Background checks? Yes; Registration? No.

[Deanimator]

Might want to Google the NRA supporting universal background checks not but a few years ago...

Some people wise up.

Some dumb down.

The NRA wised up.

Those pushing the sham "universal background check" are betting that everybody else is dumber than a bag of hammers.

You lose.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[Blakenzy]

Granting the government even MORE control over your property and your activities is a losing proposition. No matter how noble the stated cause for enacting yet another restriction may be, its net effect is to continually diminish and burden firearm ownership by citizens to the brink of prohibition.

Why would anyone want to add one more punishable offense to gun ownership? The path we walk down as gun owners is becoming narrower, and narrower, surrounded by thousands of laws that make us instant felons with any slip, intentional or not. I don't want any more.

It's not gun control, it's gun restriction.

 

[nazshooter]

Might want to Google the NRA supporting universal background checks not but a few years ago...

Their argument for switching positions is about as silly as some of the arguments in here.

The only reason I've heard them give is that back then the existing background check system was relatively new and there was some hope that it would do some good however now that we've had it for many years and it's been shown to be a failure it should not be expanded.

What exactly is "silly" about that?

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[MistWolf]

Chris Dorner went through a background check to become a cop. We see how well that worked

 

[Deanimator]

Chris Dorner went through a background check to become a cop. We see how well that worked

Lon Horiuchi went through MULTIPLE background checks to become an Army officer and FBI agent. We see how well THAT worked...

 

[HorseSoldier]

With particular psychological screening and investigation to serve as a sniper, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[MistWolf]

It's a mistake to debate background checks being strictly a 2nd Amendment issue. It is not. It affects all of our rights, whether they are enumerated in the Bill of Rights or not. If the .gov can demand a background check before allowing us to exercise one right, they can justify the same for the rest.

A post I made on another site-

If there is one thing I cannot tolerate, it's a child molester. How do I know that you are not exercising your 1st Amendment right with your computer and access to the internet to stalk and victimize a child? I think you should submit to a background check to make sure that's not in your history. How do I know that you do not believe that adults should be allowed to have sex with children? How do I know that you do not believe children should not be treated as possessions? To prevent you from using your beliefs as grounds to bring harm to children, we should bring the government in to investigate you and set guidelines as to what beliefs you are allowed. It should be required that you sign documents promising you will not hold to any beliefs that are harmful or frightening to others before we issue you a card before allowing possession of equipment pertaining to the exercise of your 1st Amendment right of freedom of speech & religion; in violation of your 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search & seizure, your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination and double jeopardy, 6th Amendment rights of a trial by jury and speedy trial when there is a delay of approval and 9th Amendment rights when you are told your right to speak on a certain topic or to hold to a certain belief is not specifically protected by the Bill of Rights.

How is having to submit to a background check before exercising our rights when purchasing a firearm any different than submitting to the same when purchasing a computer, cell phone and internet access? How is submitting to a background check only a violation of thge 2nd Amendment? The answer to both is, it is not.

Do you wish to be subjected to a background check to salve the fears of others before being allowed to go about your business? Do you wish to have your good character scrutinized and possibly slandered by an uncaring faceless committee? Do you want to wait for permission to exercise the rights granted us by our creator because someone wants you to prove you intend no harm?

Not I. There are always those who will never be satisfied with your answers and will deny you your rights

 

[Cosmoline]

The problem is the foot is already half way in the door. Because the NRA and others let them set up the existing check for ffl sales, it's far harder to argue a parade of horribles.

I like the arguments about intra-family transfers. That has traction. But it's also very easy to draft an exception for.

 

[barnbwt]

Mistwolf,
It's already common to bar internet access to paroled/incarcerated criminals if it was involved in their crime (stalking, hacking, etc.). So yeah, felons have no 1st, 2nd, or 4th rights once they're released into the wild again (along with some other rights as well, I'm sure). Granted, it doesn't stop many from reoffending along those prohibited lines, but it's still common practice. Still begs the question "why are these guys released instead of locked up or executed (if locking them up is not feasible)?" Our country was founded on the notion of liberty being primary to living as a human being, and yet we force criminals to go on living as slaves for the remainder of their lives (or so long as the State sees fit to let them walk freely) for even minor offenses these days.

Perhaps if the physical consequences for felonies were proportionate to the philosophical ones (the loss of all rights) we wouldn't "feel" the need to brand so many common criminals. But the 8th amendment has been sadly misinterpretted, and now only serves to justify the enslavement of criminals as opposed to their due punishment.

Are our rights so worthless they can be lost over a large bag of weed? Our lives so valuable they cannot be taken by due process?

TCB

 

[Deanimator]

I like the arguments about intra-family transfers. That has traction. But it's also very easy to draft an exception for.

Totally irrelevant.

It's ALL unenforceable without REGISTRATION.

