A Gun Law Everyone Can Support

The Problem With Universal Background Checks

The recent attempt to pass several “gun control” laws in Congress shows that this is an issue that is not going to go away anytime soon. For many reasons this issue crosses both party lines and political philosophy. However, as a general rule the Republicans and conservatives tend to dismiss the idea that more gun control is needed. The public is split on the issue.

The Manchin-Toomey amendment in the spring of 2013 came the closest to passing in the recent attempt to add to the nation’s multitude of laws concerning the buying and selling of firearms. The law would have forced almost every private transfer of a firearm into using the NCIS system which was set up to allow federal firearm dealers to know that they were selling to an "approved person."

It was oversold as a solution to Sandy Hook and other tragedies when everyone, including the sponsors, admitted that it would not have prevented these events from happening. This, and other flaws, led to its defeat.

However, the issue is eventually going to come back. The Democrat party is going to continue to paint the Republicans as cold-hearted, not-caring politicians who are only the party of “No” instead of the compassionate party like they are who is “trying to do something.” The willing media will certainly go along with this characterization.

As an alternative to the Manchin-Toomey type of gun control law there is an approach that has not been tried. It meets the two key ingredients to actually be passed with bi-partisan support.

  • It will accomplish something of value
  • It will have the approval of the majority of gun organizations

Every proposed “universal background check” law starts and ends with the private seller. In some ways this makes sense since he is the one who is providing the firearm to another. However, the way the real issue is viewed by the public is exactly the opposite of the way it is normally framed by the media and lawmakers.

People really don’t care that law-abiding George sells his gun in a private sale to law-abiding Sam. People are concerned when law abiding George sells his gun to convicted felon Fred or nut-case Susie in a private sale because he has no way to check if they are eligible to purchase a firearm. Legal person on both sides of a private sale = okay with public. Illegal or ineligible person on the buying side of a private sale = not okay with public.

Because everyone is more worried about preventing a “disapproved person” from buying the firearm this method starts and ends with the buyer instead. This intuitively begins to make more sense.

This is not a panacea that will stop a Sandy Hook and it should not be sold that way. However, if it is sold as just what the public actually wants, a way for a private seller to know that the person buying the firearm via a private sale is acceptable to the general public as a firearm owner then the public will support the bill. The Republicans will get the credit for moving forward on the issue with a real, workable solution that does not infringe on the rights of gun owners.

This proposal does have some holes to fill in, but the general concept is not only workable but will prove to be popular among many gun owners. I am active on a gun owners forum with over 30,000 members and the general consensus on the forum is that it is important for gun owners to be responsible to whom we sell guns to in a private sale. Give gun owners a proper tool and it will be used.

A Better Way Than Universal Background Checks

Law abiding Sam wants to buy a gun in a private sale. He voluntarily wants to show any potential seller that he fits the category of the BATF approved owner. He logs onto a special federal-based website via a computer or phone app and inputs the same basic info that he would fill out as if he was at a gun store with a Federal Firearms Licensed dealer.

The system would have to be sophisticated enough to know it is actually Sam on the other end of the computer inputting his own information and not Sam's neighbor; being nosey about if Sam can buy a gun. This is a programming/database management question that can be worked out by the experts.

Within the normal speed of a NICS check (less than 15 minutes) the approval comes back, and he prints out a certificate with a unique number code on it along with his name and address. The certificate can also be sent to a smart phone for immediate use at a gun show or other venue. This certificate is now good for 90 days and during this period Sam can use it to show any potential seller that he is eligible to purchase any otherwise legal firearm(s) subject to any further state restrictions.

The federal website legally cannot store info about Sam’s request and his approval, other than that the unique number is valid for a certain period. This number can now be verified either over a computer or by phone by the potential seller of a firearm to Sam. The seller verifies the number and Sam’s ID and if the number is good to go and the ID matches up then he knows that Sam is also good to go.

The government has no knowledge/record of the sale/transfer and cannot legally store info about when someone calls in to verify a number. The individual states cannot require that the seller keep a record of the unique number.

This allows the private seller, whether over the backyard fence, in a Wal-Mart parking lot, or at a gun show to know for certain that he is selling his gun to an approved person without violating anyone’s right to keep and bear arms. Since the program is voluntary the seller can still sell the firearm to a person without the certificate.

Questions and Answers

Why is the process not mandatory?

In my opinion making it mandatory at the federal level will kill the potential for passage. Over time the majority of law abiding gun sellers will begin to require from their own personal convictions that the buyer should show them the certificate. With an aggressive marketing campaign it is well within the possibility that the gun show promoters will voluntarily make the process mandatory for all private sales at their shows.

I believe that a case could be made for giving the individual states the freedom to make the system mandatory in their state. This avoids a federal/state conflict. Some states such as California which already requires all private gun sales go through a FFL would not even need to bother with the federal program. There is a side issue with a mandatory requirement from a state that I will cover in a moment.

Municipalities below a state level cannot mandate the system for their local area.

Who pays for the system?

Neither the buyer nor the seller should have to pay to exercise a fundamental right. SCOTUS has made it very clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and the buying and selling of guns is a core part of that concept.

I would dislike seeing any new tax, fee or other burden put on the gun community. If the general public insists that there should be greater scrutiny over who buys guns then the general public should be willing to pay for it. Putting the burden on the gun owners reduces the opportunity to build a positive consensus around the proposal.

I also believe that if a state mandates it for their citizens then the state must pick up the cost involved for their state. They cannot charge or surcharge the individual buyers or sellers to pay for the costs.

Are there “sweeteners” for the firearm community?

Yes, a compromise works to give everyone something and it is important that the firearm community feel they have a reason to back the bill. The following parts are important to be included:

  • Right now it is illegal for the resident of one state to purchase a firearm from the resident of another state without going through a FFL in the buyer’s state. If the buyer has a unique number then he can buy a gun from an individual in any state without going through a local FFL. After all, the program just declared him an approved person so what difference does it make from where he purchases his firearm?

It would be easy for someone in Indiana to verify the unique number for someone in Oregon, but harder to verify the actual identity to know they match up. This needs a solution but it should be do-able. Also, the laws concerning shipping handguns will have to be modified to make this provision work. It may wind up that this provision only applies to face-to-face sales.

  • Someone with an approved unique number will not have to go through a background check when they purchase a firearm from a federal dealer within the certificate timeframe. The federal government has just declared him an approved person so what is the sense of approving him again? All other paperwork by the buyer and FFL basically remain the same.

What timeframe does the certificate last?

Ninety days is just an arbitrary timeframe. The more rabid gun-control community would probably want it to be three hours, the pro-firearm people probably want a 365 day timeframe for it to be good. I think that 30 days is the workable minimum and 180 days perhaps a bit too long.

What happens when NICS goofs?

Many law abiding citizens are tuned down each day for firearm approval purchases at gun stores because of confusion within NICS as to the proper identity. Others are subject to delay of several to many days. There needs to be an adequate ability to respond to an improperly denied or delayed request the same as done at a gun dealer’s place of business.

Are there weaknesses in the proposal?

Yes, the entire program depends upon the quality of the information in the federal database. I know that some proposals have been made to strengthen the ability of the states to provide quality info and perhaps some of those can become part of this greater proposal to make it more attractive.

The proposal does not stop straw purchases, gun runners, car trunk dealers and others who purposefully break the law. These problems are best left to other laws.

The trust the gun owner public puts into the program will only be as good as their trust that the information the buyer puts into the computer is not keep at any level. Otherwise the program turns back into the same question of the government keeping a database of gun owners which helped sink the poorly written and vetted Manchin-Toomey.

