Opinion column in today's mullet wrapper; the Pensacola News-Journal, by Patricia Edmisten, retired from the University of West Florida where she taught sociological foundations of education and served as director of the office of International Education and Programs."

In the column, she opines that the 2A is misinterpreted, can't diagnose crazies, arming teachers is a bad idea, yadda yadda.

One word in her last paragraph shows her real agenda:

"We must accept reasonable restrictions upon gun ownership. Let’s start by requiring universal background checks and ban assault weapons and large capacity magazines."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: cne32507,

"We must accept reasonable restrictions upon corporate media ownership of free political speech. Let’s start by requiring universal background checks for all reporters and media execs and ban social media and large capacity distribution platforms."

In other words, let's become China.

What is a "universal background check"?

In NC to purchase a pistol you need a Pistol Purchase Permit (PPP), which means:

1, you go to the sheriff and they do a background that includes mailing off to the mental hospitals to find out if you are crazy (there is no database where anyone can check that on the Federal or local levels)

2, this serves as a waiting period, my county takes at least a week sometimes more, most of the surrounding counties also take over a week to get back to you.

then you can go buy a handgun, and the FFL can defer calling NICS as the State's requirement is more stringent than NCIS, as is the CCW Permit here.

If you want a long gun, you can purchase them on any day w/o a permit. The FFL calls into NICS. Or you can use a Pistol Purchase Permit or CCW in leiu of the NCIS check.

The PPP is filed with the 4473 and retained by the FFL. If a CCW is used the number is recorded on the 4473.

----

personal sales between citizens are only restricted by the requirement that the purchaser is required to present and give a PPP to the seller (or show a CCW). Effectively creating a background check. Longguns between citizens do not require a PPP transfer or a CCW for the sale.

I know other states don't have this requirement.

But what do these people want when they call for "universal checks"?

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
What is a "universal background check"?
...
But what do these people want when they call for "universal checks"?

Part of the crowd that pushes for them think any and all firearm transfers, purchases, trades, or anytime a firearm changes ownership must be a background check.

No more face to face transactions, no more gifting, no more trading and so forth without a background check.

Then there are others who have no idea, and actually believe one can order a gun on-line and have it shipped to their doorstep as simply as ordering a box of Tide Pods off Amazon.

And in the end, as the OP states in the subject "Letter to the Editor" "...it's a start..."

And anyone who does not believe that once that bridge is crossed, the next bridge will be keeping a database of all of that information.

While we have some people with good intentions or motivations and would not think of supporting the second bridge, there are far many more who would soon push or bring about such a thing.

Incrementalism. It's how cancer works, it's how addictions become overwhelming, and how tyrants gain control. Heck, it's how girls get preggers.

quote:

"Let's start by..."

renaming your thread so that it's not click bait. Para has repeatedly requested that members make the thread title describe the subject of the thread not some cutesy title to get people to click on it.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

"Let's start by..."

renaming your thread so that it's not click bait. Para has repeatedly requested that members make the thread title describe the subject of the thread not some cutesy title to get people to click on it.

To mildly disagree, I knew where we were going with this title through long a bitter experience. Too bad I wasn't disappointed.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
What is a "universal background check"?


But what do these people want when they call for "universal checks"?

They want nationwide registration.

I just ask them to define "assault weapon" and then snap my fingers to the catchy rhythm of their stuttering.

quote:

Originally posted by cne32507:
...
Patricia Edmisten, retired from the University of West Florida where she taught sociological foundations of education and served as director of the office of International Education and Programs.
...

That right there tells me everything I need to know about the article without loosing time that I’ll never get back.

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

"Let's start by..."

renaming your thread so that it's not click bait. Para has repeatedly requested that members make the thread title describe the subject of the thread not some cutesy title to get people to click on it.

To mildly disagree, I knew where we were going with this title through long a bitter experience. Too bad I wasn't disappointed.

It could've been a number of things in the news (and that there is probably an active thread already discussing, but that's another topic) such as:

"let's start by" trash talking that the OP's favorite basketball team is in the Final four

"let's start by" dressing that little Hogg bastard up in a brown shirt with a swastika

"let's start by" making fun of Tiger Woods again like last weekend for not winning

"let's start by" complaining that Trump signed the $1.3B omnibus spending bill to keep the government open

"let's start by" complaining that Trump is proceeding with tariffs against China

---

Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.

Since words have lead to the deaths of more humans throughout history than guns ever could, "let's start by..." requireing licensing for anyone who professionally makes there living in the media. There will be background checks and restrictions before you are allowed to write, post, print, blog, etc., whatever you feel like. That is inherently dangerous and not in good keeping with society. The first amendment is not absolute and needs to be regulated. For the children.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Since words have lead to the deaths of more humans throughout history than guns ever could, "let's start by..." requireing licensing for anyone who professionally makes there living in the media. There will be background checks and restrictions before you are allowed to write, post, print, blog, etc., whatever you feel like. That is inherently dangerous and not in good keeping with society. The first amendment is not absolute and needs to be regulated. For the children.

I've actually been saying this for years. A FB account should take a $200 tax stamp, along with the year wait. An internet connection should require an enhanced back ground check. If you have a history of saying stupid things, the permit is a "may issue" and you should be declined.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Since words have lead to the deaths of more humans throughout history than guns ever could, "let's start by..." requireing licensing for anyone who professionally makes there living in the media. There will be background checks and restrictions before you are allowed to write, post, print, blog, etc., whatever you feel like. That is inherently dangerous and not in good keeping with society. The first amendment is not absolute and needs to be regulated. For the children.

