Stop the Universal Background Check.

vicvanb said:
Wayne LaPierre testified (in 1999 I think) that the NRA endorsed universal background checks for all firearms sales including gun shows. I recently saw the tape of his testimony and he left no doubt about their endorsement. Now, of course, the NRA has changed its mind.
Click to expand...
Wrong!! The NRA still supports universal background checks (UBC) but I don't.

Today, NRA president David Keen, meeting with the Christian Science Monitor breakfast group, stated several times that the NRA still supports that effort even though he feels it is a fruitless effort since the critical names will not ever be put in that system.

Tuesday ??, NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre, testifying before the DiFi gun grabber committee in the US Senate expressed the same feelings.

Why do they still continue to support the UBC? If there were some way to get the criminals in that system it might be partially effective.

Why do I not support a UBC? Because it is a "feel good" project that will never work.

Columbines mass killings by a known wacko and the Sandy Hook mass killing by another known wacko, neither were in the current UBC system.
 
JerrySharrett said:
The NRA still supports universal background checks (UBC) but I don't.
Click to expand...

LaPierre was asked several times in the Congressional hearings this week whether or not he supported universal background checks and he clearly did not say "yes."
 
A quick story that will make somebody's point - maybe

Some years ago, my wife Judy and I, found ourselves flat busted in Paducah, KY. We had squandered our stake at that casino just across the line and weren't ready to go home. I came up with an idea to send myself a thou using my VISA bank card and Western Union (VISA doesn't do business with casinos and casinos don't cash checks without prior approval).

So...I jumped on my laptop and sent myself a thousand dollars through the Western Union website - Instant Transfer. In about 10 minutes a lady from Western Union called my cell phone explaining that my request was unusual large and asked why I needed the money. I apologetically told her that it was none of her business and she surprisingly chuckled in agreement. She further explained that their policy required additional verification that I was actually the one making the request and that she had prepared a short multiple choice questionaire. If I got the answers right she would send me the money. I agreed to the quiz:

1) You have owned which of the following?
a) 1987 Ford Fairlane
b) 1996 Dodge Caravan
c) 1996 Chrysler Town and Country

2) You have a child named?
a) Elmer
b) Keith
c) Bethany

3) You own property in?
a) Tennessee
b) Kentucky
c) Georgia

4) You are the owner of this domain name?
a) onedomain.com
b) twodomain.com
c) neiljones.com

ETC...for a couple of more questions. Of course, I answered them all correctly and she authorized the transaction as promised. Very nice lady indeed!

Here's the point. Certainly, the information required to develop the quiz is public info but the effort to put it all in one database and give Western Union access is disturbing. Not only did she have the info but implied is the accuracy of the info. It's one thing to know that I own property in Tennessee but she also had to know that I didn't own property in Georgia.

Since then, I have noticed several information services that promise "the skinny" on anybody for a fee. In fact, I paid $3 (got cheated outta $20 by not reading the fine print) to find an old friend. The report was rather extensive and it gave me a map to his house.
 
Wilbur said:
Some years ago, my wife Judy and I, found ourselves flat busted in Paducah, KY. We had squandered our stake at that casino just across the line and weren't ready to go home. I came up with an idea to send myself a thou using my VISA bank card and Western Union (VISA doesn't do business with casinos and casinos don't cash checks without prior approval).

So...I jumped on my laptop and sent myself a thousand dollars through the Western Union website - Instant Transfer. In about 10 minutes a lady from Western Union called my cell phone explaining that my request was unusual large and asked why I needed the money. I apologetically told her that it was none of her business and she surprisingly chuckled in agreement. She further explained that their policy required additional verification that I was actually the one making the request and that she had prepared a short multiple choice questionaire. If I got the answers right she would send me the money. I agreed to the quiz:

1) You have owned which of the following?
a) 1987 Ford Fairlane
b) 1996 Dodge Caravan
c) 1996 Chrysler Town and Country

2) You have a child named?
a) Elmer
b) Keith
c) Bethany

3) You own property in?
a) Tennessee
b) Kentucky
c) Georgia

4) You are the owner of this domain name?
a) onedomain.com
b) twodomain.com
c) neiljones.com

ETC...for a couple of more questions. Of course, I answered them all correctly and she authorized the transaction as promised. Very nice lady indeed!

