Mail order firearms. You didn’t need a background check, just a regular check, when you ordered your gun. Send the order form in and they’d mail you your firearm right to your door. Or just walk down to the local hardware store, pick one off the shelf, pay for it and go; again, no background check needed. Yet, no mass shootings or gun fights at the OK Corral like you’d think would happen if you listen to the news much.
I seen on the news yesterday that they were trying to make video game addiction a mental illness. And with the focus of gun control trying to keep the mentally ill from owning a firearm, I can see that being used against otherwise normal people wanting to buy one.
On a side note, Gabby Gifford’s husband was seen trying to purchase an AR-15 rifle, but the store decided against selling it to him not long after the news story took off
Fifty years ago the national paranoia was nuclear annihilation Individuals who could afford the cost built bomb shelter while the great majority supported their cities building shelters, especially near schools. Today’s paranoia is the fear of an uprising of the poor and that truly is cause for concern considering the inequities, financial, judicial and political that the poor face. Far too many people are oblivious to just how close they are to being among the poor, though. Does anyone own Super-X stock?
Good To Know That The Strict Gun Laws In Chacago Are Probably What Has Lead To It Becoming The Nation’s Safest City. (??)
It Probably Doesn’t Have Anything To Do With Armed Gangs And Other Criminals Operating Outside Of The Strict Laws.
If they aren’t state wide regs, they little effect…NYC has the same problem as legal straw purchase gun trafficking can go on “down the street” so to speak out side city lines. Likewise, state regulations are more effective when in concert with nation wide lawsdo we dispute the statistics of state laws being effective http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000
Chicago and NYC city problems are exactly the same as saying, there will be no purchases of guns alowed in a mall, while at the same time there is a van outside the maul selling guns. Inner city are prime areas to attract ANY business because of population density, to make money. Not allowing sales in the city just moves it to the suburbs often just blocks away…but still makes them available. To not understand the dynamics of capitalism with respect guns, is to not understand capitalism.
Illinoise as a state ranks in the lower half of gun violence…about in the middle, as should be their state wide gun law ranking. Remember, these are statewide, not city wide where proximity of gun availability trumps the laws.
CSA ;=)
Have a good one…
Gabby Giffords husband is a retired military man and astronaut. Not only is he trained and experienced with weapons, he’s also passed more psych testing and had more profiles done than anyone else other than another astronaut…and I’d be surprised if he didn’t have at least a “secret” security clearance. He has also proven himself to be a proud American beyond question. Any shopkeeper that would decline him a weapon doesn’t deserve his business. Or ours.
" If they aren’t state wide regs, they little effect…NYC has the same problem as legal straw purchase gun trafficking can go on “down the street” so to speak out side city lines. "
Make the regulations state wide and then when itsn’t work, Where it says " state wide regs," change it to “nation wide regs,” and when that doesn’t work, where it says, "nation wide regs, make it say . . .
It’s all wishful thinking. We’d have to make guns illegal in the whole country and that’s not going to happen.
Being a country hick and not having an understanding of the dynamics of most everything, I believe it would be better to spend one’s time in reality and coming up with a solution that’s more likely to actually work to reduce muders of all varieties in the U.S.
@same Gabby Giffords husband is a retired military man and astronaut. Not only is he trained and experienced with weapons, he’s also passed more psych testing and had more profiles done than anyone else other than another astronaut…
And, he supports strict gun control. With all do respect, I think you dismiss and miss represent Mr. Gifford as trained firearms users like many of us, who have had background checks, are legal to carry conceal weapons were never engaged in criminal behavior and don’t plan to while still wanting guns out of the hands of criminals. He has gone on record with that position.
I own guns, am a CWP holder, trained in the use of firearms and do like Mr. Gifford, support stronger national laws. Because he, and the rest of us in that category are not afraid and do not agree with fear statements. I Will always have the right to own guns and carry because I AM LEGAL AND NOT A CRIMINAL. I do not want to criminals have those rights. It’s that simple and where we may differ.
I know of NO ONE who has taken the effort to be a “legal carrying” gun owner with training who does not feel the same. As a rule CWP holders want restrictions on those who can’t pass background checks and are for tighter gun control laws. I suggest you and others do that…I feel that getting training for a CWP would make a difference, especially if it were a police sponsored course.