More Reading

I invite you to take a look at some of my other writings on the issue of firearms and their place in society. You might like

Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?

Assault Weapons: Evil Black Rifles (or perhaps not)

and...

The Second Amendment as a Prophylactic

If you enjoyed the article I encourage you to "like" it on Facebook and other social media to allow others to enjoy it.



More by this Author


Comments 79 comments

Inventurist profile image

Inventurist 3 years ago from Georgia, USA

I read your hub with great interest. Unfortunately I side with a different group of folks you didn't identify in your piece. I side with the group that says bad guys don't buy guns legally anyway, so what is the point of these checks? I know it is assumed the government won't keep the records, but even today if a firearm is sold in a retail store to a proper purchaser, and later used in a crime (highly unlikely unless stolen), almost immediately that gun is traced back to the store and the person it was sold to. So part of the problem is lack of trust in our government overlaid by this current administration and its attitude toward lawful gun owners. Part of the problem is illegal owners of firearms are not going to buy from legitimate sellers - unless they can rip off or somehow compromise the form you produce in your plan. Don't think it can happen? How many illegal aliens are working under social security numbers that belong to others? False drivers licenses? Way too much wrong with this.


Alberic O profile image

Alberic O 3 years ago from Any Clime, Any Place

I like that idea. However, California's idea of selling through an FFL is a good one too. California may have passed some dumb laws but this one is actually a decent one. The paperwork and background check is done for you. All you do is sell the gun at the shop and get the money when someone gets it.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Very interesting and well laid out.

I am interested in how you have the federal data base without federal access to lists.

I could see "conscientious objectors" to the process based on that proper paranoia.

But I think you are right that most sellers would like this approach.


Hxprof 3 years ago from Clearwater, Florida

Jack, I've been reading some of your articles and particularly your responses to anti-gun proponents. Your reasoning is sound and constitutional.

Regards private sales, I know folks who've purchased guns privately for the express purpose of preventing the state government (and thus ultimately the feds) from knowing they possess a firearm for home protection. These aren't felons or people with nefarious purposes - they simply wish to be left out of ANY future attempts to disarm them, such as we saw in New Orleans when Katrina hit.

Voted the piece up, useful and interesting.


ThelmaC profile image

ThelmaC 3 years ago from Blue Ridge Mountains, USA

Jack I am an old lady that is a very good marksman. I qualified on the police training pistol range with a score of 99.8 using a "Baby" Glock. I have purchased a few guns in private sales not because of fear of the government knowing I owned them, but simply because the price was better than I could get at a gun dealer. I read your article with great interest and voted it "up". Not sure if your scenario would work. This whole gun control situation is a dilemma with no easy answers.


Inventurist profile image

Inventurist 3 years ago from Georgia, USA

If you haven't heard, Senator Manchin and Senator Toomey plan to bring the whole gun grab back to the floor soon. It wasn't just the registration portion of the bill that is offensive (keeping in mind that bad guys don't do either), but your local pediatrician could determine YOU (not a patient) are unfit to purchase a firearm - and other issues. Read the bill and then comment on the paranoia of those who are concerned about what the government is really up to instead of burying your collective high minded heads in the sand.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Toomey is denying that he wants anything to do with bringing it back up.


Inventurist profile image

Inventurist 3 years ago from Georgia, USA

Yep, came out yesterday.


Jo_Goldsmith11 profile image

Jo_Goldsmith11 3 years ago

This makes sense to me and seems fair to protect lawful abiding gun owner's rights. A great write up! Voted this up ++ Shared and tweeted.


LongTimeMother profile image

LongTimeMother 3 years ago from Australia

The advantage of making a check mandatory is that it takes the pressure off an individual who is being pressured by a potential buyer to "just sell it to me." I suspect there would be quite a few people who would feel more comfortable if they were able to say, "You know I can't. It's the law. And as nice a bloke as you might be, I'm not breaking the law for you." Blaming the government for not being able to sell a gun is a lot easier than stating (or implying) you think the buyer is a danger to society.

Also, I can't see why any responsible gun owner would object to having the serial numbers of their legally owned guns recorded. If you are not intending to shoot anyone or commit other crimes, what's the problem?

Within a decade of gun registration, your law enforcement authorities would be able to confiscate unregistered firearms. That means they can instantly remove firearms from troublemakers without having to catch them in the act of robbing a store, actively participating in a drive-by shooting, etc. Isn't that a good thing?


whonunuwho profile image

whonunuwho 3 years ago from United States

WE must exercise the fundamental laws of nature and the world and have background checks, to prevent weapons from getting into the wrong hands, and of those with mental issues. True, you can't stop bad guys from getting hands on guns, but the lives saved by the checks and reviewing mental history before we allow them to acquire these guns, means a heck of a lot. No one needs automatic weapons and extended clips, except police and the military. Time for sanity to rule and the wild west days to take a hike.whonu


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

who is one of those people who only know what the media tell them and feel a compulsion to regurgitate that bad information. No actual difference between a person like this and someone who believes the moon landing never took place because they saw someone say it on TV one day.

Who doesn't know that the vast majority of guns sold already have a background check when they are bought. And that her "people with wrong hands and bad guys" don't exactly go thru legal means of acquiring guns so background checks are absolutely meaningless in an illegal transaction. That's like passing a law demanding that someone who is stealing a car must drop by the BMV and get it re-registered in their name. That will certainly stop any cars from being stolen, eh.

And her "automatic" weapons is a fantasy in her head. One of these days she's going to have to make a decision whether or not to continue living in that fantasy world she has constructed or to move out and live in reality. She can start by reading my hub on Evil Black Rifles.

yes, it is time for "sanity" to rule. But you will never know quite what that is if you read posts from who.


whonunuwho profile image

whonunuwho 3 years ago from United States

Sanity is relative and maybe you need to take a look in the mirror! whonu


whonunuwho profile image

whonunuwho 3 years ago from United States

You don't have to be enfluenced by the media in order to form your own opinions about gun control, especially when you see folks get their brains blown out by some gun slinging nut case! whonu


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

mother sez: The advantage of making a check mandatory is that it takes the pressure off an individual who is being pressured by a potential buyer to "just sell it to me."

Jack replies: The job of the government is not to "take pressure" off from people. We pressure children to do right. We give adults the courtesy of assuming that they are actually adults and can handle "pressure" perfectly fine on their own. I have no interest in having the government as my mandatory partner in deciding what pressures I need help with.

mother sez: Blaming the government for not being able to sell a gun is a lot easier than stating (or implying) you think the buyer is a danger to society.

Jack replies: We don't pass laws based upon what the weak-willed amoung us can or can't do well.

mother sez: Also, I can't see why any responsible gun owner would object to having the serial numbers of their legally owned guns recorded. If you are not intending to shoot anyone or commit other crimes, what's the problem?

Jack replies: Mother also can't see why any responsible people would object to having their DNA and fingerprints recorded by the government from birth, along with a mandatory ID tattoo. If you are not intending to or commit crimes, what's the problem?

Mother sez: Within a decade of gun registration, your law enforcement authorities would be able to confiscate unregistered firearms.

Jack replies: Well, so much for the idea that "gun confiscation" would never happen, as so many gun controllers claim. And just ~how~ is the government going to know that these "unregistered firearms" exist unless they go house to house. And if it was that easy, why are so many crminals walking around with illegal weapons right now?

mother sez: That means they can instantly remove firearms from troublemakers without having to catch them in the act of robbing a store, actively participating in a drive-by shooting, etc. Isn't that a good thing?

Jack replies: "Minority Report" was a fictional movie... not a documentary on current crime fightting techniques. We tend not to arrest people BEFORE they do anything here in America.

