funds. They are supposed to lower the fee. Nope. They did come up with a great idea. Lets fund a Task Force! Find people who are on a list who shouldn't have firearms and check to see if they have them. They do have some records to go on. But the records are again rife with mistakes and have things like "last known address". So because there are GUNZ, they show up with a piece of paper, assault weapons, tactical gear and 4 to 6 people. They knock on your door and are pushy about gaining entrance to search for people who may or may not be there, and firearms.

They took $25 million to set up the task force. They don't seem to be very successful.

Re: NRA Out of Touch, Mentions LGC, Washington Post Article

32
BKinzey wrote: Well, not for funzies, but you are dreaming.

California has very stringent, if not the most stringent, laws for firearm purchase. Including background checks. Background checks don't work here. Felons can't possess firearms here. Most crimes committed with guns are done by felons. They get guns without a background check.
No argument there and I'm familiar with the California situation, being a resident here.

So you're point is no background check, now way, no how? I'm not saying they are the absolute solution, only that they could be an important piece of negotiating a "truce", so to speak.

Re: NRA Out of Touch, Mentions LGC, Washington Post Article

33
I think it's more important to have an actual conversation about background checks. Bringing things up like being free and instant are important, because many antis aren't interested in making people safer, just removing guns.

So saying "if you want gun owners to support background checks, make them free and instant" is important because Bloomberg will balk because they view background checks as a way to limit guns, not to limit criminals with guns.
Image


"Person, woman, man, camera, TV."

Re: NRA Out of Touch, Mentions LGC, Washington Post Article

34
featureless wrote:
BKinzey wrote: Well, not for funzies, but you are dreaming.

California has very stringent, if not the most stringent, laws for firearm purchase. Including background checks. Background checks don't work here. Felons can't possess firearms here. Most crimes committed with guns are done by felons. They get guns without a background check.
No argument there and I'm familiar with the California situation, being a resident here.

So you're point is no background check, now way, no how? I'm not saying they are the absolute solution, only that they could be an important piece of negotiating a "truce", so to speak.
People in CA have been compromising for years. Now we have Gunmageddon. I don't support "solutions" that don't work as intended. They aren't looking for compromise, they are looking for unconditional surrender and they are working to criminalize you in the process.

Re: NRA Out of Touch, Mentions LGC, Washington Post Article

35
BKinzey wrote: People in CA have been compromising for years.
I wouldn't call it compromising, but I get your point. I really didn't have much of a problem with California gun laws until the most recent magazine prohibition, elimination of online ammo sales and the newest AW registration disaster (what a turd that thing is). These have crossed the line into absurd obstruction of gun owner's rights with clearly zero potential to reduce crime or gun accidents. As you've noted, criminals don't give two shits about the laws.

It will be interesting to see how California does when it starts regulating rental vans...

It's a good thing I approve of the state's environmental bent or I might just have to find somewhere else to live. :blink:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests