universal background check question

[Koolbota]

This is the beginning of the process; We will force you to report your gun purchases
Biden: Senate Gun Bill Vote Only the Beginning
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 28, 2013


The White House has only just begun its fight against the Second Amendment, Vice President Joe Biden told New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns during a conference call on Wednesday.

“This is just the beginning. We believe that weapons of war have no place on our streets,” Biden said. “We believe there’s no rational reason why someone would need a clip that can hold 15, 20, 100 bullets, 100 rounds. We have to do more and we will do more.”

Biden said he believes Congress will ultimately force the American people to report their gun purchases to the federal government. “I think we’re on the verge of getting a serious thorough universal background check system in place,” he added.

“This so-called background check is aimed at one thing — registering your guns,” the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre said in February. “When another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns… Imagine right now your name on a massive government list.”

Biden said an upcoming vote in the Senate will not be the end of the government’s effort to restrict the Second Amendment and disarm the American people. “That doesn’t mean this is the end of the process. This is the beginning of the process,” he promised Bloomberg’s gun-grabbers.

The Vice President insisted Americans support having their Second Amendment stripped. “The American people are way ahead of their political leaders,” he said. “And we, the president and I and the mayors, intend to stay current with the American people.”

Prior to the Sandy Hook massacre, support for the Second Amendment was at an all-time high. “In 2008, Gallup found widespread agreement with the idea that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of Americans to own guns. Americans may also be moving toward more libertarian views in some areas,” Gallup reported in October, 2011.

“What’s interesting here is Americans are shifting to a more pro-gun stance despite high profile incidents of gun violence – like the Arizona shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others,” CNN reported.

Despite the government and establishment media mantra declaring Americans have a right to own firearms for self-protection and hunting, a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted in January of this year after Sandy Hook showed a majority of Americans believe the Second Amendment was established as a protection against tyranny.

“Seventy-four percent (74%) of all Americans continue to believe that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of an average citizen to own a gun. Just 17% disagree. These views haven’t changed in nearly four years of surveying,” the polling outfit reported.


This article was posted: Thursday, March 28, 2013 at 10:04 am

 

[Firefighterchen]

Yes. The harm would be the same if you had to have a background check before you could buy a baseball bat, or a knife, or a car, or a step-ladder, or any other piece of private property that has the potential to be dangerous, most of which of those listed, cause more deaths per year than guns do. Would it be harmful to your liberties to have to submit to warrantless questioning just because you needed/wanted one of those items?

Get your head in the game.



The so-called gun-show-loophole is a neighbor to neighbor transaction. Private parties living in the same general vicinity are neighbors, and promotion companies putting on gun shows are simply giving them a venue to meet, network, buy and sell, eat some lousy hot dogs etc. etc. The requirement to run NICS checks is on the FFL, not the private citizen, so if a private citizen is required to bring an FFL into a deal by virtue of a new law mandating such, that's "why not at gun shows." Leave me and my neighbors alone. We've been doing just fine without more government intrusion into our "unalienable" rights.



You just called a bunch of us dumb. I thought you just wanted some intelligent dialogue. Your "fully supportive of the 2nd Amendment" stated stance is getting weak in the knees the more you type.



You mean you don't know?



Been done before. NFA '34, GCA '68, FOPA '86, AWB '94, plus about 20,000 lesser-known laws that are currently on the books that gun owners have either acquiesced to their demand for compromise, or they have imposed said "compromises" on us involuntarily. And what have we gotten in return? A compromise is a two-way street. On the one hand, we have our God-given, fundamental, unalienable rights. What does government have to give us in return for allowing them to take little bits and pieces of them here and there? Not a damned thing except power-hungry tyranny, and you "don't think" gun bans will ever happen ain't all that comforting to those of us who have been paying attention to the events of the last 150 years or so.

Again, get your head in the game.



Now there's an interesting concept - being "SO 2A" that you don't qualify to answer a 2A question. Oh, but you are "fully supportive of the 2nd Amendment," right? Riiiight.

Sorry pal, you don't get to call people dumb, ask a bunch of common gun-grabber questions, and then try to stifle some of the members of this forum from answering. It is quite obviously you who hasn't thought your questions through to any semblance of logical conclusions, so I'm going to help you suss out those couple of issues....