BTW... here's everything one needs to know about the Australia concept of "freedom"

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/o...


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

And there we have it. Perhaps Jack you are ready for a new hub. Evil Stupid People who disagree with me. It should not be hard for you to understand that most people want automatic weapons out of the hands of civilians. Calling them stupid says more about you than them.


Inventurist profile image

Inventurist 3 years ago from Georgia, USA

@whonunuwho, background checks have NOTHING to do with preventing weapons from getting into the wrong hands or those with mental issues. And in your next line you admit it with "true, you can't stop bad guys from getting hands on guns," and reviewing mental history doesn't mean jack! Ever since the laws changed that refuse to keep the mentally ill and impossible to assimilate into society from society - we have put ourselves at risk. Add to that when an administration doesn't enforce ANY law that is in place already, new laws won't make a diddle of a difference. Law abiding citizens registering (that is what happens when you do a background check) your firearms does nothing but identify where the government needs to come when they want to pick them up (it happened during Katrina if you need current history on that).

As for people needing 30 round clips, so the store owners in LA riots that had to defend their stores because the police wouldn't? The 3 bad guys that don't give a rip about a law that break into your house but you are limited to 10 rounds? I can give for instances here too... Don't buy into the limp argument that LEGAL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS can't own whatever (and by the way, it is already illegal except with special documentation for non-military to own full auto). Wake up.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

who sez: Jack, be careful what you say and to whom you are speaking. You never know when it can come back to bite you in the ass!!whonu

Jack replies: Unless your my momma incognito I have little fear of being bitten.

who sez: Sanity is relative and maybe you need to take a look in the mirror! whonu

Jack replies: If you want to claim that sanity is repeating the errors that you hear in the media then go for it. I'd like to see you build that case.

who sez: You don't have to be influenced by the media in order to form your own opinions about gun control, especially when you see folks get their brains blown out by some gun slinging nut case! whonu

Jack replies: YOU are one on record in black and pixel as not having a clue about firearms. Honestly, would you have accepted a paper from a student who put the Civil War in the 1890s? Or misplaced Mt. Rushmore to California? Or thought that the square root of 9 was 5? Or who thought that kat was okay for his feline pet?

Yet you are compelled to post equally egregious errors about firearms and you don't feel the least bit ashamed of yourself. Any gun owner immediately spots your ignorance, and you somehow feel proud of it and want to double down.

With an attitude such as that it is no wonder that the teaching profession has slid down in the public mind. What parent would want someone such as you teaching their kids the difference between knowing fact and error when you refuse to even recognize it in your own life?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Which "automatic weapons" are those, Eric? Be specific. Give details.

And when you find in my post to who the words or concept of "stupid" then get back to us. YOU are the only one to have used the word.

Very bright people can live in fantasyland. Who may be a good example.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

All of them Jack. If we ban all of them, mega gun corps will not have a legitimate reason for making them and so we can stop the production at the root of the problem. Gun making companies getting rich from selling bullet hoses. And politicians taking that same money to protect the gun makers.

It is really quite simple. Stop being a toady for gun manufacturers.

As for "stupid". I simply took everything you said and applied those definitions and found that the word you were describing was "stupid". I do see I made the mistake of not saying that you were bullying.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

eric sez: All of them Jack. If we ban all of them, mega gun corps will not have a legitimate reason for making them

jack replies: Thank you. The next time someone here on hubpages states that "no one wants to ban guns" I'll use you as Exhibit A. You've done the gun community a good service. BTW, I believe we previously went over your total ignorance about what "automatic weapons" really are. There are few things more sad than someone who has learned the truth and willfully rejects it for a continued lie that he wantonly, knowingly spreads.

eric sez: It is really quite simple. Stop being a toady for gun manufacturers.

Jack replies: Eric and his ilk have such a poor concept and grasp of freedom that they actually believe that anyone who defends it must be the "toady" for someone else. The very idea that those who love freedom willingly spend their time and efforts to ensure its continuance completely escapes them.

Eric sez: As for "stupid". I simply took everything you said and applied those definitions and found that the word you were describing was "stupid". I do see I made the mistake of not saying that you were bullying.

Jack replies: Eric comes to us straight from the Humpty Dumpty school of reading and posting...

********************

Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. '...that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents —'

'Certainly,' said Alice.

'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Jack's position: Guns equal freedom. Speak up against the unfettered right to have any damn weapon you please and you are against freedom. Do not play the "I know guns better than you game" and you are too ignorant to speak. And now -- I will bully you by comparing you to characters of fiction.

I will certainly send folks over to get a taste of how folks who want fully automatic weapons act.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

eric sez: Jack's position: Guns equal freedom.

Jack replies: Let's ask my recent ancestors just how well "no guns = freedom" worked out for them...

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads...

Eric sez: Speak up against the unfettered right to have any damn weapon you please and you are against freedom.

Jack replies: Speak up, knowingly telling lies about firearms, and yes, you are against freedom. This is not rocket science.

Eric sez: Do not play the "I know guns better than you game" and you are too ignorant to speak.

Jack replies: I never said you "are too ignorant to speak." I said "when you speak you are ignorant." Now, you can read as well as I can. Why do you feel a need to purposefully distort what I said? Does it make you ffffeeeelllll gggggooooddd even though you know in your heart that you are posting untruths? Honestly... how does ~that~ make you feel better about yourself?

Eric sez: And now -- I will bully you by comparing you to characters of fiction.

Jack replies: Eric certainly has a unique sense of the concept of "bully" eh. Kind of fits in with his HD compulsion to "master" other words.

Eric sez: I will certainly send folks over to get a taste of how folks who want fully automatic weapons act.

Jack repleis: Eric posting about "fully automatic weapons" is kind of like the five year old on his trike explaining just how to run a NASCAR race. He may know some of the words but the concepts that adults use and comprehend pass him by completely.



LongTimeMother profile image

LongTimeMother 3 years ago from Australia

You certainly didn't bother making any real effort to discover the Australian concept of 'freedom', Jack. Can't for the life of me see why you bothered including such a pointless link. And you certainly don't allow people the 'freedom' to speak for themselves, do you?

You wrote …

“Mother also can't see why any responsible people would object to having their DNA and fingerprints recorded by the government from birth, along with a mandatory ID tattoo. If you are not intending to or commit crimes, what's the problem?”

Instead of asking me my opinion, you took it upon yourself to make completely erroneous statements. It seems you consider yourself an expert on the thoughts of complete strangers. Well, I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. In more ways than one.

You also wrote …

“The job of the government is not to "take pressure" off from people. We pressure children to do right. We give adults the courtesy of assuming that they are actually adults and can handle "pressure" perfectly fine on their own. I have no interest in having the government as my mandatory partner in deciding what pressures I need help with.”

I find that kind of ironic, coming from a man who doesn't give adults the courtesy of assuming that they are actually adults and can express their own opinions and make their own decisions perfectly fine on their own. It also begs the question whether adults in America can handle guns "perfectly fine on their own", given your gun-related crime rate and statistics for gun-related deaths in your country.

Another quote from you: “We don't pass laws based upon what the weak-willed amoung us can or can't do well.” Hmm, perhaps it is time you did. Your current laws obviously aren't working as well as many would like. :)

Which brings me to your confusion about 'gun confiscation.'

Your questions are … “And just ~how~ is the government going to know that these "unregistered firearms" exist unless they go house to house. And if it was that easy, why are so many crminals walking around with illegal weapons right now?”

For a moment I wondered if you genuinely believed that any government would bother going house to house searching for unregistered firearms, but then I guessed (hoped) you must be joking. You are joking, right? Is that really the only context in which you can imagine unregistered firearms being found and confiscated?

