Gun Control vs Background Checks?

[25elk]

brokenprism you're correct, but sadly not enough see the real underlying danger as it is being hidden or watered down. In addition to the now more than two billion rounds of hollow point ammo (which is forbidden in conventional warfare) the government has been amassing bullet proof sentry booths, just bought over two thousand APC type vehicles and has arranged for DHS to be able to use under- used or moth balled military bases for housing prisoners(?). What is really coming??? And all of this is separate and apart from the military.

 

[beemerphile]

I just read where three people in Russia were jailed because they were demonstrating without a permit. With our 1st Amendment, we would think that to be a totalitarian requirement. Well, go to a political convention and see what happens if you protest outside of the "free speech zone" which is curiously located far from the news cameras.

What then of a government permit being required to exercise our 2nd Amendment "right"?

Freedom and liberty do not allow pre-emptive measures - either nationally or individually. I do not endanger anyone by owning a gun, only by improper use of it. That is already sufficiently illegal. My right to swing my arms ends at your face. Am I to be restricted from having arms? Almost all men are sufficiently equipped to be rapists. Does the fact that they carry these things around with ready access make women unsafe? Should this equipment be serially numbered and registered? Would it help? Are particular colors, calibers, and barrel lengths more dangerous?

To see the erosion of liberty in America, you need only to look at the growth in pre-emptive laws and requirements. These are geared at making sure you do not have the capacity to commit a crime. "Information returns" are a direct violation of the 4th to make sure that you are not withholding income from taxation. Withholding income from taxation is a crime. Having the capacity to commit the crime of tax evasion is inherent in having privacy about your papers and affairs. Requiring a person who has not been charged with the crime of tax evasion to essentially "empty his briefcase" for a government agent to rifle through in search of violations is an abridgment of the 4th.

Gun control legislation is pre-emptive legislation and is bad from the start. M4/16's exclusions included.

 

[Spike 7.62]

You don't have the right to own a gun "if you pass a background check".

Also OP, what about guns not bought from a dealer? Do you want that big background check for all sales and transfers, even between family members?

Once you give the Govt the power to regulate gun sales via background checks they are going to go bananas with it. Right now you can't buy a gun with a restraining order... anyone who has been divorced (or in my case, worked for a family court lawyer) knows that restraining orders fly like the birds and that it's almost just a formality in many cases. That should NOT keep you from buying a gun.

The Govt could add to the list of disqualifiers as much as it wanted... maybe no service men who have seeked mental health care can buy a gun.. maybe no registered libertarians may buy a gun.. maybe no one who is late on their taxes, or who has a speeding ticket, or who already owns "too many" guns may buy a gun...

Also, what about the guns you ALREADY own? To implement this background check would be useless because every gun (100 million+?) in private hands has been bought or transfered without it. Would every gun owner in America be subject to it? What would be the out of pocket cost? Maybe like an NFA weapon there will be a tax on this backgrounc check... afterall that was the purpose of the $200 NFA tax, to keep it away from the riffraff.

Even if EVERY gun were trransfered with your imaginary background check, mass murders wouldn't stop. There is already a black market for guns, you can believe it would only increase. Also, you can still buy fertilizer and racing fuel and rent dump trucks, so you can level a building full of people without a background check.

Or I could just manufactor my own full auto M16 and go on a killing spree anyway. I could email you the 3D blueprint for a lower receiver, or an entire handgun, and with a poly printer you can press "print file" and you will have a firearm coming out of your printer. No background check needed for printers or email addresses.

So what would be the result of this march to folly? Great cost, gross over regulation, zero positive impact, and by then the gun grabbers will only be stronger, and they will be asking for more more more.

Don't be deceived, they want every single firearm off the street. You can hunt with a bow and protect your home with a baseball bat in their opinion. Meeting them halfway, or even budging .001mm is only helping their cause and hurting yours... it is moving toward total disarmament.

Oh yeah, and "shall not be infringed" is pretty specific.

Still confused?

 

[tlay]

The problem that I see is that too many gun owners have their own agendas and priorities. They believe that if they don't own the evil black rifles and only own a bolt action rifle, shotgun, revolver or anything other than an evil gun then they won't be targeted when the balloon goes up.
I talked to a friend the other day and he said that he did not understand that why someone needs a 30 round magazine for hunting. I told him where in the 2nd do you find any reference to hunting?
After they take our evil rifles next will be the bolt action "sniper rifles". Then all evil guns with removable mags. And so on.
PEOPLE either we all hang together or by God we will surely hang separately.

 

[Gryff]

Prohibitions tend to inflict harm on many while trying to control a few.

Yes, but MORE prohibitions are coming. I would rather it be background checks (which is not the same thing as registrations) than what I can or cannot have. If we have the compromise, that is probably the least painful.

 

[Xtasy]

Yes, but MORE prohibitions are coming. I would rather it be background checks (which is not the same thing as registrations) than what I can or cannot have. If we have the compromise, that is probably the least painful.

There is no compromise on my constitutional rights!

 

[Tennessee Cattleman]

If given the chance, the gun control folks will come after our Second Amendment rights piece by piece. Right now it is "assault" rifles and clips over 10 rounds. Perhaps next it will be handguns or semi auto hunting rifles. Then it may be semi auto shotguns or bolt action rifles. Then one day in the future, our Second Amendment rights could simply mean the right to possess a double barrel shotgun, after you jump through many expensive hoops and over large hurdles to acquire the proper permits, insurance or whatever else can be dreamed up. Many of us, me included, will not personally be affected by a assault rifle and large capacity clip ban, but looking at the big picture this could turn into a divide and conquer strategy by the gun control advocates. Background checks are in place for dealer to customer transactions through the National Instant Criminal Background Check system. I expect this will be expanded at some point for all gun transactions. We should insist background checks always remain INSTANT.

 

[quneur]

I believe the gun control crowd is much smarter than we give them credit for. The moment Sandy Hook incident happened, they were ready to submit legislation in every state it could possibly pass. Their timing was perfect. Not just one proposal but at least four or more at once. Overwhelm the pro gun crowd by making them fight in their own state instead of letting us concentrate on each bill singly. Looks like the gun control crowd has organized nationally.

They have nothing to lose. They can draft proposal and keep drafting proposal until they gain something. We, on the other hand, have everything to lose. They can get after us because they perceive us as unorganized, uneducated and uninspired. Its a fight we shouldn't be in the first place. It should be the mental health professional fight. It should be the courts fight for not incarcerating straw buyers and sellers.

 

[Dikinalaska]

Well I do think the countries citizens are safer since the 1920's and I think that a small percentage of the regulations help make that happen. We don't have gun slinging cowboys or dueling over a disagreement as we did way back.

I think I missed which regulation on firearms stopped the cowboys from having guns. I thought you could still have revolvers?? And "dueling over disagreements".... Just ask gang members about that. Regulations on firearms have nothing to do with the aforementioned, those are moral problems and exactly the point. It's not the guns, it's the nut behind them. These nuts have no care on any regulation, as they didn't follow them in the first place.

 

[Hoss0432]

we the people need to take a stand once again. the constitution was written to prevent these rights from being taken from us. don't talk about com premise. it's time to show the rest of the globe that we the people will stand and fight for our constitutional rights.
don't let the ones to chose not to practice the right to bare arms tell me what I really need to protect my family.




fear the free

 

[gregintenn]

Well I do think the countries citizens are safer since the 1920's and I think that a small percentage of the regulations help make that happen. We don't have gun slinging cowboys or dueling over a disagreement as we did way back.

Got any data to back that up, or just Hollywood movies?

What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard for otherwise educated people to wrap their heads around?