There is really only one way to determine that someone who has never presented as "crazy" before is, indeed, crazy, and that is when they finally go off the rails. What would you have "the community" give up in the way of God-given, fundamental, unalienable rights to prevent them going off the rails unexpectedly? If a pre-off-the-rails buyer buys from an FFL or a private party, what law, short of banning all sales, is going to keep that undiagnosed crazy person from making a legal purchase? What background check is going to catch an undiagnosed mental deficient in a NICS check? And if we're so busy checking the mental health of everyone who deigns to exercise their rights by buying and owning guns, where did the HIPPA rights of privacy suddenly go? My doctor can't even inform my wife of quarterly blood-tests I have to have done, unless I consent to release that info. So now you're not only putting the government between the buyer and seller of guns, you're putting the government between doctors and patients, and many of those patients, myself included, interview doctors to make sure they will protect my privacy before patronizing their practice.

As far as felons having guns go, I am likely in a small minority on this forum, but I think it is a horrendous law. Mostly because there are so many felons who never hurt a soul (except maybe themselves), and never used a gun in the commission of whatever crime(s) they were involved in. A guy sitting behind a computer hacking into corporate accounts to steal money is obviously not the kind of guy who is going face-to-face to rob someone at gun-point. A kid who gets caught experimenting with a little blow when he's 18 should not be prevented from having the same ability to defend himself as all the rest of us have after he's served his time. And if this country is going to focus on life-long penalties for gun ownership for non-violent crime, then why don't they take away their 1st Amendment rights too? Why don't they say, "Mr. Lawbreaker, you may not speak your mind at the public square from this day forward. You may not attend the church of your choice. In fact, we, the all-knowing and all-powerful government, now hand down the edict that you may not attend any church at all. You may not engage in assemblies where your fellow "free" citizens are demanding redress of their grievances, and you may not make handbills stating your opinions on any matter. Oh, and you can't work for a newspaper or TV or radio news agency either. So decreed!"

If government can decree one right to be null and void due to criminal activity that had nothing whatsoever to do with the property or actions protected by that right, they can make null and void any right for any reason they deem necessary.

Man, get your head in the game.



First, quit referring to gun owners as "the gun community." We are not monolithic. As you can see, I feel stronger about some issues, others feel stronger about others, and we celebrate whatever we find we have in common, and debate whatever we have differences on. But there is no "gun community," and the sooner you address us as thinking, intelligent individuals, the sooner you will go from treating us as thoughtless, brainless lemmings to treating us with respect.

Otherwise, I guess the question is what should be done about crazies like Adam Lanza, Jarrod Loughner and James Holmes? As a gun owner, there's not a whole lot I can do, unless I'm there and can find a reasonable chance to intervene and take the guy out before he gets his body-count up where he'd like it to be before he (usually) takes himself out.

But if you're asking what more bits and pieces of my God-given, fundamental, unalienable rights am I willing to give up because (SURPRISE!!) there are crazies in this world, listen very carefully......NOT ONE MORE DAMNED INCH am I willing to give. In fact, the government owes me a refund on everything they've already stolen from my rights. I want them back. I have no interest, nor any intention, of willingly letting them go any further.



"Good faith effort?" We have to make a good faith effort? Where does this lunacy come from? Read the Bill of Rights. Read the Link Removed. Read the hundreds of available quotes from our Founding Fathers and other liberty-loving thinkers throughout American history. Read about the Link Removed that have been used to steal our 2nd Amendment rights out from under our noses because we lacked either the will or the brains to not allow it. Seek the undeniable truth that our government has not acted in good faith where our rights are concerned. Condition your mind so that your default position is always individual liberty, because that is what all of those links will prove is what's at stake when The People allow government to rule instead of govern them.

I personally, and I know quite a few others on this forum, have all given as much good faith effort as we have to give to this country. It's time this country gave it back. Not in the form of entitlement payments or food stamps or any kind of economic "giving," but in the form of the freedom it has stolen from us.

Man, get your head in the game.



It is so simple......Then work for freedom, and quit shilling for more government theft of freedom. Freedom is the game. Get your head in it.

Blues

Ok...then is concluded...

RevDej is a terrorist.

 

[NavyLCDR]

So what does the gun community suggest?