This feels like it should be completely unnecessary in a conversation between adults, but I will spell out a few obvious examples when unregistered firearms can be confiscated and the person possessing them charged with a crime that doesn't require a methodical house by house, street by street search in the manner you seemed to suggest.

Example 1: Person with gun robs a store, is filmed by security video threatening staff at gunpoint, is identified and apprehended. Offender's home is searched and 25 unregistered firearms are discovered … and confiscated, and offender picks up additional charges.

Example 2: Individual phones police saying their partner has a gun and threatened to shoot them. Police can apply for a search warrant. Possession of an unregistered gun means they can confiscate it, and charge the person. They don't have to wait for another argument in which the gun is fired to be able to charge them (with murder or attempted murder.)

Example 3: Police raid a property where a drug lab is operating. They also discover an assortment of unregistered firearms. Yep, they get confiscated.

You asked why are so many criminals walking around with illegal weapons right now? In your country, I'd say it has something to do with your gun laws.

Which brings me to your point that says …. “ "Minority Report" was a fictional movie... not a documentary on current crime fightting techniques. We tend not to arrest people BEFORE they do anything here in America.”

I have no idea what that movie is about, so I can assure you I don't rely on it as a source of information about crime fighting techniques. I do find it a bit strange though that you seem to think it is a good thing to never arrest anyone before they do anything in America. Although I was under the impression that in the US you do arrest people 'before they do anything' if your government suspects they are linked with terrorist groups.

I am a gun-owner who has registered firearms within Australia's gun control laws. I have written two hubs on the topic in an effort to give a clearer understanding of our gun laws to my peers in the US who have only seen Americans write on the subject (without first hand experience.)

All you have to do, Jack, if you want more information from me, is ask a question. I object to anyone – including you – falsely representing me. And it annoys me more than just a little when you make such a feeble attempt to present the topic of 'freedom' in Australia.

I can only imagine what your reaction would be if I presented "everything one needs to know about the American concept of freedom" in such a ridiculous way.

On another of your hubs (so I like to think you have seen it) I wrote ...

"With the internet and twitter and sms and all those other instant tools of communication, there's no way any government could hope to effectively disarm legal gun-owners. And with a database reflecting just how many millions of Americans had guns and were skilled enough to use them, I can't imagine any government would be stupid enough to try.

At the first hint of a threat, word would spread .... instantly."

I genuinely do not understand why you are so fearful of responsible gun owners having registered firearms. Do you honestly believe that your government is capable of conducting simultaneous raids on the homes of the many millions of people who would own legal firearms? And that those responsible adult gun-owners would be incapable of alerting each other if there was a serious threat?


LongTimeMother profile image

LongTimeMother 3 years ago from Australia

While you are deciding whether or not you want to censor my previous lengthy and considered comment responding to your take on my position, Jack, here's another comment I believe should be shown.

As participants in a website for professional (and wannabe professional) writers, it seems appropriate to operate with professional writing standards.

You provided a link in an effort to imply that Australia censors free speech. That was either deliberately devious or unintentionally irresponsible on your part ... either way, it is only fair to provide a more appropriate link to explain the Andrew Bolt courtcase.

In fact, Andrew Bolt, a newspaper journalist, was charged with race discrimination. He tried to defend himself by arguing it was an issue of 'freedom of speech', but that's what most people say when they discover they've made a complete fool of themselves by saying something that is totally wrong.

You see, in Australia, we have laws to protect the rights of everyone to be treated fairly and with respect ... and people who are misrepresented have the 'freedom' to take even a professional journalist to court.

Surely the US must match or better Australia's 'freedom' to seek justice, Jack. Were you thinking that Australians censor honest opinions? lol. Bolt could have argued that his articles were based on truth, or in the public interest - had they been. But no. He was found g-u-i-l-t-y.

To quote from the newspaper article ...

"Bolt loses high-profile race case"

Andrew Bolt has lost his race discrimination case in the Federal Court of Australia.

One hundred and seventy-five days after the Herald Sun columnist's defence lawyer Neil Young, QC, delivered the final words of his two-day closing address, Justice Mordecai Bromberg delivered a stinging judgment in which he found Bolt had contravened section 18 (c) of the Racial Discrimination Act in two articles published in the Herald Sun in 2009.

"It was never about free speech, it has always been a question of professionalism, and the reality is that the original articles were not professional journalism," said Ms Eatock, a 73-year-old Aboriginal activist.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bolt-loses-highp...

I'd like to think that native Americans and other individuals and minority groups who want to complain about how they are portrayed in the American media have the same right. Do they?


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Carl thank you for that special link. It speaks just like Jack.

I imagine many people read this and are persuaded by Jack and Carl's intellectual arguments. But probably they are persuaded that screening is a very good idea, because most people who want the weapons are looney tooney out is make believe commando land. These two have made the case for more extensive Mental Health screening.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

I'll get back to you all eventuaally but my wife if back after spending time with her family in the Philippines so we have some catching up to do. :-)


Carl 3 years ago

@ Eric

Mr. Sulu calls 'em like he sees 'em.


Hxprof 3 years ago from Clearwater, Florida

@Longtimemother/Eric and others - Really, the bottom line in all of this can be summed up like so: 1) We (meaning many Americans) don't want the federal government involved in background checks because it would ALMOST CERTAINLY keep that information, and later misuse it. 2) We (meaning many Americans) consider it possible for the federal government to end our second amendment rights. How? Longtimemother, you make an excellent point that a wholesale attempt to simply 'take' everyone's guns would fail; in fact it would possibly bring about a civil war. However, if gun owners are gradually deprived of these rights by a sustained campaign of anti-gun legislation and a persistent demonization of guns and gun owners (already underway), the eventual result would be a society unable to protect itself from an oppressive government.

As far as we (many Americans) are concerned, these are genuine issues.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Area 51, we did not walk on moon, the illuminati runs all governments, who shot JFK? These are not the basis for making decisions. A huge left wing conspiracy to make everyone a captive automaton. The government taking our children. Letting blacks vote. Letting women vote. And by God the communists are coming!.

I need a Howitzer to protect my front door. If you want to shoot an automatic go to the shooting range with the other amusement park groupies and shoot, leave it there and hopefully go home and act normal. But be careful for there is an agent dressed in black under your bed.

Carl I have a bunch of buddies that love to shoot big and automated weapons, they do, but they do not keep them in their closet like a paranoid freak. It is almost axiomatic that a person that wants a fully automatic weapon in their house is a looney toon who should not have one.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Mother sez: You certainly didn't bother making any real effort to discover the Australian concept of 'freedom', Jack. Can't for the life of me see why you bothered including such a pointless link.

Jack replies: I now quite well your concept of “freedom.” It’s is fundamentally no different than Oliver Twist holding his bowl out to the government, begging, “May I have some more, please?”

Mother sez: And you certainly don't allow people the 'freedom' to speak for themselves, do you?

Jack replies: This is true. It is exactly why I never allow comments on any of my hubs. If anyone is reading any of your posts it is all in their imagination.

Mother sez: Instead of asking me my opinion, you took it upon yourself to make completely erroneous statements. It seems you consider yourself an expert on the thoughts of complete strangers. Well, I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. In more ways than one.

Jack replies: How can I be “wrong.” You’ve already established the principal that “registration” is a good thing and law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from it or object to it. As YOU noted, “If you are not intending to or commit crimes, what's the problem?”

If you say you believe in unicorns and I say you believe in mythical creatures you may certainly point out that you never used those exact words. Nevertheless the Dear Readers understand that I am totally correct in my statement.

The question is not about if you believe in registration, the only question is just how round are your heels.

