Bob,

Any state that uses the NCIS for backround checks for firearm purchases includes not "only federal information", it also includes information from local law enforement agencies, criminal backround records, prior arrest with or without a conviction, orders of protection....i think you get the picture. On the other hand if you wish to own, purchase or transport any destructive device, machinegun, short barreded rifle or short barreled shotgun as definded by the BATF (look that up if you need to) they must go through not only the aforementioned search, they also must pass the scrutiny of Interpol (another agency you might need to research) before they can "LEGALLY" possess or transport any described weapon or device¹. In addition, each said device requires a tax stamp at an additional charge and the required form, only available through the same federal authority.

Now Bob I know that allot to absorb and probably contained some information you were unaware of or simply disagree with so feel I should remind you of this "obsure" but it start off with something like...“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Now I have no idea who the knuckleheads were that came up with this idea...a few names that come to mind Hamilton, Madison, Jackson and a few other dopes who couldn't get tickets to the Philly's home game on the 17th day of September 1787. The local cable company obviously blacked out the game so I assume these were just a few of the boys that could get ticket...probably pissed of the Queen or soemthing of that nature. It must have went into extra innings because they had time to come up with nine other kooky amemndment thingie. I still don't know the last name of that fella Bill but I think it might have been Rights (probably a snob or he would have insisted his middle name Of be on the dang thing.

Pesonally I'm not a big fan of that one about freedom of speech and what not or the one giving states right but I heard Obama doesn't like the Philly's so he may be bias.

Well, I'm going to Cracker Barrel to do some more research ad nauseum. How does Obama feel about country ham? I don't think those old idiots in Philly mentioned it.

Do you have a clue what a semi automatic weapon is....just wondering, and do you own a firearm? I don't own any, I just thought you might take me out to the range and teach me a thing or two. My weapon of choice is Salmon says, Please do kill me or my love ones...notice I did say Salmon says so it's gotta work. You ought to see the looks on their face, they just smile and say dang it!

Salmon "trying to keep up with you" Fan

¹Section 922(a)(4), Title 19, U.S.C. and Section 478.28, Title 27 CRF

Just got back from the Crackle Barrel think tank meeting with Joe the plumber and the nearest we can figure the reason Obama doesn't like this Bill Of Rights fella must be because he used his first, middle and last name. The meeting got cut short because Joe the plumber got paged and he had to call his ten employees to go to work.

I feel bad asking but did you send me that $1000.00 check or money order yet?

Salmon say's send it Bob!!

Hello Salmon,

It seems that it is not true that states that use the NCIS data also have access to all the local information that is used by some localities.  Otherwise the researchers that did the study I mentions would have have had a comparison to make... Remember the study was published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine.  This is not popular magazine.  It is a top-notch juried research journal.  I don't think the researchers could get away with faking the data they used for the comparisons they made.  

You may remember Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Polytechnic shooter who shot 30 students April of 2007.  Its been a long time but, if I remember correctly, he purchased his guns in Virginia which used the NCIS data but did not have the records of his mental illness.  

As far as those knuckleheads, Hamilton, Jefferson, etc.  They had some pretty good ideas, but they never lived in 21st centruy.  The world is different now.  Beside the second amendment prohibits a ban on weapons.  No one I know argues for a firearm ban.  Just sensible control.  

 Thanks for the information, however, I don't think I was able to absorb it all, but I tried.  :}

Have a Great Day,

Now dang it Bob, why would I accept any facts from a profession that "practices" anything? Did they mention it's not really the gun shot that cause the death it was in fact a loss of blood! As far as the mental illness issue, let's be honest, you can get Paxil or anyother SSRI or SSNRI from a dentist to a veterinarian...all you need is a DEA number. Very few people who have been diagnosed with any type of mental illiness or the lack thereof, have gotten their diagnosis from someone working above their paygrade. Do you suggest we need to pass legislation requiring everyone to see a psychiatrist? Maybe rely on the MMPI, a subjective test score objectively? Surely you realize the MMPI is usually used by municipalities to help mitigate any future litigation and attornies. Maybe rely on old Sigy and his regresion based appraoch, tell me about your mother, nope how above the second trimester in the womb by a man who was the poster child of mental illiness. NCIS data is only as accurate as the data other than what's public record eg arrest, convictions. If Sheriff Fife doen't report an incident, it's garbage in, garbage out...just like any other data base. Hey, that brings me back to Paxil and their witholding or destroying important information.

