Coburn getting ready to sell us out..!

[Dale00]

How so?
Specifically, how does a background check lead to registration and why has it not led to registration thus far?

I'm just asking a question.
If you can't answer the question it's OK. I'll move along.

The "improved background check" will likely be trumpeted as a step towards keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, the unstable and the dangerous. The politicians involved will proudly bask in the glory of bipartisan compromise and development of a constructive solution etc.

Then either or both of the following will occur:

1. The improved background check will be associated with a database of all gun transactions reported. It will either be created in stealth or with some sort of assurance that access to the database is strictly regulated and completely unavailable to other agencies.

2. In time it will become obvious that the improved background check is not working, or not working well enough, because there are still mass shootings.

The argument will then be made that we must take the next step, universal registration, because there are simply too many unregistered guns. If do this, then we will be safe.

Knowledge is power and the government wants more of both. The founders did not trust government. Neither do I and neither should you.

 

[Jack T.]

When I asked Coburn about Bodansky's warning he got pi**ed off and acted like he didn't know what I was talking about. So much for open government!

He was either ignorant of Bodansky's warning or was just trying to evade the subject. Coburn's not a stupid man; he was evading.

I wouldn't trust him.

I was at the State Convention a few years ago, right after the first bailout bill, when a delegate asked him about his vote FOR the bailout. Same response. . .Coburn got pissed and snapped at the delegate.

He might be a fine Senator, and do a lot of good things, but I agree with JM.

 

[uncle money bags]

Then the current background check system is unenforceable too.
If a dealer sells a gun without a BC the feds don't find out until the gun shows up in a crime.
It's the same thing.

To illustrate:

I bought a gun today at soonerstatepawn and I filled out the 4473 and they kept that and I went home with my gun.
If I had bought that gun off of you we would have met up at soonerstatepawn and one of us would have paid the 10 dollar fee and I would have filled out the 4473 which they would have kept and you and I would have conducted a deal.
I don't really see the difference between me buying the gun from them or buying it from you except I pay an extra 10 dollars for the service from SSP.

What am I missing?

A dealer selling guns without the bc is breaking the law is the biggest difference. Im sure you didnt walk away with that gun before the proceed was given. That means the gubment knows a firearm transferred from them to you. I must not be tracking your thinking.

 

[Hobbes]

A dealer selling guns without the bc is breaking the law is the biggest difference. Im sure you didnt walk away with that gun before the proceed was given. That means the gubment knows a firearm transferred from them to you. I must not be tracking your thinking.

If I bought the gun from you and we did the transaction at SSP they would have called it in exactly the same way and received the exact same proceed, delay, or deny.
And if the answer was proceed the feds would know a firearm changed hands just the same.

Like I said, I don't see how it's different except that I have to pay for service provided by SSP to conduct the check and retain the 4473.

 

[arenathlete]

they will use taxes and penalties to attempt to accomplish that goal

this!

 

[SigInBoots]

Then the current background check system is unenforceable too.
If a dealer sells a gun without a BC the feds don't find out until the gun shows up in a crime.
It's the same thing.

To illustrate:

I bought a gun today at soonerstatepawn and I filled out the 4473 and they kept that and I went home with my gun.
If I had bought that gun off of you we would have met up at soonerstatepawn and one of us would have paid the 10 dollar fee and I would have filled out the 4473 which they would have kept and you and I would have conducted a deal.
I don't really see the difference between me buying the gun from them or buying it from you except I pay an extra 10 dollars for the service from SSP.

What am I missing?

You're missing the utter lack of paperwork that occurs when a trusted source sells a gun to you privately and only requires that you show him your SDA permit before the sale is completed. No records, period.

 

[uncle money bags]

If I bought the gun from you and we did the transaction at SSP they would have called it in exactly the same way and received the exact same proceed, delay, or deny.
And if the answer was proceed the feds would know a firearm changed hands just the same.

Like I said, I don't see how it's different except that I have to pay for service provided by SSP to conduct the check and retain the 4473.

There isnt a difference in the two except the number of parties involved. I know your trying to make a point but for the life of me i dont see it. Are you saying the current system is unenforceable because ffl's could just sell guns off the books and not call in bc's and no one would be the wiser unless some future event brought the transfer to light?

 

[SoonerStatePawn]

I'm not a fan of the Universal Background Checks, just for the reason that the only way to enforce it is to register firearms. How else can they enforce this law? How will they know if you did a background check on a firearm that you own, they won't. People just need to use their heads and commonsense when selling guns. If you don't feel right about the situation, don't sell the gun. I turn people down regularly that I don't feel comfortable selling to. If someone's acting mentally unstable, or making strange comments, or just acting like a flat out idiot I'll refuse to sell them a firearm. I've got the right to discriminate who I sell a firearm to.

Did you notice the lady that wrote the story on KFOR call the firearm a Semi-Automatic Machine Pistol?

 

[abajaj11]

I used to be strongly opposed to this but after a thread on OSA a couple weeks back I've softened a bit. With the exception of family transfers I could be convinced every sale could stand a NCIS.

Would you be OK with it if it led to a federal database of who owns what? In other words registration? because that WILL lead to confiscation. With current administration, IMHO, all they want is for Congress to pass one law, give them one little nugget, and then they will run with that...issuing a whole slew of Executive Orders that will effectively equal registration.
Check this thread out:
http://www.okshooters.com/showthrea...egistration-of-all-weapons&highlight=loophole

and also this one:
http://www.okshooters.com/showthrea...ks-can-t-be-enforced&highlight=owners+gets+it


With Coburn there are 2 possibilities:
1. He wants to genuinely stop lunatics from getting guns but will not allow universal backgrround checks
2. He is ready to allow UBCs.

hope its the first and not the second.
we need to keep calling our senators and congressman once a week and saying we oppose UBC.
I also tell the aide why usually: because it is a path to federal registration.

 

[Dale00]

E-mail sent to NRA-ILA:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...out-background-check-bill/?wprss=rss_politics

"I think there's lots of good things that can happen in terms of mental health screening and checks,: Coburn told KRMG-TV Friday, "If you transfer your car, you have to have a license to transfer, it has to go through that. That's a responsibility of freedom. ...I'm willing to work with Manchin and Schumer on that and going to."

Sen Coburn is promoting changes to broaden the gun transfer background check process. I urge both the NRA and Sen Coburn to cease this and all other compromises with anti-gun politicians.

A broader gun transfer background check will lead to increased government knowledge of gun ownership information. Once it is apparent that this does nothing to stop mass shootings, the cry will go out for universal registration.

Once the government knows who owns what guns, we will see taxes or penalties making legal gun ownership affordable only to the rich or outright confiscation.

I urge you to dissuade Sen Coburn from this course of action.

Senator, cars don't protect us against tyranny.

I like to hear whether or not you believe the Second Amendment is the expression of the wise recognition of the founders of the necessity for citizens to be armed in case, heaven forbid, we ever have a tyrannical government.