Mother sez: I find that kind of ironic, coming from a man who doesn't give adults the courtesy of assuming that they are actually adults and can express their own opinions and make their own decisions perfectly fine on their own.

Jack replies: Unless you are sitting there with someone’s hand up your arse typing away for you I’d say you are expressing your own opinion.

Mother sez: It also begs the question whether adults in America can handle guns "perfectly fine on their own", given your gun-related crime rate and statistics for gun-related deaths in your country.

Jack replies: You mean the statistics that show that less than 0.001 percent of all gun owners will misuse their gun to hurt an innocent person? That 99.999 percent of all gun owners are handling their guns perfectly fine without your help, or the help of the government. You just can’t abide by that, can you? That there are people who just really don’t need you and your ilk to tell them what to do with every little bit of their lives.

Mother sez: Another quote from you: “We don't pass laws based upon what the weak-willed amoung us can or can't do well.” Hmm, perhaps it is time you did. Your current laws obviously aren't working as well as many would like. :)

Jack replies: Pretty much better than the crime ridden hell hole you come from.

A person in Australia is twice as likely to be assaulted as a person here.

A woman in Australia is almost THREE times as likely to be raped as here.

In both the 15-24 and the 25 to 34 age groups an Aussie is much more likely to check out by suicide than here.

You have half again as many TOTAL crime victims per thousand as we do here.

You own people trust the police much less than here.

You own people are afraid to even walk in the dark a third more than here.

Yes, tell us just how well your “current laws” are working for you, eh.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Australia/Unit...

Mother sez: This feels like it should be completely unnecessary in a conversation between adults, but I will spell out a few obvious examples when unregistered firearms can be confiscated and the person possessing them charged with a crime that doesn't require a methodical house by house, street by street search in the manner you seemed to suggest.

Jack replies: This should be good. I am sure she learned her crime fighting techniques off from Magnum P.I..

Mother sez: Example 1: Person with gun robs a store, is filmed by security video threatening staff at gunpoint, is identified and apprehended. Offender's home is searched and 25 unregistered firearms are discovered … and confiscated, and offender picks up additional charges.

Jack replies: Errrr…. It is illegal to rob a store with or without a gun. The police would arrest the guy and pick up the weapons even without such a registration law.

Mother sez: Example 2: Individual phones police saying their partner has a gun and threatened to shoot them. Police can apply for a search warrant. Possession of an unregistered gun means they can confiscate it, and charge the person. They don't have to wait for another argument in which the gun is fired to be able to charge them (with murder or attempted murder.)

Jack replies: Errrr…. It is illegal to threaten to kill a person with or without a gun. The police would arrest the guy and pick up the weapons even without such a registration law.

Mother sez: Example 3: Police raid a property where a drug lab is operating. They also discover an assortment of unregistered firearms. Yep, they get confiscated.

Jack replies: It is illegal to operate a drug lab with or without a gun being present. The police would arrest the guy and pick up the weapons even without such a registration law.

In each of these cases the police are ALREADY doing exactly what you used as examples. Yet, not a single one of them reduced in any way the available amoung of guns on the street in criminal hands. Your examples are total failures of how guns are going to be reduced without a concept of confiscation behind it.

Mother sez: You asked why are so many criminals walking around with illegal weapons right now? In your country, I'd say it has something to do with your gun laws.

Jack replies: Sorry, but that is not what I “asked.” If you’re going to misquote me it is best not to do it when anyone can easily scroll back and see for themselves what I actually said in the WHOLE sentence. (And you were the one who wanted to be “adult” about this, eh.)

Mother sez: I have no idea what that movie is about, so I can assure you I don't rely on it as a source of information about crime fighting techniques.

Jack replies: That’s okay. Other people got the connection.

Mother sez: I do find it a bit strange though that you seem to think it is a good thing to never arrest anyone before they do anything in America.

Jack replies: Yeah, we’re funny about that here. People actually have to break a law before they get arrested. We like it that way.

Mother sez: Although I was under the impression that in the US you do arrest people 'before they do anything' if your government suspects they are linked with terrorist groups.

Jack replies: Well, that’s what you get when you rely upon liberal news for your info. I bet your head is filled with tremendous amounts of bogus info about the US.

Mother sez : I am a gun-owner who has registered firearms within Australia's gun control laws. I have written two hubs on the topic in an effort to give a clearer understanding of our gun laws to my peers in the US who have only seen Americans write on the subject (without first hand experience.)

Jack replies: And if the government asked you to hand those guns over to them you would do it in an eye blink. Without a second thought. After all, what real option do you have?

Mother sez: All you have to do, Jack, if you want more information from me, is ask a question. I object to anyone – including you – falsely representing me.

Jack replies: We noticed that you never actually presented any objection to the government taking DNA and fingerprints at birth. You just whined a bit about me stating what was obvious to everyone before you got around to it yourself.

Mother sez: And it annoys me more than just a little when you make such a feeble attempt to present the topic of 'freedom' in Australia.

Jack replies: You must be confusing me with someone else. It was an Australian who “presented the topic of freedom” in the article that I provided.

Mother sez: I can only imagine what your reaction would be if I presented "everything one needs to know about the American concept of freedom" in such


twosheds1 profile image

twosheds1 3 years ago

Great idea, but I know a lot of gun owners that aren't particularly computer-savvy. Why not licenses? As part of the licensure process, a thorough background check could be performed (i.e. longer than 15 minutes) and make safety training part of the process too. Then it could be made illegal to sell to someone who doesn't have a license, regardless of where. This would eliminate the gun show loophole, and relieve gun shops of the burden of doing the checks. It could also be part of what the BMV does, so it wouldn't add a lot (if any) bureaucracy.

That's not to say licenses would be perfect, but what we have now is the equivalent of a bunch of drivers, none of whom have licenses and only a select few have taken any sort of formal driver training.

The argument against licenses, is, of course, that the gov't will have easy access to a list of gun owners and would use that in a "take over" or something similar. I understand that argument, but I really don't think it's valid when you look at every other industrialized nation with far stricter gun control.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

I pretty much quoted you word for word across the board, mother. If you feel I've left anything out you're going to have to repeat it.

BTW... if someone in Australia calls homosexuals "aberrant, immoral fudgepackers" does he get his freedom of speech taken away on the basis that he has "discriminated against a sexual orientation"?


Carl 3 years ago

@ Eric

"If you want to shoot an automatic go to the shooting range with the other amusement park groupies and shoot, leave it there and hopefully go home and act normal."

I don't own any automatic weapons and I doubt anyone who commented on this Hub does either. Do you know what an automatic rifle is and what it takes to own one? You're proving more and more that Mr. Sulu was right about you.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Eric sez: I imagine many people read this and are persuaded by Jack and Carl's intellectual arguments.

Jack replies: I do have intellectual arguments. Eric “emotes”. We’ll get to that in a moment.

Eric sez: But probably they are persuaded that screening is a very good idea, because most people who want the weapons are looney tooney out is make believe commando land.

Jack replies: I assume that Eric is still fixated on the concept of “fully automatic weapons.” So lets take a look at those and see who is “looney tooney” and who is not.

Since 1934 fully automatic weapons have been highly regulated by the Federal government. Eric knows this. He also knows that it takes a special permission from the Feds to even own one, and that they are tracked with individual serial numbers. The Feds keep a very close watch on those guns. You cannot even do something as simple as swap out a barrel for a new one without the Feds permission.

Eric also knows that there are approximately 400,000 fully auto weapons legally owned in the States. And that, since 1934, there have been TWO recorded incidents where a legal owner of one has committed a crime with the weapon.

