TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Modifying his photo like that to mislead people should be criminal. That is just about as low as they can get. They wonder why they have no credibility.

But it's just as likely that itvwas done by others and just blamed on CNN or whoever. Certainly many details and their attributed sources are faked and being use by all sorts.

dale blanker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

dale blanker wrote:Cornyn is apparently fostering a bill that will upgrade background reporting and improve the federal database. BUT his bill does not require background checks on gun show or private sales. I belie7ve that the great majority of gun owners, including NRA members, approve of better background checking and closing the loopholes so I don't see why it doesn't happen.

What is the loophole you want closed? Licensed dealers at gun shows are required to run background checks. The only way you can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check is by buying one from a private owner at the show. If you force them to do background checks at the shows, some of them will comply but some will simply sell their guns in other ways.

If you require ALL private sales to require background checks, then you impose a financial burden on private owners that will cause some to go underground, especially those who are shady to begin with.

The problem with background checks, like all other laws, is they are completely ineffective against law breakers.

Laws are completely ineffective??? As McEnroe used to say: "You cannot be serious!". Then who are the characters that are filling our prisons?

So if we have no laws there will be no law breakers!

I don't know about you but I take my guns seriously and would not sell to a questionable character. Those who would deserve a little financial burden or maybe even complicity in a crime that develops from their casual sale. IMHO

cb1000rider wrote:

mojo84 wrote: You can read pages 2 and 4 of this thread for starters. In addition to the president, just about every other anti-gun liberal progressive out there. There are many saying we got to do something to prevent people certain people from getting guns. There is no practical constitutional way of doing that.

I thought you were pointing to people on this forum too. To be clear, that's NOT what you're saying?

And again, I'm not worried about the fringe "liberal-progressives" - I'm worried about the centrist that are getting fed up. That means conservative centrists too. They are the ones that can really shift the politics.

mojo84 wrote: I agree that the state reporting for people adjudicated to be disqualified from owning guns are reported to NICS. However, that's not going to stop this. If they can't buy a gun from a dealer, they'll find another way to get one.

That's a suggestion! I like it... It might not stop it, but it's making it a bit harder if we start using the data we already have for private party sales.

cb1000rider wrote:

mojo84 wrote: You have not offered one thing that will help prevent these things from happening but you advocate we have to do something. You also said you aren't advocating for more laws. So, how do you accomplish your goals of eliminating or mitigating these events?

To be fair, you suggested that I was advocating for more (and stricter) laws and basically said that I was behaving like an idiot, correct?

I'm having trouble now that you're challenging me on the exact opposite of that, although it's absolutely in line with what I did say. I'll be a good sport and run with it. But that's what I'm trying to discuss - as I'm not smart enough to solve it on my own and mine isn't the only political perspective to consider. The politics play a big role in any perspective change.

To answer: If you look at my point post above, I did come up with a suggestion. You'll see that one thing that crossed my mind is a system for "red/green" light screening for private party gun purchases. I'd use it. It wouldn't be oppressive and doesn't involve any new laws. You don't have to use it, but you might be held responsible if you sold a firearm to someone on the "red" list. Just a little lookup by DL # and it spits back red or green. No details provided. On the back end it's a combination of felony check, citizenship check, and maybe possible adjudicated (only adjudicated) mental health status.

That's a suggestion for risk reduction. It's certainly not a solution. It makes one hole in the dam a little smaller.

Do you think it's better to change nothing because there are too many holes to plug? It seems like that's what you've suggested. If so, why?

baldeagle wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:To both cb and mojo. We really don't know if the current background check system works or not. At least as far as it was actually designed. States don't report info into the system uniformly so garbage in, garbage out is the rule rather than the exception. And even in cases where a check comes up as someone attempting to buy a gun is prohibited, there is no follow up investigation or prosecution. If it were actually run as designed, the system may actually prevent more prohibited persons from getting guns. Or not. We'll never really know until the system is run as it's actually designed to. And until that happens, I'm absolutely against adding arbitrary provisions and potentially unnecessary new laws.

That's my point. We don't know. We don't even know if this guy had a mental illness history and some are advocating the system doesnt work and we need more guns laws.

Who, exactly, argued that? Please cite them.