A universal background check is going to do nothing to stop mass shootings like Sandy Hook. What would I suggest? Punish the criminals instead of sensationalizing them in the media. They commit their crimes to die as "heroes", so let's stop making them heroes. We have armed guards that guard money in banks and armored cars, so why not have armed guards at schools and on school buses? Our money with more value than our children? Make schools secure buildings with doors that won't open from the outside, except for one designated entrance which is guarded with the armed guards and metal detectors. AND let's do away with the unarmed victim zones and other restrictions that only hinder the ability of citizens to defend themselves from criminals. In almost every mass shooting as soon as the shooter is met with armed resistance they kill themselves....so let them meet armed resistance right from the beginning before they have a chance to get to their victims.

 

[UATKP]

Click on the Edit Link at the bottom of the post you want to delete. Then, when that edit page opens, there will be a Delete button. Click on it. Then another little block will open at the bottom of the post. Click Delete This Message. Then Click Delete This Post. Done deal.

 

[UATKP]

Yes. The harm would be the same if you had to have a background check before you could buy a baseball bat, or a knife, or a car, or a step-ladder, or any other piece of private property that has the potential to be dangerous, most of which of those listed, cause more deaths per year than guns do. Would it be harmful to your liberties to have to submit to warrantless questioning just because you needed/wanted one of those items?

Get your head in the game.



The so-called gun-show-loophole is a neighbor to neighbor transaction. Private parties living in the same general vicinity are neighbors, and promotion companies putting on gun shows are simply giving them a venue to meet, network, buy and sell, eat some lousy hot dogs etc. etc. The requirement to run NICS checks is on the FFL, not the private citizen, so if a private citizen is required to bring an FFL into a deal by virtue of a new law mandating such, that's "why not at gun shows." Leave me and my neighbors alone. We've been doing just fine without more government intrusion into our "unalienable" rights.



You just called a bunch of us dumb. I thought you just wanted some intelligent dialogue. Your "fully supportive of the 2nd Amendment" stated stance is getting weak in the knees the more you type.



You mean you don't know?



Been done before. NFA '34, GCA '68, FOPA '86, AWB '94, plus about 20,000 lesser-known laws that are currently on the books that gun owners have either acquiesced to their demand for compromise, or they have imposed said "compromises" on us involuntarily. And what have we gotten in return? A compromise is a two-way street. On the one hand, we have our God-given, fundamental, unalienable rights. What does government have to give us in return for allowing them to take little bits and pieces of them here and there? Not a damned thing except power-hungry tyranny, and you "don't think" gun bans will ever happen ain't all that comforting to those of us who have been paying attention to the events of the last 150 years or so.

Again, get your head in the game.



Now there's an interesting concept - being "SO 2A" that you don't qualify to answer a 2A question. Oh, but you are "fully supportive of the 2nd Amendment," right? Riiiight.

Sorry pal, you don't get to call people dumb, ask a bunch of common gun-grabber questions, and then try to stifle some of the members of this forum from answering. It is quite obviously you who hasn't thought your questions through to any semblance of logical conclusions, so I'm going to help you suss out those couple of issues....

There is really only one way to determine that someone who has never presented as "crazy" before is, indeed, crazy, and that is when they finally go off the rails. What would you have "the community" give up in the way of God-given, fundamental, unalienable rights to prevent them going off the rails unexpectedly? If a pre-off-the-rails buyer buys from an FFL or a private party, what law, short of banning all sales, is going to keep that undiagnosed crazy person from making a legal purchase? What background check is going to catch an undiagnosed mental deficient in a NICS check? And if we're so busy checking the mental health of everyone who deigns to exercise their rights by buying and owning guns, where did the HIPPA rights of privacy suddenly go? My doctor can't even inform my wife of quarterly blood-tests I have to have done, unless I consent to release that info. So now you're not only putting the government between the buyer and seller of guns, you're putting the government between doctors and patients, and many of those patients, myself included, interview doctors to make sure they will protect my privacy before patronizing their practice.

As far as felons having guns go, I am likely in a small minority on this forum, but I think it is a horrendous law. Mostly because there are so many felons who never hurt a soul (except maybe themselves), and never used a gun in the commission of whatever crime(s) they were involved in. A guy sitting behind a computer hacking into corporate accounts to steal money is obviously not the kind of guy who is going face-to-face to rob someone at gun-point. A kid who gets caught experimenting with a little blow when he's 18 should not be prevented from having the same ability to defend himself as all the rest of us have after he's served his time. And if this country is going to focus on life-long penalties for gun ownership for non-violent crime, then why don't they take away their 1st Amendment rights too? Why don't they say, "Mr. Lawbreaker, you may not speak your mind at the public square from this day forward. You may not attend the church of your choice. In fact, we, the all-knowing and all-powerful government, now hand down the edict that you may not attend any church at all. You may not engage in assemblies where your fellow "free" citizens are demanding redress of their grievances, and you may not make handbills stating your opinions on any matter. Oh, and you can't work for a newspaper or TV or radio news agency either. So decreed!"

If government can decree one right to be null and void due to criminal activity that had nothing whatsoever to do with the property or actions protected by that right, they can make null and void any right for any reason they deem necessary.

Man, get your head in the game.



First, quit referring to gun owners as "the gun community." We are not monolithic. As you can see, I feel stronger about some issues, others feel stronger about others, and we celebrate whatever we find we have in common, and debate whatever we have differences on. But there is no "gun community," and the sooner you address us as thinking, intelligent individuals, the sooner you will go from treating us as thoughtless, brainless lemmings to treating us with respect.

Otherwise, I guess the question is what should be done about crazies like Adam Lanza, Jarrod Loughner and James Holmes? As a gun owner, there's not a whole lot I can do, unless I'm there and can find a reasonable chance to intervene and take the guy out before he gets his body-count up where he'd like it to be before he (usually) takes himself out.

But if you're asking what more bits and pieces of my God-given, fundamental, unalienable rights am I willing to give up because (SURPRISE!!) there are crazies in this world, listen very carefully......NOT ONE MORE DAMNED INCH am I willing to give. In fact, the government owes me a refund on everything they've already stolen from my rights. I want them back. I have no interest, nor any intention, of willingly letting them go any further.



"Good faith effort?" We have to make a good faith effort? Where does this lunacy come from? Read the Bill of Rights. Read the Link Removed. Read the hundreds of available quotes from our Founding Fathers and other liberty-loving thinkers throughout American history. Read about the Link Removed that have been used to steal our 2nd Amendment rights out from under our noses because we lacked either the will or the brains to not allow it. Seek the undeniable truth that our government has not acted in good faith where our rights are concerned. Condition your mind so that your default position is always individual liberty, because that is what all of those links will prove is what's at stake when The People allow government to rule instead of govern them.

I personally, and I know quite a few others on this forum, have all given as much good faith effort as we have to give to this country. It's time this country gave it back. Not in the form of entitlement payments or food stamps or any kind of economic "giving," but in the form of the freedom it has stolen from us.

Man, get your head in the game.



It is so simple......Then work for freedom, and quit shilling for more government theft of freedom. Freedom is the game. Get your head in it.

Blues

Blues, You said it better than I've ever heard it said. Bravo!!
Thanks for taking the time.
Al

 

[S&W645]

Absolutely correct. We are now at the point where we can comprimise on NOTHING! As soon as you give into the antis they immediately come back for more. If you fight them tooth and nail on everything, and even if they win, they leave us alone for awhile while they resupply and regroup. Say again, COMPROMISE ON NOTHING, FIGHT AGAINST ALL INFRINGMENTS!!!!

Actually I think there is room for compromise. They shut the heck up and we don't open a can of WA on them. Unless the WA is nearing expiration and then you do it just to not be wasteful. Liberals hate waste except in gov't. :biggrin:

 

[revdej]

No need to carry the thread longer. I hear your points and appreciate all input. A couple of you a little stronger that I thought was needed, but, obviously passionate about what you're saying. Like I said, I'm relatively new to CCW (about a year now) and looking to be able to defend my position. Your input has helped. Thanks to all.

 

[BluesStringer]

No need to carry the thread longer. I hear your points and appreciate all input. A couple of you a little stronger that I thought was needed, but, obviously passionate about what you're saying. Like I said, I'm relatively new to CCW (about a year now) and looking to be able to defend my position. Your input has helped. Thanks to all.

