Fee and background check to exercise your religion

I can only conclude that some people are born sheep, live their entire lives as sheep and,sooner or later, will die bleating in some slaughter house as sheep.

You can show them the collar and they'll tell you it's a necklace. You can point to the bars on their pen and they'll tell you they like it in here because they're safe from the wolf (except when they're not).

I could go on with the analogies but I think I've made my point.

It's almost impossible to free a fool from chains he reveres.

I don't even waste my time anymore

How did this post stay open for over seven hours?

Or did I miss the veiled firearms discussion?

Or did I miss the veiled firearms discussion?

Click to expand...

Just showing the hypocrisy of some people.

We have a thread going on where gun owners are actually saying they don't see background checks as "infringement".

Would they suffer the same thing to be done to the other things in the Bill of Rights?

It's a valid point.

Poll taxes were declared illegal, to exercise the right to vote.

A background check on Bibles would likely be declared unconstitutional, yet law abiding gun owners sit here and talk about the Brady Law like it's a GOOD idea that somehow makes us safer.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense that we as gun owners are willing to take restrictions if they don't inconvenience us "too much".

Where is the line drawn then? And it's no surprise the anti's want to keep pushing that line forward, we've already shown them we are willing to cave in. Now they just want to see how far we'll give.

NO gun law has EVER been shown to reduce crime. None. Not the 1934 NFA, not the 1968 GCA, not Brady.

Long read but worth looking at here where the Second Amendment Foundation shows that even the '68 GCA didn't do anything.

Why do we keep accepting these restrictions on a supposed "infringement free" right?

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Zimring68.htm

But this, from the report above, pretty much captures where we are now:

The study will be of little use to the most fervent friends and foes of gun control legislation. It provides data they do not need. Each group has already decided that the 1968 Act has failed, and each group uses the Act’s presumed failure to confirm views already strongly held. Enthusiasts for strict federal controls see the failure of the law as proof that stricter laws are needed, while opponents see it as evidence that no controls will work.

Click to expand...

Why do we keep accepting these restrictions on a supposed "infringement free" right?

Click to expand...

Our "brethren" accept them with open arms and then turn around to us and debate the sensibility of the new infringements.

Would Pelosi agree that a requirement to register all Muslims doesn't infringe on their first amendment rights? After all, it's only registration, not a ban. What harm could it do? It's absolutely not a prelude to rounding them up sometime in the future.

Sound familiar?

I'm not taking a side in this one, but I don't think background checks for attending a church is a valid comparison. There are no legal restrictions on who can attend a church, there are legal restrictions on who can own a gun.

I'm not taking a side in this one, but I don't think background checks for attending a church is a valid comparison. There are no legal restrictions on who can attend a church, there are legal restrictions on who can own a gun.

Click to expand...

That's sort of the point. There shouldn't be any. The Second Amendment says "not be infringed".

Why are there no laws restricting church attendance? Why are guns "different"?

You are doing exactly what we're talking about here, rationalizing existing gun laws as "OK" even though it's documented fact that not one single gun law has ever had an impact on crime in any meaningful way.

People act like it's "crazy talk" to suggest that anyone should simply be able to buy a gun without any restrictions, yet up until 1968 that's exactly how it was and the gun crime rate was not higher.

In 1965 you could order pistols, rifles, shotguns, anything you wanted, right out of the Sears catalog.

ONE crime changed all that. ONE nutjob ordered a rifle and shot the President. ONE CRIME and a knee jerk reaction to it has put all these gun laws in place.

Same with Brady. ONE CRIME committed, again against a President, puts this whole background check mess in place.

And even with all of those laws in place, criminals continue to commit gun crime. In fact gun crime is higher now than it was before the GCA of 1968 when you could buy guns through the mail, and FBI flat out admits that they do not pursue violators of the Brady Law.

I wonder which guns would be the 'marijuana' of a gun ban
- the gateway guns that produced most often and smuggled aroudn
-the guns that high school kids try to be cool
-the guns that overfill our prisons, until politicians force the police to back off

"I have this Glock for medical reasons. The medical reasons being that I might get raped or beaten if I don't carry it."