Here's the point. Certainly, the information required to develop the quiz is public info but the effort to put it all in one database and give Western Union access is disturbing. Not only did she have the info but implied is the accuracy of the info. It's one thing to know that I own property in Tennessee but she also had to know that I didn't own property in Georgia.

Since then, I have noticed several information services that promise "the skinny" on anybody for a fee. In fact, I paid $3 (got cheated outta $20 by not reading the fine print) to find an old friend. The report was rather extensive and it gave me a map to his house.
Click to expand...


A slight twist on this....

A couple of my employees through the yrs have been PI's, with some of them having family and friends quite highly placed in the Investigative system. It's almost a family thing.....Back before the innernet one of my employees quit owing me money and another forged some signatures (title, bill of sale) and stole a car from me. We were talking about it at work and one of the guys said "I can find them if you want me to." I said "huhh? How?"

So he tole me......"well, he's working somewhere, employment records are easy, and then....."

Basically all the 'net has done is saved a lot of legwork. All your info is "out there" in the public domain from property purchases, hospital records, the phone book, courthouse docs, credit checks and references, employment history and on and on and on. As far as the map to your house, that's wicked easy when you think about it :) you give it out a thousand times a year....and mail it all over the country.

al
 
Yep

Pretty sure that $29.95 will find most anybody....and folks capitalized on that opportunity..
 
I've been living in the computer world since 1968, some time before the Algore web revolution. We have an old saying "garbage in-garbage out". Much of what we find on the web today is garbage, Now then, do you want your right to buy and/or own a gun to be dependent on that garbage.

I will admit though, what we find on the web seems to have a greater percent of accuracy that what we see on TV news!!
 
Wilbur said:
Pretty sure that $29.95 will find most anybody....and folks capitalized on that opportunity..
Click to expand...

Well of course they did :)

It's the American thing to do, the perfect business agreement where everyone wins. With the added benefit that the recipient learns something, "I'll never pay THAT again! I coulda' done that meself!" It's like painting or laying tile, once you see how, a child can do it. But you gotta' be shown HOW... then you choose to pay for the convenience, or not. (Or to save your shoulders and knees......)

LOL

al
 
It's obvious to me that the primary targets of The UBC are the "Mentallly Ill". Why? because of all the talk about "Nuts". Politically speaking, it,s an emotionally soothing response.

To effectively implement/enforce a proposal that excludes or prohibits the private sale of firearms to the Mentally Ill,will require a complex effort on the part of the enforcers. An effort that will be difficult and plagued with Lawsuits,unless certain criteria is met. No amount of legislation will prevent the illegal trafficking of firearms. If anything,it will make firearms trafficking a more profitable crime. I don't see any workable ideas coming out of this brainstorm.

It's possible,I could be wrong.:D




Glenn
 
The idea that crooks buy their guns at gun shows is pretty well discredited by the FBI crime stats, something like 1% of all criminally used firearms are purchased at gun shows, and ALL kinds of rifles are only used in a very small percentage of murders. But the loudmouth politicians and media fools see something that looks scary to them, well scarier than most guns which they find scary anyway, and that means it's "deadlier".

The 2d Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That doesn't mean that the government can infringe on that right to own this gun or that magazine. That four leftist morons on the SCOTUS can rule that the 2d Amendment means that only the military and police can possess guns means not much. They're either willfully ignorant or willfully opposed to private gun ownership and don't give a tinker's dam about the Constitution if it disagrees with their leftist ideas.

All that the anti-gunners will accomplish by requiring UBC's is widespread non-compliance. The more stupid and unenforceable laws that they pass the more resistance and non-compliance will happen. I'm not encouraging anything, but stating an absolute patent fact.
 
All the Gang banger's will do is recruit someone that passes the BGC and have them buy with guns they want. But still nothing is said about the people that commit crimes with guns, going to jail for ten years or more. Just keep punishing us, its easier!

Joe Salt
 
Those who would trade there liberty for a little temporary safety Deserve neither liberty nor Safety' Benjamin Franklin
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top