samandglove1
Member
From last year on ABC News. Other news organizations chose not to pick it up afterwards.
Gun Myths Gone in Five Minutes: ABC News 20/20 - YouTube
Gun Myths Gone in Five Minutes: ABC News 20/20 - YouTube
Gun Control Myths - I don't know if I ever saw this on the forum
- Thread starter samandglove1
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Quite a surprise!
From one of the Major Networks but a welcome change in my opinion. Where are the Antis getting their fuel for gun control? We all know its not about Gun Control its simply for "Complete Control".
From one of the Major Networks but a welcome change in my opinion. Where are the Antis getting their fuel for gun control? We all know its not about Gun Control its simply for "Complete Control".
JJEH
Member
It is a nice change. The anti gunners are not against guns, they are for control. I posted on "the brady campaign" on facebook. I started a conversation and all I got was verbal attacks. I use armchair theories, me being a baby b/c I'm afraid of back ground checks, I have a reading comprehension, I'm looking for anarchy, etc. People argue that when they sell a car they have to file paperwork with the state so they want it also for firearms. My last comment got deleted and I don't know why. I was nice but told them clearly what I think. Yes, it's their right as the page owner. But that just shows how interested they are in what other people think. That's the either with me or against me mentality. Here's my last comment:
"Since my last comment got deleted I don't see any point in having a discussion. You get rid of comments that you don't like b/c you are ignorant and don't want to have a healthy conversation. Great job. The Brady campaign must be a nice "members only" club filled with people that like to hear themselves talk."
I'm pretty sure they will delete it as well.
"Since my last comment got deleted I don't see any point in having a discussion. You get rid of comments that you don't like b/c you are ignorant and don't want to have a healthy conversation. Great job. The Brady campaign must be a nice "members only" club filled with people that like to hear themselves talk."
I'm pretty sure they will delete it as well.
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,823
Not anything against you but, why are you afraid of a background check? If you have no negative past? then no worries. I bought a rifle last year--my check cleared before the guy calling it in--finished that phone call. Sat, I picked up a Pistol. The bg check took 10 or so minutes due to heavy amount of calls called in. No probs at all. Im hopefully getting two more pistols at next months gun show and anticipate no problems at all.
Not bragging, just sayin'.
JJEH
Member
They accused me of being afraid of background checks, but I'm not. They just assume and accuse and that's what upsets me.
If you read their replies to others it's just that.
I am not afraid of the background check itself, I am against who is running it. On a call in I get denied and have to wait then get an approval. System sucks if you know how it works your name goes in a block of names and if someone close fails so do you till farther checking. I got my concealed carry no problem, I have no background. My brother in law had a FBI agent get an initial denial. Hows that. In MT there is no wait if you pass the check or have a concealed permit. The FBI guy was very POed, he got the explanation from his boss. The government can and will mess up anything.
NJDevil72
Member
Speaking of myths, the American Bar Association is having a conference discussing the "Myth and Meaning of the Second Amendment". When you get the lawyers involved in the gun control discussion on the control side it can't be good.
What's Wrong With This Picture: ABA Gun Violence Confab | The Truth About Guns
What's Wrong With This Picture: ABA Gun Violence Confab | The Truth About Guns
devilfrog1911
US Veteran
A quick perusal of the speakers/organizations for that conference reads like a who's who of gun control groups. Yet another reason I am no longer a member of the ABA ...
I'll speak for myself - I've never worried about background checks either - I have an AZ CCW, and that's sufficient justification for buying a gun from a dealer.
However, think about this. With a background check and the recording of your purchase at the dealer, your ownership of a gun becomes a matter of governmental record. When a dealer goes out of business, those forms you filled out go to the government, for whatever purpose they want, in spite of legislation specifically prohibiting them from creating a database of gun owners. You can bet your bippy under the current administration, they are doing just that. "Universal background checks" is just a way of saying universal registration.
The goal of folks like the Brady Bunch, the President, the Attorney General, and the leadership of the ATF is very simple: no more guns. They don't like them, and think that only the police and military should have them. Perhaps that's the definition of a police state.
