Senate negotiations on background check have stalled

[Elm Creek Smith]

I shall not comply.

ECS

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Texan Scott]

Deanimator, please forgive me for saying so... but the day of the individual saying "NO, I refuse" is almost gone.

Soon, it'll be the States saying "NO,WE REFUSE", and meaning it.

Somebody... anybody ... EVERYBODY .... please explain to your congresspeople that passing this may well be the breaking point. A number of states will BLUNTLY REFUSE to obey, and this may prove to be a Constitutional crisis the Republic may not weather intact.

Federal insistence upon utter capitulation, disarmament, and eventual servitude will lead to violence.

I'm not ADVOCATING this... I'm fearing it.

 

[Bill4282]

There are at least 10 states with bills under consideration that makes it a misdemeanor for a local, county or state LEO to enforce any Federal gun ban or mag ban. The key is the states fighting back for a minimalist Federal government.

 

[michaelbsc]

I'm not ADVOCATING this... I'm fearing it.

I'm kind of afraid of it myself. I live in SC, and I wont say we did it once because no one was born yet. But a bunch of grumbling guys did it.

And there are a lot of PO'd people there now.

 

[Ryanxia]

What a sad state of affairs when what once used to be our fundamental Right now insists on being tracked and approved and scrutinized.

Just wait until if you want to speak your mind you need to go through a universal background check or to write this post I have to go through a pysciatric evaluation or because it can lead to arguments we have to pay $20 and have a background check to transfer a Bible.

 

[303tom]

These stupid Bills are close to being where they belong, In The TRASH CAN...............

 

[michaelbsc]

These stupid Bills are close to being where they belong, In The TRASH CAN...............

Not close enough.

 

[sansone]

the more time passes the harder it will be to implement ANY new gun legislation.. time is on our side

 

[316SS]

The real question is, how do you keep deranged people from getting guns while not trampling on the rights of sane people? Surely this is not an insoluble problem.

From a statistical standpoint, mental illness is NOT a factor indicating a tendency toward violence. You cannot trust a person in society if you cannot trust them with a gun. The question is not whether it is a soluble or insoluble problem, but whether it's a problem at all. Only very poor public policy targets vanishingly improbable occurrences.

 

[rob.lund]

Stalled is good, dead would be better

 

[Outlaw Man]

"We are not committed of one idea of who should retain a record. We just want to make sure there is a record," said an aide to a lawmaker working on the bill. "We are flexible about who maintains that record.

In that case, can I maintain them? I promise you can look at them whenever there's a need.

 

[joeschmoe]

And that pretty much says it all - they aren't interested in trying to create a background check system that does not record the sale. They don't care where the record is (right now anyway) but they want a record.

Yup.
UBC's can easily be done WITHOUT a record. Just like now. That's not what they are asking for. They are asking for registration and calling UBC. Not the same thing.

They aren't interested in UBC. They are asking for registration now.

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Stalled is good, dead would be better

Dead is good.


I can accept that.

 

[cfullgraf]

The bills need to be dead. If they are just idling in committee, another catastrophe will bring them to the floor in a skinny minute (aka a New York second) and they will be passed.

If new bills have to be re-introduce, there is then time for sanity to come back into play before the bill is voted on.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

Yet, each new massacre also brings us one step closer to confiscation. As gun owners, we defend our rights by preventing such incidents. Some way needs to be found to preclude obviously deranged people, or proven criminals, from getting guns. Doing so is in our own self-interest.

Not really. The number or amount of massacres or incidents do not really matter. Only one is enough for the anti-gun people to use. You only need look at Switzerland to see this. Switzerland has one of the lowest murder and gun murder rates in the world, but this does not stop the gun grabbers from trying to do away with firearms freedom in Switzerland. They will always find some incident, no matter how rare, no matter that their proposed laws have no connection to the incident (other than a gun was somehow involved).

Background checks would not have stopped, and did not stop any of the recent massacres. It does not matter. As long as we have a media that is of one mind and one agenda (I except the new media, such as Fox, Talk Radio, and the Internet), we will always be at risk from this powermad desire to disarm American citizens.