Of course, let's give a "common sense" exemption for a quill dipped in ink because after all that was the founding father's original intent.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

Part of the crowd that pushes for them think any and all firearm transfers, purchases, trades, or anytime a firearm changes ownership must be a background check.

No more face to face transactions, no more gifting, no more trading and so forth without a background check.

In Nov 2014, Washington State voters approved Initiative-594 which requires background checks for all gun sales in the state. That stopped private sales and transfers. Private sales/transfers now meet at an FFL, the buyer completes the 4473.

Fast forward to Jan 2017 and we learn, courtesy of the FBI stats, that private party transfers account for 2% of the state's background checks. But wait, that stat comes from 2015, before 594 was passed. And allegedly, in turn came from a 20+ year old telephone poll of ... 251 people?

"The point of the law was never to increase the number of background checks — it was to increase the difficulty and risk involved with buying a firearm so that fewer of them change hands. Same as it ever was."

I would suppose that one can make any statistic, no matter how old, in accurate, or out of date, a valid means of justifying the aim? Cheesh.

Source: FBI: Washington State Gun Owners Not Complying With New Background Check Law

*

Glad that you improved the thread title. I don’t open threads with ambiguous titles.

quote:

Let’s start by

You go fucking yourself.

quote:

Originally posted by SevenPlusOne:

quote:

Let’s start by

You go fucking yourself.

That is very good start.

quote:

Originally posted by cjevans:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

snip, no offense

In Nov 2014, Washington State voters approved Initiative-594 which requires background checks for all gun sales in the state. That stopped private sales and transfers. Private sales/transfers now meet at an FFL, the buyer completes the 4473.

Fast forward to Jan 2017 and we learn, courtesy of the FBI stats, that private party transfers account for 2% of the state's background checks. But wait, that stat comes from 2015, before 594 was passed. And allegedly, in turn came from a 20+ year old telephone poll of ... 251 people?

"The point of the law was never to increase the number of background checks — it was to increase the difficulty and risk involved with buying a firearm so that fewer of them change hands. Same as it ever was."

I would suppose that one can make any statistic, no matter how old, in accurate, or out of date, a valid means of justifying the aim? Cheesh.

Source: FBI: Washington State Gun Owners Not Complying With New Background Check Law

From the article: "No doubt reports of the disparity between the bogus 40% number and the new FBI stats will lead to a crackdown on illegal gun sales in Washington and calls to strengthen the law with enforcement and punishment provisions."

No it won't. To date there has been one, count 'em one, enforcement issue here and by recall it got dropped.

thge Second amendment foundation, the NRA, the Firearms Academy of Seattle, and an individual challenged the law on Constitutional grounds and the case was dismissed because no one had been harmed, hence no standing.

I am confidant that all three of those worthies are perched in a tree over the court house door waiting for someone to be harmed.

Also there are a number of jurisdictions that have spoken out that they will not enforce the law and more, such as man, shake their institutional head and question how it can be enforced without citizen reports or stings. One won't happen and the other is odious, except I suppose in Seattle which is now a gun-free paradise.

quote:

Originally posted by wishfull thinker:

quote:

Originally posted by cjevans:

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

snip, no offense

In Nov 2014, Washington State voters approved Initiative-594 which requires background checks for all gun sales in the state. That stopped private sales and transfers. Private sales/transfers now meet at an FFL, the buyer completes the 4473.

Fast forward to Jan 2017 and we learn, courtesy of the FBI stats, that private party transfers account for 2% of the state's background checks. But wait, that stat comes from 2015, before 594 was passed. And allegedly, in turn came from a 20+ year old telephone poll of ... 251 people?

"The point of the law was never to increase the number of background checks — it was to increase the difficulty and risk involved with buying a firearm so that fewer of them change hands. Same as it ever was."

I would suppose that one can make any statistic, no matter how old, in accurate, or out of date, a valid means of justifying the aim? Cheesh.

Source: FBI: Washington State Gun Owners Not Complying With New Background Check Law

From the article: "No doubt reports of the disparity between the bogus 40% number and the new FBI stats will lead to a crackdown on illegal gun sales in Washington and calls to strengthen the law with enforcement and punishment provisions."

No it won't. To date there has been one, count 'em one, enforcement issue here and by recall it got dropped.

thge Second amendment foundation, the NRA, the Firearms Academy of Seattle, and an individual challenged the law on Constitutional grounds and the case was dismissed because no one had been harmed, hence no standing.

I am confidant that all three of those worthies are perched in a tree over the court house door waiting for someone to be harmed.

Also there are a number of jurisdictions that have spoken out that they will not enforce the law and more, such as man, shake their institutional head and question how it can be enforced without citizen reports or stings. One won't happen and the other is odious, except I suppose in Seattle which is now a gun-free paradise.

Since the Washington law was passed, there have been 1,919,301 NICS background checks. Supposedly 1,231 were denied. Of these 152 were referred to law enforcement. However the reality is very, very few are prosecuted. Nationally "As many as 160,000 people are denied a gun purchase each year because they failed a check. Few are ever apprehended, much less prosecuted. Available federal and state data suggest that the percentage of arrests as a proportion of denied sales is extremely low — likely in the single digits."
In fact in 2011 the national NICS denials resulted in only 13 convictions.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf