Poliquin: Yes to Mandatory Background Checks on Purchase of a Firearm
- Login to post comments
Oh, I should add that I am a high school student at Cape Elizabeth who supports Bruce Poliquin for Governor.
It takes less than 30 seconds for a 2nd amendment enthusiast to develop a negative impression by watching this video. It takes a lot longer for Poliquin to finesse this. It's something he'll have to do not just once, but over and over again. It’s time taken from other things he could be saying and doing. Regardless of his real position on firearms, this is a humungous gaffe and distraction for Poliquin.
I think it's a fatal mistake for his candidacy.
"I'll bring the 458 Win Mag. It kind of hammers home the value of proper technique."
Geez, Louise, this is supposed to be fun, not painful! Although I do have this .35 Whelen.....
Love the 35 Whelan. It's a good moose gun. Recoil is not much different than the 30-06. Nosler partitions get it done.
These high schoolers for Poliquin are part of a ridiculous plan. You can read more about it here, the astroturf of Bruce Poliquin:
http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/poliquin-consultant-astroturf-good-ca...
Agreed, Roger.
reid, the 4 democratic candidates in this radio story found no "ambiguity" in phil harriman's question.
Democratic Candidates Differ on Gun Background Checks
02/04/2010 Reported By: Anne Mostue
McGowan: a law requiring background checks on all firearms sales is unenforceable and unnecessary.
Mitchell: "A gun-show loophole is very, very different from a simple question yes or no question of, 'Do you support mandatory checks on everybody?' Of course not."
Rowe: favors closing the gun-show loophole, but he does not support mandatory background checks for all gun purchases.
http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/10884/Def...
I shot a friends 300 Winchester Magnum ONCE years ago...My shoulder hurts just thinking about it..Also got wacked above the eye with the scope...LOL...Was totally unprepared for the recoil...
Its amazing of the power that the anti-gun groups have in their BS reporting over and over and over. There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole" as it has been explained over and over, ad nauseum, but with no "problem" to fix there is no reason for their "solutions" to pitch. These guys and gals ALL need to be educated before commenting on this fictional non-issue.
I am joining "NRA Supporters for Bruce Poliquin" and "Unborn Children for Abortion" at the same time.
For those opposed to mandatory checks - I'm curious why? Is it invasion of privacy? Not wanting to know which of your nasty neighbors also has a gun? I don't know enough about it to decide where I stand, i do believe everyone has the right to bear arms (even those with ugly tattoos on said arms).
jcmCards shot the 458 mag once. It has a muzzle brake but my son clicked it off before Cards shot it so he got the full effect. I would never match that gun to a beginner or novice shooter. You'd develop more than a flinch; probably closer to a shudder. Cost of ammo is ridiculous too, but I figure if Rhinoceros become a problem in Maine I'll be ahead of the curve.
Lest anyone be distracted by quibbling and sniveling, Bruce Poloquin donated to Handgun Control Incorporated. No amount of quibbling and sniveling can erase that fact.
Robert Reed -
The answer to your question, in part, is: History proves it's a bad idea for a government to know who has all the guns where. Why? Because such knowledge makes it easier for a government to roundup such guns and gun owners.
skf
I guess he has never seen the movie Red Dawn, Scott...LOL...
Or knows the reason for the battles of Lexington and Concord, Earl.
Al Diamon wrote a column on Mr.Poliquin's gun stance:
"A spokesman for Poliquin’s campaign later sent me an e-mail indicating his candidate opposed closing the gun show loophole. So, why did he say “Yes” at the forum? Because, “Bruce supports current law.”
Some cynical observers (not me, other cynical observers) have suggested Rowe and Poliquin are trying to have it both ways on gun control. That might be the best explanation, since the alternatives are that they’re stupid or inept.
It’s time they took a real stand. Come on, guys, man up."
You're kidding right folks? Comparing todays government to the British during colonial times? And I hate to break it to anyone but Red Dawn was just a movie.
I wonder if there are any statistics on how many unregistered guns are out there? And how many are in the hands of law abiding citizens vs the common criminal?
Robert - Who is your "you folks" reply directed towards? More than on person answered your question above.
Thanks,
skf
Robert, Find yourself a copy of the book, "Unintended Consequences". It is fiction, but based on real people like any historical novel. It is a real scenario that could happen to correct the situation we find ourselves in today. The book is selling for upwards of $150, but some libraries have them. Then look up "The Battle of Jake's" on line. It's free and Maine figures prominently in the story. It's only about 300 pages. Those two are enough to give a dedicated progressive the heebie jeebies.