No ban or confiscation can be enforced without REGISTRATION.

Those of us from Chicago know better.

We can't be hoodwinked.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[MadMonkey]

Mistwolf,
It's already common to bar internet access to paroled/incarcerated criminals if it was involved in their crime (stalking, hacking, etc.). So yeah, felons have no 1st, 2nd, or 4th rights once they're released into the wild again (along with some other rights as well, I'm sure). Granted, it doesn't stop many from reoffending along those prohibited lines, but it's still common practice. Still begs the question "why are these guys released instead of locked up or executed (if locking them up is not feasible)?" Our country was founded on the notion of liberty being primary to living as a human being, and yet we force criminals to go on living as slaves for the remainder of their lives (or so long as the State sees fit to let them walk freely) for even minor offenses these days.

While this is an interesting argument, I would like to point out that those restrictions of a person's rights come AFTER they have committed a crime. Most of the proposed legislation targets all gun-owners based on an assumption that access leads to action.

Do we restrict sales or access to quad-core computers because increased computing power leads to higher instances of internet crime, hacking, or identify theft? No - we prosecute those who have abused their freedom and protect those who respect it. At its core, the left's argument is that we (gun-owners) are all, now or at some point in the future,
going to commit a crime with a firearm.

Which side is playing on fear and emotion again?


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[VegasAR15]

While this is an interesting argument, I would like to point out that those restrictions of a person's rights come AFTER they have committed a crime. Most of the proposed legislation targets all gun-owners based on an assumption that access leads to action.

Do we restrict sales or access to quad-core computers because increased computing power leads to higher instances of internet crime, hacking, or identify theft? No - we prosecute those who have abused their freedom and protect those who respect it. At its core, the left's argument is that we (gun-owners) are all, now or at some point in the future,
going to commit a crime with a firearm.

Which side is playing on fear and emotion again?


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

Excellant points.

 

[Vector]

For those of y'all in favor of "Universal background checks." Haven't you heard Obama's call for a "database" connected to the "universal background checks?"

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/01/07/obama-plans-national-gun-database

What, exactly do you think a "national database" is, if not a registration list.

Here's a link about Democrat plans to use their statewide registration list in California.

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics...rnias-state-senate-Democrats-roll-out-big-gun

Cali Democrats are planning confiscations....that's c-o-n-f-i-s-c-a-t-i-o-n enabled by a registration.

The proof is already there in that they currently confiscate guns from people who "lost their right to bear arms" in CA's mind. I am not talking about violent felons and recidivist scum, but also those guilty of one misdemeanor charge, or even those just accused of certain things but not convicted. Heck if you even get a restraining order issued against you, they will come a knocking on your door. Read this thread if you have your doubts;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=702303



The math is simple;

background checks=registration
registration=identification
identification=confiscation

Lest anyone think I am a hardened zealot, I am late coming to this conclusion. I live in a very 2nd amendment friendly state, and base most of my perceptions on what we do here. Sure I know a few states are bastions of 60's hippie liberal wacko types that are in charge. But I did not put all the pieces of the puzzle together until recently. When a state or government starts restricting your Constitutional rights for life over minor infractions/crimes, what is to stop them from expanding the list to suit the thinking of their time. Remember we are fighting not only for our rights, but those of our future generations after we are long gone. So who is to say what the political winds of 70 years from now will be when most of us will be gone. The society might be so dumbed down from liberal Hollywood and the news media, they will have given their lives over to a tyrannical government. Yet if a core of people still have arms, their might be a chance to turn things around. However if we allow the seeds of confiscation to be planted today, future generations will have no firearms in the future.

Just as one example of which there are many, lets look at homosexuality in our society. If you were sounding the alarm 30 or even 20 years ago that liberal attitudes toward homosexuals would eventually lead to them being able to legally marry, adopt children, etc., most people would have laughed at you.
Most would say it will never happen, and you are just being paranoid. Since PC wasn't around back then, you probably would not have been called hateful or homophobic like today. Still you would have been dismissed, but look at what is happening today.
The point is that whether you are for or against what is happening today with homosexuals, it should be a wake up call for people to see how just a few decades can change the course of our country. If the same thing happens to our Constitutional rights, we could cease to be a Republic in a handful of generations.

`

 

[MadMonkey]

Quote:

Remember we are fighting not only for our rights, but those of our future generations after we are long gone. So who is to say what the political winds of 70 years from now will be when most of us will be gone.

`

This, this, a thousand times this!
I cannot begin to describe the attitude of my liberal opponents when I suggest that a minor "sacrifice" today can lead to ripples of consequence later. Dismissive at best, condescending at worst. They truly believe that there is no chance of tyranny here, ever. History would tell a different tale however, and if we want this republic to stand for another 200 years we had better protect every right we have.



Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android