I don't find it inconceivable that someone would own guns and enjoy shooting sports and be in favor of background checks. I find that your willingness to surrender Freedom to satisfy a trained mindset is inconceivable.... just as your views on illegal drugs well news flash most drugs sold are still illegal and criminals haven't stopped selling. They are still being sold!
How exactly was the universal background check blocked?
- Thread starter wacki
- Start date
- Status
I don't find it inconceivable that someone would own guns and enjoy shooting sports and be in favor of background checks. I find that your willingness to surrender Freedom to satisfy a trained mindset is inconceivable.... just as your views on illegal drugs well news flash most drugs sold are still illegal and criminals haven't stopped selling. They are still being sold!
I haven't said a word about drugs on this forum so I doubt you know my views. I've been trying to stay on topic.
Prince Yamato
Member
The universal background check would never work. Seasoned criminals don't buy guns from joe citizen. They buy them from people who make a career out of straw purchases. Those criminals have spotless records that no amount nics checks will ever catch... Which then follows to the next step... Registration... So the government knows "who owns what." Except that those same career criminals will simply report weapons "lost" or "stolen" instead of "sold to a thug". Realizing the inadequacy of this system, politicians will get mad and go after the more "dangerous" guns. So they don't fall into "wrong hands". And eventually, you end up with no guns owned by anyone... Except the criminals.
45_auto
Member
It all comes down to what you consider an "infringement".
Some people don't consider UBC's, registrations, etc, as "infringement". They see them as just reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership.
Just as most people don't consider laws on libel and slander to be infringements of the first amendment (free speech).
I bet it would be interesting if you could talk to American Indian or Jewish ghosts and ask their opinion on trusting their government and what they would consider as "reasonable" restrictions on firearms ownership.
George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
Last edited:
I know some don't see it as infringement but personally I will use the actual definition of infringe.
1: Actively break the terms of
2: Act so as to limit or undermine; encroach
That limit, undermine, or encroach is what makes me think it is.
Last edited by a moderator:
macadore
Member
Looks like this thread has gone round the bend.
caribou
Member
Not around the bend, but smack into the "Truth"
The 2nd Amendment is the Right to Bear arms in Defence of self, state and country, as well as from Tyranny from the government, as our Founding Fathers knew it would unhinge someday.
The last Genocide in North America was in the 1980's when 300,000 estimated Guatamalan Mayan Indians were massacred for their lands by their government, after being disarmed.
In the last 100 year, Europe, Asia and Africa, with the various Govornments practicing "civilized law" and "gun control" having killed more people with Genocide, than were killed in outright war.
Everything the Nazi's and the Communists did were 'legalized' and then carried out.
A Hundred Million +
Obama and his crew working hard to "Compromise" our gun Rights, the NSA , FBI, CIA all Spying and collecting/storeing information on American Citizens, The Prez saying he and his can bypass the Constitution and execute citizens without due process, The FBI openly bragging they weren't going to read the Boston Bombing suspect his Miranda Rights under "Public Safety" laws, and carried through, The vague definition of Terrorist/terrorist acts in these laws, and on and on and on.. ..........Im not a tin foil hat wearer' I just read the news.....
With lunatics in your front room or in the WhiteHouse, the mere presence of Firearms is often the only deterrent needed, and not actual shooting.
They gotta take guns away before they can take U.S. all away.....
The 2nd Amendment is the Right to Bear arms in Defence of self, state and country, as well as from Tyranny from the government, as our Founding Fathers knew it would unhinge someday.
The last Genocide in North America was in the 1980's when 300,000 estimated Guatamalan Mayan Indians were massacred for their lands by their government, after being disarmed.
In the last 100 year, Europe, Asia and Africa, with the various Govornments practicing "civilized law" and "gun control" having killed more people with Genocide, than were killed in outright war.
Everything the Nazi's and the Communists did were 'legalized' and then carried out.
A Hundred Million +
Obama and his crew working hard to "Compromise" our gun Rights, the NSA , FBI, CIA all Spying and collecting/storeing information on American Citizens, The Prez saying he and his can bypass the Constitution and execute citizens without due process, The FBI openly bragging they weren't going to read the Boston Bombing suspect his Miranda Rights under "Public Safety" laws, and carried through, The vague definition of Terrorist/terrorist acts in these laws, and on and on and on.. ..........Im not a tin foil hat wearer' I just read the news.....
With lunatics in your front room or in the WhiteHouse, the mere presence of Firearms is often the only deterrent needed, and not actual shooting.
They gotta take guns away before they can take U.S. all away.....
Last edited:
zxcvbob
Member
It's pretty simple... They were lying about the 90%. The senators knew it was a lie and didn't want to stick their necks out. (I didnt read your link; I assume it was about gun control getting shot down in the senate) Obama and Co were p'd about it because the senate was supposed to pass it and the house not, then they were going to blame the house republicans for failing to pass "common sense" regulations that 90% of the people (even NRA members) want.
Shadow 7D
Member
NRA in this months Rifleman, have an article on this
in polls less than 35% of people were 'disappointed or mad' that no gun control passed...
OH but 54% were relieved....
YUP, they were lying, however what's new, that's what the anti's do.
this isn't about guns, it's all about control
in polls less than 35% of people were 'disappointed or mad' that no gun control passed...
OH but 54% were relieved....
YUP, they were lying, however what's new, that's what the anti's do.
this isn't about guns, it's all about control
How hard is it to understand that in a nation governed by the rule of law one's personal interpretation of a law is not the final judgement. Instead when individuals have differing opinions they go to court and the court decides who is right.
45_auto
Member
Making something a law does not necessarily make it right, and a court upholding laws which the people feel are unjust is subject to change (ref Boston tea Party and its' after effects).
The court gets to decide who is right up until the point that enough of the people disagree with the decisions of the court (otherwise known as government). Sometimes, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them. (That is the first sentence in the Declaration of Independence, in case you aren't familiar with it.)
If George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, etc, etc, (all traitors and lawbreakers according to the courts) had the blind obedience to the law that you espouse, we would still be subject to British law and would have turned in our firearms many years ago.
A government making bad laws, then upholding those bad laws, does not necessarily make the "right" choices when it upholds them. See the Nuremburg Laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws
You really ought to research the reasons that the Second Amendment exists, and carefully consider any decisions to cede any portion of your rights to the government. Many believe that it will never willingly restore those rights to you or your children without violent overhaul. It's been proven many times that giving up ANY portion of your rights is the beginning of the "slippery slope". I don't want my kids or grandkids to have to climb back up that slope. I believe that Winston Churchhill said it best:
Many of us prefer to fight for our rights now, before too many people like you manage to change the odds to your side. Luckily the government is still working, and enough of our representatives listened to us so that the UBC didn't pass.
Last edited:
- Status