These are facts that Eric knows. Yet… yet… he states that one has to be “looney toons” to own one. See that, Dear Readers. Two incidents in 80 years… and Eric thinks the sky is falling. Which poster on hubpages ~really~ deserves the “looney toons” label, eh.

Eric sez: These two have made the case for more extensive Mental Health screening.

Jack replies: Yes; because TWO indicents in 80 years with milllions of owners over those years is indicative of a mental health problem for every single owner.

Remember what I posted earlier about “emoting”? That is what Eric is. No logic. No reasoning. No rational thought behind his posts. And yet he thinks he is the “common sense” voice of gun control. This is the best he can do.

Eric sez: Area 51, we did not walk on moon, the illuminati runs all governments, who shot JFK? These are not the basis for making decisions.

Jack replies: Honesty, Dear Readers… just who is more likely to believe in all this stuff… someone like Eric, perhaps, who believes in his heart that TWO illegal uses of fully auto firearms over 80 years is sufficient to call into question the mental health of the millions of owners who did no harm to anyone over those decades.

Do you suppose that he is rattling off those “conspiracy theories” so well because he really knows more about them than he is letting on? One can find out more aobut a poster than they really want you to know if you read carefully.

Eric sez: Carl I have a bunch of buddies that love to shoot big and automated weapons, they do, but they do not keep them in their closet like a paranoid freak.

Jack replies: Eric is lying here. He isn’t even sure what a fully automatic weapon is.

Eric sez: It is almost axiomatic that a person that wants a fully automatic weapon in their house is a looney toon who should not have one.

Jack replies: Again… Eric thinks that TWO indicents in 80 years with milllions of owners over those years is indicative of a mental health problem for every single owner.

I think, Dear Readers, you are more than bright enough to see who is the real problem when it comes to adult conversation about firearms and the problems some people cause with them.


Carl 3 years ago

Jack,

Where did my last response to Mr. Dierker go?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

It's there... just a little late in showing up.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Jack and Carl epitomize why we do not need automatic firearms in the hands of citizens. There is a government conspiracy behind all actions and an attempt to deprive them of rights on every corner. They see Mother as the enemy and armed on the street would shoot her down for fear she would help the "GOVERNMENT" document them and install a Nazi Gov.

The paranoia strikes so deep and is so resonant that it oozes psychopathy. But remember these are military veterans who never made the cut as combat veterans --- could it have been a psych eval.

Without these guys guns of all sorts may be safe in the general public but this kind of psychotic disorder paints the picture well that they should not be allowed for people who think mother is the enemy and senators should be shot.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Really, eric? Is this the best you can do?

You're beginning to sound like a parody of yourself by this time. Ease off, big guy. It's just not necessary that you be as clever as every one else. Your wife will still love you, the kids will still -- well, whatever your kids do -- even if you're a failure in the world's eyes.

I know that it is frustrating for you to be beaten like a pinata here on hubpages on the firearms topics but that's the breaks. If I was posting on how to play a piano I am sure others would thump me as badly as you get thumped here because I just don't know how to play the piano.

Of course, I don't have the compulsion that you do to show my ignorance about pianos the way you show your ignorance about guns, but that is just me. Not that there is anything ~wrong~ with you, of course. I certainly don't want Mother to take away my freedom of speech based upon some nebulous "eric discrimination rule" that only she sees.

:-) --------- BTW... I am laughing ~at~ you... not with you. :-)


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Dear Readers....

Let me explain something about posters such as Eric. When he understands that he has lost on the topic... that he has nothing to add that is of value... he needs to make it personal then.

That is why he is attacking me the way he does. It is an attempt at "deflection." He wants to move the thread away from guns and what is good/not good because he simply doesn't have any knowledge of the subject or wisdom to share.

So he attacks me personally. This is a good step in the process because it allows you to see how those who desire to control guns (and you) act when they are cornered.

And... it is very illustrative of just why there can be little to no "compromise" with people such as him. There is nothing on his side that is of value for us to compromise with. No thoughts, no concepts, no wisdom... it's all in vain. It's all pure emotion.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Well said Jack. I was making a personal point. It was so people could understand what kind of people want fully automatic weapons. Their reasons are very personal. And they almost always focus on being ready to shoot the evil government agents who would deny us all of our rights in a huge conspiracy.

One of the primary focused of discussion now a days is not so much about the guns but about who should be allowed to own them. So yes it comes down to personalities and mental states of mind. Paranoiacs, in my opinion should not have these weapons as the threat to society is too high.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Yes, Eric, because two crimes committed with legally owned "fully automatic weapons" in the past 80 years is far too many crimes and total evidence of the depravity of those who own them.

Those people who "want" these weapons are just bursting with passions to go out and kill everyone in sight, eh.

And I would be real careful about tossing around the label of "paranoiac" based upon your PROVEN, unreasonable fear about your fellow citizens.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Interesting statistic you claim. I think you may have overlooked gang violence.

"Those people who "want" these weapons are just bursting with passions to go out and kill everyone in sight, eh."

Who is over the top now?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

You did note the concept of legally owned "fully automatic weapons" in every one of my posts, right?

Perhaps you can explain to us how "gangs" can get "legal" fully automatic weapons when they are so tightly controlled by the Feds and it takes a sign-off permission from your local sheriff to even apply for one. Perhaps you can explain to us how, if gangs are actually getting "legal" fully automatic weapons, that there have only been two incidents over the past 80 years.

If you want to claim that "gangs" want to do illegal actions then I think you are about 30 years behind everyone else in knowing that.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

From what I gather I would be closer to 3,000 years behind the curb.

Where did you get that statistic? 2 in 80?

I think we can agree that the guns used by gangsters are generally stolen from someone who has them legally, or illegally bought from some one who acquired it legally. Is that fair to say?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

The 2 in 80 is pretty much the received wisdom that is acknowledged by all concerned parties as to the crime rate amoung those with a class 3 license to own a machine gun. In 30 years I've never heard a single person try to contradict it over dozens of seminars and other venues with rabidly anti-gun folk in attendance. If it was contradictable they would have done so by now.

And no, most gang bangers don't get their fully auto weapons from stealing or buying them from legal gun owners. You just don't quite get the concept that these guns are tracked up the wazoo by the Feds. They will immediately know if a registered gun is caught in a crime, and the registered owner will pay hell for it.

It simply does not happen in the legally owned community.

But yes, gang bangers have access to fully automatic weapons. The same way they have access to heroin, and cocaine, and any other illegal product smuggled into the country.

Their weapons are not legal from the moment they cross our border, they are not legal to own, and not legal to use. But they are cheap to buy overseas and getting them into the U.S. with our porous borders is not that difficult.

A legal, registered machine gun costs north of $8,000 and takes six months of waiting to get approved. A cheap AK costs about $100 overseas and can be smuggled in by the hundreds. Like heroin, the price increase is in the smuggling and illegal distribution. Still, overall, which makes more sense to a reasonable thug and gangbanger to get?


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

So if I follow correctly. The porous borders have more to due with lack of "gun control" than current laws do?

And please set me straight on the Newton shooting:

That was a semi-automatic?

That was a legally licensed weapon? (I know that is redundant)

That person had a legal right to carry that weapon?

Or:

That weapon was a single action?

That weapon was illegal?

It was illegal for that person to have that weapon?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

I have no idea what you're asking in your first question. Neither do you.

There were apparently several weapons used at Newton. A semi-auto handgun, a semi-auto rifle and perhaps a pump shotgun. I am not sure of the last.

I have no idea if Connecticut requires a license for guns. You'll have to take that up with the state. Very few states require a gun be licensed. If it is not required then the very concept of "legally licensed" is moot.