"I need this .308, it helps with my glaucoma."

On the plus(?) side, after the gun ban, no background checks, no risk of registration, inner city ranges blossoming.

Some day, every presidential candidate will admit to having shot a rifle, even if they didn't inhale.

The Second Amendment says "not be infringed".

This is my stance as well and I'm tired of the BS
us citizens take from an overreaching bunch of power hungry
corrupt politicians and utopian dreaming tree hugging sheeple,
who want to destroy what this country is all about
and turn us into servants/slaves of the state.

Freedom WILL ring again and it's worth fighting for.
We are WAY overdue in drawing the line in the sand
and making a stand.

I wouldn't mind the banning of certain "high-capacity" religions used or misused in furtherance of mass-casualty events.

Only law enforcement and the military should have access to 'assault style religions'.
There is no practical reason that your everyday citizen should be allowed a chance at one of these.
Especially if the religion has the shoulder thing that goes up.

I don't think they will start charging a fee, and require registration for religious beliefs until they have re-written all the religious texts so that they conform to the Government's position on what really happened.

JC is going to have to be much more PC in the Government's Bible.

They have to re-write that history just like they've done to the USA's history that they are teaching in school's today.

I'm sure there will be Government approved Bibles ready for sale in the not to distant future.

I guess since I have never had to wait or been denied the purchase of a gun, or denied the right to carry a gun, I don't feel like my rights have been infringed upon.

I do believe however that certain types of guns being banned from public ownership is an infringement on my rights.

How about a Bible owners identification card? That book contains some Very dangerous ideas that threaten the governments power. Or how about requiring a background check and license before a person can publish an opinion in print or post on the Internet? After all. the pen is mightier than the sword and we can't have pens (and keyboards) getting into the wrong hands. Words can motivate people to anti-state action, shouldn't we limit who can freely use words? After all, it's for the children.

Would you feel infringed upon if you had to pay a fee and submit to a background check in order to recieve free counsel in court?

Click to expand...

Obviously you've never had to apply for a Public Defender. There is no fee but they decide whether or not you can afford an attorney, and they do a pretty thorough background check to reach their decision. I had a friend who went through the system and he had to sell everything he owned, and I do mean everything to pay for a lawyer. Then, after the private attorney took every dime, the PD picked him up.

I guess since I have never had to wait or been denied the purchase of a gun, or denied the right to carry a gun, I don't feel like my rights have been infringed upon.

I do believe however that certain types of guns being banned from public ownership is an infringement on my rights.

Click to expand...

Your complacence has done more damage to our rights than you realize. Just because a slave doesn't feel like a slave doesn't make him free.

It's not pointless if one more person understands whats going on.

Click to expand...

And this is why I have not closed the thread.

I guess since I have never had to wait or been denied the purchase of a gun, or denied the right to carry a gun, I don't feel like my rights have been infringed upon.

Click to expand...

Revel in the fact that you fall into the fat part of the curve and not in the margins. But also try to look beyond the nose on your face and recognize that lots of people aren't so lucky, for no reason other than their given name being similar to others.

I also reject the notion that you've not been denied the right to carry a gun. Try walking out of your house with a firearm on your hip in VA and you'll likely just get a nice visit by da po-leece. (Been there, done that, in Arlington.) Try doing that across the Potomac, and you'll wind up face-down on the trunk of a cruiser really dang quickly...

I also reject the notion that you've not been denied the right to carry a gun. Try walking out of your house with a firearm on your hip in VA and you'll likely just get a nice visit by da po-leece. (Been there, done that, in Arlington.) Try doing that across the Potomac, and you'll wind up face-down on the trunk of a cruiser really dang quickly...

Click to expand...

You are correct, my mistake for not thinking about the situation with crossing state lines. I spend a fair amt of time in NOVA and it is a different world than down this way. I never open carry with a sidearm, but I've been stopped numerous times with loaded weapon on the front seat and never had an issue.

The carry situation has nothing to do with background check for purchase though.

What is a better solution that will keep those without RKBA from walking into Walmart or the local gun shop and purchasing a gun?

Should we push for gun owner registration cards like our voter registration cards?