"Common Sense" reasons against mandatory background checks?
etc...
IMO these bills are nothing more than 'feel good' legislation to make it appear that they have 'done something' 'for the children', while actually doing nothing except creating more hassles for the law abiding citizen.
I appreciate your opinions but fail to see the basis for them. The universal background check will certainly make it more difficult for the acquisition of firearms by those who are likely to misuse them. Presently, it is extremely easy for felons to acquire firearms through private sales. The universal background check will remove that easy market from them. Since a large number of felons tend to be recidivists, increasing the hurdles for them to acquire firearms should be considered a good thing. The "hassles" for law abiding citizens are relatively minor. $10 fee subsidized by the taxpayers plus $10 service fee for a small business to assist in the check is less than the cost of a box of most ammunition.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
All these extra years are really going to deter suicidal people like that leftist Dormer.
NOTHING is going to stop a suicidal maniac... But if you can KEEP the weapons out of just one suicidal maniac's hands, it's worth it.
"Create more hassles" for law-abiding people who want to purchase a gun?... I'm TOTALLY OKAY with that. If they're "law-abiding" then a little bit of inconvenience is a small price to pay. If they're NOT, then GOOD...That little bit of extra hassle may keep them from getting one...and I'm TOTALLY OKAY with that too.
"Common Sense" reasons against mandatory background checks?
etc...
IMO these bills are nothing more than 'feel good' legislation to make it appear that they have 'done something' 'for the children', while actually doing nothing except creating more hassles for the law abiding citizen.
Yet we read stories like this in today's Denver news feed.....
I find your frequent off topic posting to be highly disrespectful. Please move your off topic posts to your own thread or to Bob's World. The topic here is the proposed legislation in House Bills 1226 and 1229 and your reasons for opposing or supporting them.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
$10 fee subsidized by the taxpayers plus $10 service fee for a small business to assist in the check is less than the cost of a box of most ammunition.
frogger wrote: And just an FYI. I never said this bill included a database. Just said I would not favor one..
Should I type more slowly or in caps?
Grady wrote: I selected no on the universal background checks. Not that I have a problem with background checks on gun sales, I do have a problem with government keeping records of who owns what firearms.
frogger wrote: I have to agree with Grady on this (by the way, Happy belated birthday)
So since Grady claims that the legislation requires government keeping records of who owns what firearms (when clearly it does not), and since you claim that you agree with Grady, it would seem that both of you are claiming that the bills set up a database of what firearms individuals own (even though it does not).
So maybe you should type more slowly if that would assist you in getting the actual facts rather than making up your own.
Please quote where I said the legislation requires any government agency to keep records of who owns what firearms.
$10 fee subsidized by the taxpayers plus $10 service fee for a small business to assist in the check is less than the cost of a box of most ammunition.
Thanks for the information and link. It adds much to your opinions. In reading that document, the CBI estimates that the $1.6 million will cover 220,000 more private transfer sales, plus the associated appeals, etc. So that works less than $8.00 per check, or less than what I estimated.
So the cost of the new legislation is much less than I anticipated.
Now is that $8 per check worth it. What is the estimated cost of a felon using a gun purchased through a private gun sale to commit a crime. First, there is the cost to the victim. Second, the investigative manpower to investigate the crime and pursue the felon. Third, the cost of apprehension and subsequent judicial proceedings. Fourth, the cost of housing the felon if convicted, about $26,000 per year. So you are probably looking at several hundred thousand dollars in cost to the taxpayer, plus the costs to the victim and/or insurance. Hundreds of thousand of dollars vs. $8
Will this bill prevent all felons from acquiring firearms. No. Will it deter some felons from acquiring firearms. Likely. The few felons that I have had contact with talk about the easy spiral downward if they are not vigilant. First the thrill of holding a firearm, just to hold. Then the thrill of owning a firearm, just owning it. Then the thrill of carrying a firearm, just to carry. Then a situation occurs, bad judgement occurs and boom. No doubt many felons will seek out and find a firearm regardless of this law. But many will be denied the opportunity because of this hurdle. The cost to an occasional gun buyer. $8 (subsidized by the taxpayer, although that might change).
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
frogger wrote: And just an FYI. I never said this bill included a database. Just said I would not favor one..
Should I type more slowly or in caps?
Grady wrote: I selected no on the universal background checks. Not that I have a problem with background checks on gun sales, I do have a problem with government keeping records of who owns what firearms.
frogger wrote: I have to agree with Grady on this (by the way, Happy belated birthday)
So since Grady claims that the legislation requires government keeping records of who owns what firearms (when clearly it does not), and since you claim that you agree with Grady, it would seem that both of you are claiming that the bills set up a database of what firearms individuals own (even though it does not).
So maybe you should type more slowly if that would assist you in getting the actual facts rather than making up your own.
Please quote where I said the legislation requires any government agency to keep records of who owns what firearms.
Grady, I was referring to your post where you stated that while you were in favor of background checks, you opposed this legislation. The only support for your opposition to this legislation that you provided was in reference to the government gun registries. My inference was that your opposition to this legislation was based on it instituting a gun registry. If that was incorrect, then my apologies. It would be helpful if you articulated why oppose this particular legislation on universal background checks. It does not institute gun registry, the CBI will not be aware of any firearm you purchase, the only record kept are private records between the gun seller and purchaser.
What is the basis of your opposition to the proposed legislation on universal background checks, House Bill No. 1229?
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
I just don't see the need to run a background check every time one purchases a firearm. Under the current procedures the CBI may not know what firearm one purchases, but they will know how many.
Grady wrote: I just don't see the need to run a background check every time one purchases a firearm. Under the current procedures the CBI may not know what firearm one purchases, but they will know how many.
So? ... If you are "law-abiding", so what?
Isn't that the standard response?..."If you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about." That was the response when they announced that Bush had instituted warrantless searches of Email, Internet browsing, phone-calls, library records, etc....(Which are still going on at Room 641A, AT&T Building, San Francisco....) And yes, the current administration hasn't stopped it either... But it didn't bother you then...