The first step to eventual banning and confiscation of ALL guns is registration. "Universal background checks" accomplish that. Finding out who has what becomes simple. "Trust us, we'll never come for your guns. Period." Tell that to the surviving residents of Nazi Germany. Tell that to the folks in Great Britain and Australia. And now, tell that to the people in the formerly free states of NY, CT, CA and PA.
After the appropriate legislation or Presidential edict based on anything at all, the roundup can then begin.
The first time they will knock on your door. The second time they won't knock.
And THAT is why you should fear "Universal background checks." It will be the beginning of the end of a free nation.
John
gregintenn
Member
I'm against them because the leave a paper trail. Further, here in Tennessee, we are charged $10 per check. DO you know how many hundreds of times I've paid this tax? I've passed every one, as well as the one to get my carry permit, so chances are good I'll pass the next one. Other than revenue enhancement and building a government database, what do they help?
Alpo
Member
I'm not afraid of background checks. I'm OFFENDED at background checks.
This is America, right? Innocent until proven guilty?
Unless you want to buy a gun. Then you are guilty until proven innocent by the background check.
Why should I have to prove that I'm not a criminal before I buy a gun?
You don't have to prove you're not a drunk driver before buying a car. You don't have to prove you're not a axe-murderer before buying an axe.
You don't have to prove you're not a child pornographer before buying a video camera or a computer.
So why should you have to prove you're not a bank robber or a mafia hit man before you buy gun?
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,823
I did read the others but nothing in there that would have kept me from asking my original question.
Maybe you just had someone who was a jerk doing yours???
Edited because the rest would be misunderstood as well.
Last edited:
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,823
I know somewhat of how the system works. I had a Nephew with a clean record get denied three times. It turned out to be someone with the exact name as his-who had robbed a bank in another State around 30 or so years ago.
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,823
)
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,823
I dont disagree with a word you posted. All I was inquiring about in my original post to the gent who was afraid of background checks--is why? Ive never been afraid of them either and I do know what ive done in life and not one thing--could ever be misconstrued as being something worse. No more-no less.
I used to be in a form of govt as well, and fully know how they can be. Nothing surprises me after that several years long gig.
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,823
I completely understand that. What I dont understand is how my original question can be translated into im for background checks etc etc etc?
the ringo kid
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 20,895
- Reaction score
- 22,823
Again, another who MISREAD the question and meaning. I give up. Have a nice one.
gregintenn
Member
You didn't direct it at me, but you asked "...why are you afraid of background checks?"
I never implied you were for them. I simply answered your question.
This past Sunday a very well known former Hollywood actor wrote an opinion piece in my local newspaper. He is retired from show business and lives here in my area. I've met him and he's a really nice guy, but is an extreme leftist. His column was about the Second Amendment. Among other points he opined the Founding Fathers couldn't have envisioned AK-47s and AR-15s, meaning this Amendment doesn't protect ownership of them. I sent a letter to the editor, which I'm sure will be published soon. I said the Founders obviously couldn't have envisioned those weapons. But the Second Amendment, or what I prefer to call it, it's proper name, Article Two of The Bill Of Rights (That always irritates the antis)
is still in effect. If we say it does not protect ownership of things that were not around over two centuries ago, he have to apply that to ALL of the Bill Of Rights. I said this writers views were protected under Article One of the Bill Of Rights. However, I'm sure he used a computer to express them and sent them in electronically. That, under his reasoning, makes them not protected as Free Speech, as those technologies did not exist in the the 18th century.
This is one of my favorite arguments to use against that line of "reasoning" in the gun control debate.
So far, nobody has been able to refute it.
Jim
is still in effect. If we say it does not protect ownership of things that were not around over two centuries ago, he have to apply that to ALL of the Bill Of Rights. I said this writers views were protected under Article One of the Bill Of Rights. However, I'm sure he used a computer to express them and sent them in electronically. That, under his reasoning, makes them not protected as Free Speech, as those technologies did not exist in the the 18th century.This is one of my favorite arguments to use against that line of "reasoning" in the gun control debate.
So far, nobody has been able to refute it.
Jim
Similar threads