I have no idea what the Connecticut laws are concerning the transportation of firearms. The shooter did not have a license to carry a firearm either open or concealed such as many states require, but that doesn't necessary mean that it is illegal to transport them in a car, depending upon circumstances.

Do you even know what a "single action" firearm is? Without looking it up on Google. No, you don't. Otherwise you would not have asked the question. That is akin to asking a NFL football player if his football is made from paper mache. It reveals a profound ignorance about football, or guns.

The weapons he had were owned by his mother and were completely legal.

The shooter stole the weapons from his mother. If he had stolen her bicycle it would have been illegal for him to have the bicycle. Generally speaking, it is illegal to have objects that you steal. I learned that in grade school.

I can tell from your list of questions that you are totally confused about the whole issue of guns and their legality. In many ways you sound like the guy who complains that the reason the San Francisco Giants didn't win the Stanley Cup was because their quarterback didn't get enough free throws at the line.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

I think you make a great point here. People as ignorant as I should not have firearms we are just to stupid. What IQ do you suggest we set as a minimum?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Again... confusing "IQ" with "ignorance."

I'll be happy to match my IQ against anyone here, but I am also happy to admit that I am totally ignorant on the subject of how to raise pet fish... or how to tat... or how to sculpt Queen Elizabeth from butter.

But I don't feel compelled to go onto hubpages and make of fool of my self by either writing hubs on those topics or jumping into discussion of them with my thoughts and opinions.

This is what... about the eighth or ninth time I"ve went over this with you? I think we are entering the "willfully obstinate" area at this point in your posting. That also doesn't have anything to do with IQ.

BTW...just what is a "single action" gun?


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Of course God died and made you the arbiter of all things about weapons. Excuse me Mr. Expert who was never even worked in an armory. And got his training with SeeBees and not combat divisions.

A double action is a blast, it takes two different physical actions to fire the weapon, commonly known as the gun. Pistols and early rifles were such things. Mr. Connor on the Riflemen had one and Sammy Davis Junior won two world competitions with his pistol. I believe Glenn Ford also was a champion. These weapons require skill and tons of practice.

A single action is just squeeze and shoot. One action. The old west movies that have a guy pulling back the hammer for each shot are the most realistic for the time, that is why the legends of the two pistols is kind of not right until about 1900. Earp in his last days was said to use them, when his eyesight was going and he was my towns Sheriff, San Diego.

Believe it or not my first hand gun was a 28. I dated the young Ms. Colt down in Sedona town off of Coffee Pot Rock for just a short time as age differences took a toll. We would play pool at the Rainbows End where my sister bar-tended and we go shooting up in Casner Canyon.

But do not take my word for any of this look it up, you might even find me in some pictures with the Colt family. But I was a cowboy type not a military brat.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Eric sez: Of course God died and made you the arbiter of all things about weapons.

Jack replies: Oh, this is going to be rich, Dear Readers. Keep Eric's statement in mind here for just a moment while I take care of other details.

Eric sez: Excuse me Mr. Expert who was never even worked in an armory. And got his training with SeeBees and not combat divisions.

Jack replies: Well, we see Eric knows as little about the military as he does firearms. Here's a little story about the Seabees and the combat training they go through...

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=40...

And here's all the brave Seabees that lost their life since 2004 in the Gulf.

http://www.seabeesmuseum.com/Deaths_in_Iraq.html

Eric's purposeful dishonoring of these sailors who gave their all for America is absolutely disgusting. It's perverted for him to attempt to score cheap points on the bodies of our dead troops, no matter what he thinks of me or firearms. There is not a rock big enough for him to crawl under that can hide his shameful words.

Now, for the more fun part...

Eric sez: A double action is a blast, it takes two different physical actions to fire the weapon, commonly known as the gun.

and Eric further sez: A single action is just squeeze and shoot. One action.

Jack replies: Dear Readers, this could not be further from the truth. Eric has it exactly backwards. It's like calling a mouse an elephant, and an elephant a mouse.

Eric has no clue whatsoever that the "action" that is referenced is the action of the TRIGGER, not the shooter.

The older "single action" mechanism required the shooter to take the action to pull back the hammer and cock the gun. When the trigger was pulled IT accomplished ONE action... dropping the hammer on the cartridge.

The newer "double action" gun gave the trigger TWO actions to accomplish when it was pulled one time. It pushed the hammer back to cock the gun, and then released it to fall on the cartridge.

You can see for yourself as this video walks you thru the two actions side by side and compares them for your education.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBSeWlOYeEQ

This is just too funny. Eric, my friend, yes, God gave me much more knowledge about guns than you will ever have. He also gave me the common sense not to make an arse of myself in front of the whole world of the 'net.

This, Dear Readers, is what happens when someone tries to do a quick search on Google for information and doesn't know how to process what they read. Eric could have faked it if he wasn't so careless in his research but now he has only exposed himself to you for what he really is.

Let's examine some more of his nonsense.

Eric sez: A double action is a blast, it takes two different physical actions to fire the weapon, commonly known as the gun. Pistols and early rifles were such things. Mr. Connor on the Riflemen had one

Jack replies: Chuck Connors did not use either a single or double action rifle. He used a lever action. Calling it either single or mistakenly referring to it as double action as Eric does here is akin to calling a motorcycle and a car identical because they both have wheels. A lever action shoots a bullet, and that is the only thing it has in common with a single action or double action handgun.

Eric sez: and Sammy Davis Junior won two world competitions with his pistol. I believe Glenn Ford also was a champion. These weapons require skill and tons of practice.

Jack replies: Yes they do. And I love my single action army pistol... just like Sammy and Glenn shot... but neither mine, nor theirs were double action as you just claimed.

Eric sez: But do not take my word for any of this look it up, you might even find me in some pictures with the Colt family. But I was a cowboy type not a military brat.

Jack replies: Well, Dear Reader, remember what I posted about the person who complains that the reason the San Francisco Giants didn't win the Stanley Cup was because their quarterback didn't get enough free throws at the line. This is Eric nailed down well, but in addition he is now claiming to be the star high school quarterback so he knows all about sports.

Eric... my suggestion is to trot out a new identity when you post about firearms. The Eric one just has no credibility left in it at all.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Jack is wrong. Jack is reaching and probably never fired a double action colt revolver.

Jacks credentials are none. No degrees, no special insignia from any armed services. No "rank or position in NRA" No boy Scout merit badges, No commendations from a firing range or Law enforcement agencies. No learned or authoritative papers written on this subject. Jack is a wannabee.

He has not offered any statistics or proof or learned treatise or expert opinion to prove I am wrong. Because I am right and all he relies on is antiquated want a be bullshit from who the hell knows where.

Please look up his handle Jack Burton is a nobody with no credentials. He did not even achieve simple military rank after 20 plus years to speak of what he speaks. He is an embarrassment and therefor no one supports him. Not even the NRA.

Just type Ericdierker and you will see I stand for an idea that is right. And is in tune with the constitution and a reasonable interpretation of the Bible. Jack is not an Aryan nation guy, but if you take his talking points and place them in google, just guess where you will end up. Conspiracies and Space landings and internal spies and Waco. Did you know Jack thinks Obama is a poser and a hidden Islamic operative?

You be the judge.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Best you can do, eh, Eric.

:-)


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

You got nothing Jack you are an uneducated poser wannabee. You got no credentials. You are not an expert. You are not even recognized by the NRA. It would appear that no one will have you in there ranks "we disavow all knowledge of this man" Yikes. The military will not even suggest your authority to speak on the issues. And your buddy Carl, no one will acknowledge him.

You two are not even members of a militia. buddy get sad. Jack you are not even worthy of the OZ concept.