I give more credit to the founding father even though they've missed a few centuries. The 2nd is a prime example of their wisdom, if you don't believe me ask all the people who were killed during the holocaust or the dead Kurds that didn't have the right to protect theirself from Hitler's killers or Saddam Hussein, you remember they guy that didn't have WMDs...tell that to the dead Kurds. We can go local, tell that to the guy that Obama wanted to prosecute because he killed an intruder in his own home trying to protect himself¹. The simple fact is we have sensible laws on the books, actually too many. You and I both know only Ms. Cleo can predict the future because the "cards de never lie maan"!

This is really getting awkward but Bob what about my $1000.00 check?

Waiting by the mailbox,

Salmon Fan :)

¹Illinios Senate vote by Barrack Obama in 04

Hello Salmon.

Who can argue with logic like that?

Not logic Bob, just facts! If you don't believe me ask one of those dead Kurds.

Now back to the core of the issue...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed¹.

¹Merriam-Webster

Bob the point being literaly by definition, the 2nd amendment has already been infringed by the government. I think most logical people feel those areas that have been infringed have accepted it only because it's no longer the 18th century and their have been technology advancements in arms. Hense the creation of the BTAF which is overseen by the Department of Justice of the United State of America.

And further more, I'm begining to think have no intentions of sending me the $1000.00. What about that whole Obama spread the wealth thing? I thought you liked his taxing plans.

Salmon "Still waiting by my mail box" Fan

Hello Salmon Fan.  Please, don't stand by your mail box too long, in this weather, you'll get frostbite. 

I will try one more time to make as sensible an argument as I can.  I'm sure it will not convince you.  But, I'd like to suggest that there's more than one way of seeing this issue.  Here's my view.  

We obviously see the Constitution in different ways.  You, I would respectfully suggest, seem to be stuck in the 18th. century.  I am familiar with the definition of "infringe," and I even agree that some laws today do infringe on the people's ability to keep and use some types of fire arms. 

I, however, am not mired in the 18th. century.  I believe that the framers of our Constitution realized that the world would change.  They had no idea of automatic firing weapons or armor peircing ammunition, but I suspect that they understood that our interpretation of what they wrote would have to change as the world changed.  The world has changed.  We are stuck with the changes and must adapt our thinking accordingly.  I believe that any changes in the way we interpret the Constitution must be fully and very carefully thought out, but I also believe that we are foolish to simply assume that our world has not changed and our founding fathers, if they were alive today, would have written exactly the same words today, that they wrote in the 18th. century.

If you are interested, (somehow I suspect you are not) there is a more expert opinion supporting my view.  Former Supreme Court Chief Justice, Warren Burger, wrote an article published in Parade magazine, January 14th. 1990.  In Summary, Burger says that the Second Amendment does not prohibit some kinds of gun control.  

I know there are expert legal opinions the differ from Burger's view, but I wanted you to see that that my view is not simply made from whole cloth.  My view follows the view of some top-notch legal minds.       

Thanks for the heads up on the mailbox, I was getting a bit chilly! Bob this isn't an argument, it's a discussion. I clearly stated, "Bob the point being literaly by definition, the 2nd amendment has already been infringed by the government. I think most logical people feel those areas that have been infringed have accepted it only because it's no longer the 18th century and their have been technology advancements in arms. Hense the creation of the BTAF which is overseen by the Department of Justice of the United State of America." I fail to see how you can not acknowledge that fact. It's already been bent enought and I fear any addtional attempts to bend the 2nd essentially could and most likely will result in a fracture, if not a complete break. Nearly every gun owner from both sides of the political isle tend to agree with it's current bend. And you were correct, I put little if any weight in Warren Berger's opinion even if he were still a Supreme Court Justice. The second amendment was put in place by our founding fathers in my opinion just in case the Federal Government or the Supreme Court ruled against, bent ot broke the second amendment. That's exactly why the beginning states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...".

Having some co-co with marshmallows trying to help my front bite,

Sa, Sa, Sa..Salmon Fan 

Hi SalmonFan. 

         It seems we are at an impasse on this issue.  I have a view and you have one. I respect your view, while I disagree with it.  For what it is worth, I don't dispute your point that some laws today do infringe on the totally free ability to keep and use firearms.  I see it as a sensible and reasonable infringement, one that in today's society we need.  In the end, it seems neither of us is about to bend a great deal in this discussion. 

You are correct sir and that's why I prefer the term discussion as opposed to argument. By the way, we just exercised our 1st amendment rights in such a way as they should be, but quite often many people can not have a rational discussion without it being a right/wrong issue or even worse through acts of vulgar language or violence.

Now getting back to the $1000.00 check I've been waiting for, you know spread the wealth idea. If you happen to get stopped by a cruiser and they ask for license, registration and a haiku...well, after the full body cavity search we'll should discuss the 4th amendment!!!

It's getting colder too,

Salmon Fan ;)