Universal Background checks seem reasonable?

[downtownv]

Really? Because the GangBangers are ready to sign right up!:mad:
Clearly an "Infringement"

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/the-real-sandy-hook-conspiracy-disarm-america/

[AIRret]

++1
Unfortunately, the uninformed don't get it!

[chrish]

It's not about being uninformed or uneducated on the matter. They just do not care and refuse to accept the logic and argument on our side. They want the guns gone, or at a minimum 'on record' and that's that. It's really that simple. They think/believe guns are bad, that nobody should have them, that nobody needs them, and that the police and military are how society should be protected. Completely different mindset. And as a result, they want everybody to believe that, just like they want you to believe in abortion, high taxes, nanny state, the public good, etc.

Obama believes it's 'in our culture'. Which is code for 'we can change that' and then get rid of all the guns. Pretty easy to follow the bouncing ball. There is a method to his (and other progressive/liberal) madness. It's calculated.

Once you say...will a criminal get a background check? (i.e. criminal BEFORE they got their weapon) Or, how many legally purchased and legally owned weapons are ever used by a criminal? (i.e. exclude the school shooters and domestic violence scenario where such a law has no impact) All they are going to do (and can do in the face of these questions) is return to how unreasonable you are being or play an emotional card making you look like a demon where it's about keeping the children safe.

They are lyers, control freaks, power hungry, and pure evil. Period.

[Barth]

Lots of these proposed laws sound good on a high level to the uninformed.
But often the devil is in the details.

And statements that 90% of americans support such laws
seem grossly exaggerated and irresponsible.

The gun disarmament groups continue to get creative with their methods.
Constantly adapting and changing their attack on our second amendment rights.

I think strong clear language.
Maybe modern amendments/laws detailing our rights may be in order.
If 200 year old language isn't sufficient.
Lets make things crystal clear.

[knkali]

I am for it as long as there is no registration which we all know is not the reality of the proposal. The NRA supports backround checks if they are only that...backround checks and not registration. So if the NRA supports it, I do too.

[chrish]

But that's why we are where we are. The 2A is not seen by those that want gun control as a basic right, because it was placed into an amendment model that allows repeal, therefore it is seen NOT as a natural right but as a granted right. According to those folks, regardless of the intent w/ the BoR, it can be repealed. That being the case, it can be regulated. That's just what they believe. I don't think any further language is necessary or will do any good. They believe what they believe and it's going to come down to an argument or a fight one way or the other.

Hell, if you can't convince them by saying, how about we curb your 1A rights? Then there is nowhere else to go. Let's ban your ability to email your representatives. Let's limit you to 1 verbal diatribe online per year. Let's ban Presybterians, or limit the world to only say 100,000 Baptists.

The just will not get it, they are incapable, they refuse to acknowledge that the 2A goes hand in hand with the rest. That's is guaranteed. They won some fights in the past and they will keep going until they have complete domination in this area.

This was the PRIME reason that folks like Madison (and many others) didn't initially want to do this (BoR) in the first place. He felt it unnecessary. The Constitution was enough. It enumerated the powers of government, period. Religion, speech, guns, NONE were mentioned therefore it would be hands off. The amendment process wasn't intended to have something like the BoR in it. Those are to be untouched by human hands. But, they had to compromise to get the damned thing signed and now we find ourselves here.

[downtownv]

I remember this message in the service by a drill sergeant "liking leads to loving"
Background checks leads to Registration? registration sas who to see where to go and what to collect......as Muggsy would say "Shall Not Infringe" This may/can be the unlocked door, given this administrations hello bent crusade. he's in CT campaigning with the poor little children again and they (CT) already dealt a serious blow to the 2A! THE UN Constutuion State.

[Bawanna]

Lots of these proposed laws sound good on a high level to the uninformed.
But often the devil is in the details.

And statements that 90% of americans support such laws
seem grossly exaggerated and irresponsible.

The gun disarmament groups continue to get creative with their methods.
Constantly adapting and changing their attack on our second amendment rights.

I think strong clear language.
Maybe modern amendments/laws detailing our rights may be in order.
If 200 year old language isn't sufficient.
Lets make things crystal clear.

Sadly this will never happen and to think of creating new modern amendments would imply that our old constitutional rights are questionable. Just want the morons want for fuel to take all of our guns away.

I prefer consistent back ground checks but not between private parties, family members, and friends etc. If they want background checks on all transfers they need to streamline it, make it mindlessly easy and FREE. And you know none of those ideals are feasible in government of any size.

[chrish]

Ah, but there is no need for a background check in the first place if you think about it.

If you have a voter card, you are not a felon. Otherwise, you have (or should have) a right to exercise your 2A right and natural right to defend yourself. If you have a voter card, then even if your state wants to infringe on your 2A right and require a CCW permit, your voter card should serve that purpose. With either a voter card or a CCW permit, you should not need a background check. I don't believe in CCW permits either. Stupid.

Furthermore, I should be able to purchase a firearm in any state with said documents.

Furthermore, if felons were kept where they should be, anyone should be able to purchase a firearm. If they are violent and should not have a weapon, maybe they shouldn't be on the street. If they have served their time and debt to society and are truly 'reformed' then maybe they should be able to defend themselves.

In the end, this is really simple. If you aren't an escape convict, there shouldn't be an issue.

Good luck w/ my model :-)

[Bawanna]

Only fly in the ointment is the Domestic Assault clause. People convicted of DV unfortunately can still vote but that's an easy fix too.

Make Domestic Violence Assault a Felony, do away with all the Brady check crap and we're good to go.

[chrish]

Sounds good to me...

[downtownv]

Heard on Rush.... That the ATF is being given the go ahead to a Super Computer System to track Gun Owners, who they associate with what they own/purchase act... which registration of gun owners is currently illegal!

[Barth]

Heard on Rush.... That the ATF is being given the go ahead to a Super Computer System to track Gun Owners, who they associate with what they own/purchase act... which registration of gun owners is currently illegal!

I'm sure glad they don't want my guns!

[downtownv]

I'm sure glad they don't want my guns!
he he he...

[muggsy]

I am for it as long as there is no registration which we all know is not the reality of the proposal. The NRA supports backround checks if they are only that...backround checks and not registration. So if the NRA supports it, I do too.

The NRA does not support universal background checks. The NRA knows that most criminals obtain their guns criminally and when criminals are caught attempting to purchase through a FFL that less than 3% are ever prosecuted for their crime. The NRA also knows that universal background checks won't work without gun registration and the NRA is opposed to any form of gun registration.