I can not even find a group you belong to. Jack I have never met such a nobody on the internet before. There is no Jack Burton in any group, not even facebook or Pinterest. You are the epitome of a poser. Jack go back and get credentials or fade away.

I have slammed you down and stopped any traction you have.l And that is my goal and was from the beginning. Jack Burton has nothing and is nothing here. Perhaps you should not allow this comment I have copied it and will write a hub on gun posers.

Now let us pray for Jack.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

As noted, Dear Readers.... posters such as Cowboy Eric have to make the thread about other things besides the topic of guns, firearms, gun owners and gun laws. He gets his teat caught in the wringer every time he actually tries to post about guns, so the only option available to him is to try to make the thread about me and other posters.

I encourage him to post because it is so instructive to those who are fence sitters. They can see for themselves the bankruptcy of ideas that he and his ilk have. That makes him valuable to the pro-firearm and pro-freedom side. I means, after all, would ~you~ want to stand next to Cowboy Eric and claim to be on the same side as him?

Oh...BTW... Cowboy Eric's hub profile states that he believes in "The constraints placed on hubbers are great boundaries that keep the tone civil and the discussion focused. "

Obviously he knows as much about the words "constraints, boundaries, civil and focused" as he does about firearms. :-)


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

I will move on to another poser. My work is done here.

Guns are great. We have excellent Laws. What we need are more enforcement capability. We need to rise up and not be intimidated as our legislatures are. Wing nuts do not need guns. Conspiracy theorist should not have guns. And women with young disturbed children should not have guns. Men who claim a false military record should be excluded.

Porous borders need more money thrown at them and more respect for the patriotic American who try to safe guard them.

But supposed Americans that claim a normal man cannot understand should be seen as posers and wannabees, unless they have a group supporting their stance.

Housewives are as qualified as SeeBees to determine the qualifications of people holding weapons in their neighborhood and bullies of the military want a bee position should be shown for what the are. Amen


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Poor Cowboy Eric. I am so glad I gave him the (metaphorical) opportunity to not only buy the rope to hang himself but to measure it, cut it to size, and put it around his own neck.


Carl 3 years ago

@Eric

Attacking Jack's military service shows you to be a complete buffoon. Anyone familiar with the Seabees knows they are combat oriented, but that really isn't the issue. It wouldn't matter if Jack had been a cook. He served and you didn't. You need to stop talking.


Carl 3 years ago

Good, Eric actually STFU. He needs to sit in the corner and color for awhile.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

It's actually sad to see anyone, let alone a fellow hubber, have a complete mental breakdown such as that... and so public about it.

Can you possibly imagine the frenzied state of mind one would have to work themselves into in order to type posts such as those last few? We're really getting into "medication needed" territory here.

I much prefer to keep posts on topic and about how we can best live with guns in our society... folk like Eric make it harder to do that, though.


Carl 3 years ago

I looked up his activity. He's back to discussing poetry and folk medicine. I think he probably knows something about those subjects and the debates don't seem too stressful.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

Men, Do I read this right as you two believing that your federal government is competent enough to round up all registered gun owners and take their weapons? And that this would start a horrible civil uprising?


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Sorry, Cowboy Eric... you have no more credibility here. As suggested earlier, come back with a different name and maybe you can get your questions answered.

You've shown that you reject reality when it is plainly set in front of you, you are dismissive and contemptuous of our armed forces, and you have far too much of a fragile mindset to play with the adults.

I just cannot justify taking my valuable time dealing with a troll.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

And you have been shown as a man that hides behind notions "of I know better than you because I drew my paycheck from the government I despise." The battle has been one by a man of common sense not standing on platitudes of self defense. What up with that Jack you claim to have served your government but are afraid of it. How can any man give your credence when you draw retirement from a government you want your gun to protect you from. You pensioners who draw a check from the government yet despise it are posers. Write again when you stop taking my tax dollars.

You are a poser and not a combat veteran. You served bureaucratically for the same government you are now paranoid about. At least I stand on my principals not slogans reminding us of Waco. You have drank of the Kool Aid. But I see no one come to your defense from the NRA because they just disown you as does your military friends.

You are out there Jack, without sponsor, let me know when you want to come back.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

I just cannot justify taking my valuable time dealing with a troll.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

As your little side kick Carl has shown I am not a troll, but your ignorance and lack of justification is again shown. Loser.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Emotionally fragile, indeed...


Carl 3 years ago

Oh no, he's back and just as confused as before.


Carl 3 years ago

I think my favorite Eric quote this time is:

"You are a poser and not a combat veteran."

Eric has no idea what the military is about. Jack, I don't know if you saw combat or not. I also served in the military and I'm actually glad that I never had to shoot at anyone.


Carl 3 years ago

@Eric

Just STFU. You have no understanding of the subject you are talking about. Go back to discussing crochet and poetry.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

You two deserve each other. Would you do me a favor with your pensioner's money off the government you despise and buy a kid an ice cream.

There is a huge difference between a Veteran of Foreign wars and a desk jockey stateside. All of us support our troops, some just make money doing it like you two. And then they make money sitting on their arses. Get a job. Your bureaucratic years of drawing a paycheck do not qualify you to preach weaponry. Go spout some GS and PFC numbers and letters to 16 year olds that care.

Gun laws are outdated and need to be updated to reflect medicines' understanding of paranoia freaks like you all. I will just bet you were the nerds in class that thought they were mistreated because they were in fact weird.


Ericdierker profile image

Ericdierker 3 years ago from Spring Valley, CA. U.S.A.

People do not be intimidated by these folks, I had to teach Carl and Jack the difference between single action and dual action weaponry. All they spout are private first class garbage using numbers and government lingo for weapons. They are neither support nor recognized by any established gun club, shooting range or the NRA. They are not members of any established group and have no credentials for their balderdash. A little mama on the southside of Chicago is more qualified to speak of what we should do than these bullies, who cannot claim any affiliation. Get the point these are wannabe loners and are dangerous. They are paranoids and if you know who they are ask your local PTA and NRA to look into them.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

Cowboy Eric and his Single Action Army revolver saddles up for another ride on that bronc.

Eric, my man, if you want the full experience this time instead of another disappointing go-around then you have to remember to have your momma put 10 cents in the coin box.


Carl 3 years ago

Alright Cowboy Eric, I'm starting to get the feeling that either you are jealous or have some serious self-esteem issues. Are you an armchair Rambo at heart? Do you like to believe that you have a clue of what you are talking about?


Rodric29 profile image

Rodric29 3 years ago from Phoenix, Arizona

I like your points. I want the checks even if the bad guys will never be affected by it. I think that gun control is necessary unless you live in the wilderness and still use a rifle to hunt with. I also think handguns should be banned. They do not fit with the right to bear arms. When that law was enumerated in the books to bear arms, muskets where the norm. So you had to stuff and powder the gun.


ssingam profile image

ssingam 3 years ago

This is a great proposal, but as you can see from the comments, neo-cons won't budge an inch on gun control. lol. Unfortunately this proposal is another band aid on a hemmorage. I would suggest looking at what has been successfull in other countries with the same access to firearms like Japan or UK and the implementation of gun clubs and ranges.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 3 years ago from The Midwest Author

longttimemother sez: And you certainly don't allow people the 'freedom' to speak for themselves, do you?

And longtimemother sez: While you are deciding whether or not you want to censor my previous lengthy and considered comment

Jack replies: Mom has never once been "censored" or not allowed to speak for herself on any of my hubs. When I post on ~her~ hubs what happens? That's right, Dear Readers. You got it in one guess. She immediately censors the posts by removing them.

She really believes that by removing my posts that no other reader will notice the egregious errors of logic and rationality she and her fellow travelers exhibits.

We all know the right word for someone such as that, eh.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working