Some day, one way or another, we are going to get our freedom back. Some of us remember freedom and we liked it. Unregistered guns? We don't register guns except for category 3 weapons such as machine guns and silenced firearms which are perfectly legal. They now have to be registered. In the future they won't be.
Hey Robert,
Guns are not "registered." Any gun in the hands of a "good guy" is GOOD and any gun in the hands of a "Bad Guy" is BAD. Really simple stuff. Gun registration is not legal. If it were, the only ones that would be registered are the ones belonging to "good guys" so it doesn't serve any legitimate purpose.
Weak.
There are many superstitions about guns based on TV shows and the movies. Lots of Mainers share these superstitions. It's illegal for the authorities to keep records of gun purchases, but some organizations do it. The BATF (Bad Attitude Toward Freedom) is particularly egregious. On TV shows you see guns traced all the time. In Maine you can stop at a yard sale and buy whatever you see for sale. It's a cash deal and you don't know the seller; he doesn't know you. That is perfectly legal. It isn't a loophole. It's free enterprise.
I found this thread interesting and relevant then, and now. What's changed?
TJC
My point exactly and no one has disputed that Poliquin made the donation. Now he may very well have changed his mind since 1989 or is it that he just changed his tune?
What has changed in other peoples minds is that Bruce is a damn good treasurer, I won't dispute that.
TJC, do feel we should not have background checks? Do you feel that any mental case or felon should be able to by a gun?
It is already illegal for felons and mental cases to buy guns. Like so many crimes, it falls to law enforcement to apprehend the criminal after the crime is committed. It is impossible to prevent all crimes and attacking the civil rights of law abiding citizens is not the way to prevent crimes. By definition, they do not commit crimes.
Let me see if I understand where you are coming from Roger.
It is already illegal for felons and mental cases to buy guns.
So we do away with background checks, do we just have the honor system and hope that felons and mental cases will adhere to it?
Like so many crimes, it falls to law enforcement to apprehend the criminal after the crime is committed.
I don't even know how to respond to this statement. We are going to trust that a felon or a mental case will abide buy the law, and if they don't, it is up to the cops to handle it after the crime is committed?
It is impossible to prevent all crimes and attacking the civil rights of law abiding citizens is not the way to prevent crimes.
As a pro gun person who has owned guns all of my life, I have no problem with background checks. I have never had a check that took more than 5 minutes. As far as civil rights goes Roger, do you feel you should be able to buy shoulder fired rocket launchers. Should they be available for purchase and hope that felons and mental cases wiill adhere to the honor system?
Civilized society has to have some rules.
Oh my. Where to begin? Felons possess and illegally use firearms, heroin, child pornography, bath salts and pirated computer programs. That's why they are called felons. Law abiding people are presumed to be law abiding until proven otherwise in a court of law - except by Bob S and fellow travelers. How far we have strayed.
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." Tench Coxe, 1788.
There's your answer, Bob S. I gather you have never attended the Hiram Maxim Memorial Machine Gun Shoot in Sangerville, Maine where all manner of machine guns are happily, safely and legally fired all day long. Yes, we have the honor system. There is still honor in our nation. We expect all people to follow the law. Those who don't are promptly locked up so those honorable people who follow the law are protected from them. This is our system. It comes under our Constitution.
Molon Labe
Roger, I am just trying to figure out how a gun dealers are to know who is a felon or mental case and who are the law abiding people. If I read you right, he should sell to everyone, then let the cops sort it out. A background check is not an infringement on your civil rights.
- Login to post comments
Phil Harriman's statement/question was "mandatory background checks on purchase of firearm." Now the ambiguity of this question may not directly look apparent, but from one's answer it becomes quite apparent. Obviously, answering yes to the question insinuates that one supports mandatory background checks. But what is the definition of purchase: 1. a private sale 2. the less prevalent family / friend sale and all private sales. The second definition needed is background check. Is it the instant check that has been promoted by the NRA or the Brady background check, a more laborious and infringing policy?
Now, the second reason for the ambiguity of the question is in the answer. I believe this explains a little more why Bruce may have said yes.
Basically, there is no medium for the question, either you do fully support the usage of mandatory background checks and or you are against them. So, I would not be surprised if Bruce took this question as "do you support background checks?" - based on his response on this blog, it appears this opinion still stands. Well, yes, he does support instant background checks as depicted in Maine Law. Of course only the polar extremes can be represented by answering the question with a yes or no, which leads to controversy.
As for the facebook group, it says NRA supporters, not members. You can support the NRA yet not be a member.
Bruce gave $500 to NRCM in 1989 at a time when the were proponents of making sure that criminals did not receive access to guns. So I don't believe it was created contemporaneously with a liberal gun control policy.