@CSAWe’d have to make guns illegal in the whole country and that’s not going to happen.
I guess we do agree on something…but the real reality is we both want the same things I have no doubt. Most advocates of stronger gun laws including, yes, Even Bloomberg feel no differently in general about lawful ownership of guns. We differ because opponents of stronger gun laws take a position that encourages “unlawful” gun ownership. I’m lawful, I can and occasionally do legally carry a gun when I feel a need. I am not afraid of anyone taking that right…non CPW holders on BOTH sides tend to be more fearful one way or another…I don’t know why.
Dag, my comment was on the store owner. I cannot imagine why Gabby Giffords’ husband (Cmdr Kelley I think his name is) would be denied purchase of a weapon where legal and under legal pretenses.
For the record, I support background checks. I’m also a gun owner, and I support carry permits for anyone not convicted of a crime, however those who have committed a violent crime should be prevented from owning guns of any sort, and background checks, while not 100% effective, are the only way to do that. Frankly, anyone convicted of a violent crime shouldn;t even be free, but that’s another thread.
I also believe that it should be up to the states to write their own laws. Alaska has different needs than Wyoming, and they have different needs than Florida. The federal government should come into play with interstate issues, by developing a national backround check database.
Dag, I get the impression that you and I are in total agreement on this issue. I just wonder about the Cmdr kelley comment made by another poster. It seems illogical.
I support the total ban on high capacity magazines and “short” rifles which have no useful purpose for the public.
And handguns should be strictly regulated with severe penalties for possessing one without a permit. Mere possession should be a felony and all confiscated weapons should be melted down.
Not to get on this kick again, but there are some things that no one wants to or will talk about. Do you really think the Feds would not prefer to have everyone unarmed? Do you really think what is happening in Cyprus could not happen here? I can hear Feinstein now saying people that have money should willingly let a mere 10% be confiscated. I’m not living in fear or mongering, but just look at the folks in DC and look at history.
Juan Williams talked about how 50% of the gun deaths are minority and largely gang related. When you pull those stats out, then look at the deranged individuals, what’s left? Mostly law abiding gun owners. DC is a good example. 90% black with guns illegal but they rank the highest? Hows that?
This whole issue is just silly and people need to just say enough is enough for more laws.
Rod, I have mixed emotions about such weapons. On one hand, nobody needs an assault weapon. On the other hand, an assault weapon to a gun hobbyist is analogous to a hot rod to a car enthusiast. Does anyone need 600HP, or the ability to do 200mph? Because something about it interests them doesn’t mean they’r going to kills anyone with it. Should “need” be the defining factor? Should “deadliness”? If so, than what about a .45? Or a .44 magnum? Where’s the “line” drawn?
I hold the opposite view on handguns. The function of the government, any government federal or municipal, on this issue is to protect the law-abiding from the criminals. Not, IMHO, to restrict the rights of the law-abiding. Besides, the states/municipalities with the toughest gun laws are the ones with the highest violent crime rates. The evidence suggests that violent criminals will ignore the law anyway. Taking guns from the innocent will only leave them more vulnerable. The media won;t publish it, but there are crimes prevented every day by citiizens with weapons. There’s a column called “The Armed Citizen” that publishes these happenings, but you won’t see stories about it in the big three media outlets.
Incidents like the tragedy at Newtown cannot be prevented. If it hadn’t been guns it would have been a bomb or something else. We cannot overreact and take away everyone’s guns because of it.
Same
You’re in luck. I’m on my iPod and can’t agree on some things but disagree on others…thumb is too chubby.
How does universal background checks take gun rights away from citizens ?
Secondly, if you are in favor of universal gun background checks , who can enforce it if not the Feds. I don’t have the time and I doubt no one else does either. ;= )
Lastly…who has ever suggested taking h guns away… Not me, not Rod.
We only want the good guys to have them. The opponents want every one to have them cause they are what, too busy to fill out a form or send an electronic transaction verification form ? We are afraid of the paperwork? Cause that’s all it costs the lawful gun owner…a little extra effort to own something whose soul purpose is to kill. Is that too much to ask ?
… I agree that we want the same things, but keeping criminals from getting guns is not something Ruger is prepared to do.
I support universal background checks. I stated that in my earlier post. I also explained that I feel the federal government’s place in this is to establish a federal crime database for sellers to use based on their state laws. The background check laws, CWP laws, and the like, should, in accordance with our constitution’s 10th amendment, be the jurisprudence of the states. And I don’t think that what controls apply to DC need automatically to apply to Alaska.
Rod stated that he favored banning assault weapons and large clips, and felt that "handguns should be strictly regulated with severe penalties for possessing one without a permit. Mere possession should be a felony ". I understand his feelings, but I disagree.
Ruger isn’t the problem. Guns aren’t the problem. Crime is the problem. Part of controlling violent crime is preventing violent criminals from buying guns as best we have the ability. But taking guns, any guns, away from law abiding citizens, or making them felons just for possessing a gun, IMHO solves absolutely nothing. It only prevents people from defending themselves from violent crime. It doesn;t stop the criminals.
Assault rifles are a cultish fad. Like Harley Hogs, mammoth watches, phatt cigars and trophy wives, those on the right must have the status symbols as prescribed by their local “Konservative leader.” A Trooooo Konservative would be humiliated to be seen at a firing range with a 700 ADL, don’t you think. Very much like the hard core left winger who pays extra for a hybrid when the non-hybrid actually burns less fuel, the hard core right must wear and carry their status symbols proudly and prominently regardless how senseless they are.
M-16s and lookalikes are all show and no go. They are high maintenance prima donnas of the firearm world. An M-1 30 caliber carbine is a much better assault rifle in the real world.
Personally, I’d far rather head into combat with an M-16 or the modern version, which I seem to recall is called the M-4, than with an M-1 carbine. The M-16 is a far better assault rifle. But we’re not talking about combat, we’re talking about enthusiasts…and law-abiding ones. We should not take assault rifles away from enthusiasts because violent criminals also use them. We should take the criminals away. And keep them locked up. Forever.
Let us not strip the law-abiding of their rights because we’ve failed in controlling the criminals.
@Same:
If you have universal background checks, you need a way to administer it so everyone who buys a gun from a dealer, is on file with the Fed. Every transaction after that must go trough the background check…here is the kicker, when you say you are for universal background check when in practice you may not be.
If a seller resells the gun he must be held accountable to only sell it to some one who passes a background check.
The only way that can happen is if at the original sale from a dealer, the information that include him ( original buyer) as the owner along with the serial number of the weapon must be transferred only to someone who passes the check. If he sells the gun without a check, that gun had better not be in the possession of a criminal, or the original owner is liable.
So, if you say, " I am in favor of universal background checks" then gun registration with an owner must be part of it. I was a cop, had dealings with lots of gun dealers…this is how universal background checks, to be effective must work. You must register guns with people. For honest people, like I said, it’s just paperwork. If you loose the gun, fly your buttocks down to a police station and report it…ASAP.
Are you still for universal background checks…?
Name me one law abiding citizen you would be stripping the right to own a gun from with gun registration and universal background checks…
The only reason a law abiding citizen needs an assault rifle is as a toy. If he wants it as a toy, fine, the law will say he can register it. It’s that simple. They did not outlaw full machine guns. Why would they outlaw assault rifles. That is a fallacy…
I disagree with your contention that universal background checks require owner registration to be effective. Your system is not the only option. Private sales are a tiny part of the transactions, and could be handled by the seller having query access to the databanks. Legitimate dealers already do background checks at shows, so we know that isn’t a burden.
I onlt want to strip you of your right to own a gun if you’ve been convicted of a violent crime. If not, the idea is to leave you alone and not put your name in some database.
Having to register assault rifles is not what I’d prefer, but I could live with it if it meant keeping the unencumbered right of the rest of us to own rifles, shotguns, and handguns. But I guarantee you that registering any or all categories of guns won’t affect violent crime one single bit. Well, actually, areas that have tried it have experienced increases in violent crime, like DC and Chicago, but I’m not prepared to say it’d mean an overall increase.
So, when do we begin discussing getting violent criminals out of society forever? I guarantee you that would reduce violent crime. We could have different levels of prisons; hard prisons for violent criminal, less hard prisons for less violent criminals, and easy going prisons for serious white collar crime…but nobody gets out. Ever. County jails could hold nonviolent criminals, who could get released at some point.