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!" Barry Goldwater - 1964

Not trying to argue, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out something here. So you're new to CCW. Congratulations. Really, I mean that. And welcome. I mean that too. But you didn't ask a CCW question, you asked us what would be the harm in government imposing more rules and regulations on a God-given, fundamental, unalienable right. Doesn't really matter which right we're talking about, because as I alluded to before, allow them to take one, and they can take all the others whenever they please. Allow them to weaken and/or compromise the full original meaning of one, and they can do the same to any other they choose. That's why you got some strong reactions. Gun owners who are aware of what's going on (and that decidedly is not all of us, which is why I resist being lumped in with the "community") feel besieged by this usurping government. We feel that the same government that many of us served in the military or LE has turned on us. Any move towards disarming us will be seen as an attempt to complete that turn towards oppression and tyranny. It can't happen. We as American Patriots, not only gun owners, cannot allow it to happen. Your questions seemed to suggest we should allow it. That's why you got strongly-worded answers. I hope you will avail yourself of the reading material I suggested for you though. All the answers are there within the texts.

God Bless,

Blues

 

[2Awarrior]

Does anybody know of a gun show that doesn't require background checks?

Been to shows in NY, PA, CT, FLA, GA and California. Have never seen a transaction going down without a background check.
I went to a local showed sponsored by a small VFW post. There were two whole tables. And when I pulled up, there was a guy outside with his cell phone, talking to the FBI.
I always chuckle when I hear the term "gun show loophole". I have no idea what the heck it means.

 

[Deanimator]

Thanks. I'm sure I'll get a lot more feedback. (And, folks, I don't visit the site too much; you'll just have to believe I'm no troll - just seeking information.) So what does the gun community suggest? I know - there is not a SINGLE LAW that would have stopped Sandy Hook or any other shooting. In fact, that is my main line when others engage me in conversation about guns and gun rights. Laws will not stop criminals. But, what can our community do as a "good faith effort" that will do no harm to the 2A? I'd like to be known as someone working together for solutions withouth eroding our freedom.

1. There's no such thing as a "good faith effort" with anti-gunners. What they consider a "good faith effort" from us is no different from what Adolf Eichmann wanted as a "good faith effort" from Anne Frank, total capitulation and elimination.
2. If you just want to limit the check to gunshows, can I tell the seller that I want to buy his gun, then go across the street to Denny's and buy it there WITHOUT the check?

All of this is just a stalking horse for REGISTRATION, which has NO purpose besides facilitation of future bans and confiscations.

My one and only answer is "NO, I REFUSE."

 

[CharlesMorrison]

My Rights of gun ownership are non-negotiable... Period. We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Only YOU can give up your rights, they cannot be forcibly removed.

I will surrender NOTHING. I will give NOTHING.

Link Removed

 

[AndeyHall]

Here's the best way I can think about it...lets say they managed to ban all guns and after that they see that a lot of people are getting beaten to death with golf clubs. I don't play golf, watch golf, and could care less if they get banned. With enough media coverage of all the golf club beating around the country, I might start stigmatizing those who own golf clubs as violent and threatening individuals. This is how anti-gunners view guns. They don't have any, they don't want to own any. They don't do anything where they would want or need to have them, and they don't care what it is you do that makes you want or need them. They just see what they can do on tv and they think everyone who owns one is a threat to society. Lack of reality and education is all I can call it.

 

[mappow]

The higher end of the Anti-gunners have hired people that CC to protect themselves against people that CC whether legal or not. They care less if you can protect yourself but are addimit on protecting themselves. If the second was truly up for debate, then lets have a Article 5 convention. Any other spewing of limiting the Bill of Rights cannot be infringe upon. ANYBODY ever wonder why (and there are a lot of people here that do) this Second Amendment is the only one that mentions "Shall NOT be infringed". NO other article mentions this. Ya think there's a reason?

 

[iznot]

The problem appears to be that if we have background checks just at gun shows, then the anti group will push for universal background checks the next time some deviant commits a newsworthy crime with a gun. Once universal checks are in place there must be some sort of registration or permanently kept records for it to be of any value. Example: You use a gun to defend yourself. Now the police know you have one. They don't know if you obtained it legally (by going thru a check) unless they know the "carfax" on that gun. And once they determine that registration is needed for the system to work, we know where registration can and most likely will lead to.

 

[rifleshooter474]

I can't see where it would make it any safer all it would do is force people to step outside of the gun show to buy or sell a firearm. And for anyone who uses a FFL background check, just another unneeded use of their money. To me it's just another useless item like banning a Mag. over 7 rounds. It's not going to stop anything. All that is needed is to enforce the firearm laws that are already on the books. Like the NRA is saying more protection is needed at schools, and more of the people committing the crimes with firearms need long prison time not plea deals putting back on the streets in a year or two.