Would You Be Opposed To This

[Grelber]

Have you looked at the words on your avatar?

Careful, I have a mustache

 

[ironman870]

Careful, I have a mustache

 

[Bunnykid68]

I see both sides of the issue here. No, background checks will not work. Criminals will pick up a gun illegally no matter what. But at the same time, I have nothing to hide nor do i want it to look like i do.

I guess i am confused on guns "being in a persons name" here in Indiana though. In a previous thread i posted, i read it as guns in Indiana arent registered to the owners name? Am i correct? But here i read it as they are because if a gun store closes down they have records of all previous sales made. Somebody fill me in. lol

heres the thread
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/general_firearms_discussion/274040-ltch_question.html

"Indiana has no "registration"

I have everything to hide. It is no ones business what I do or do not have. If I want someone to know what I have I will invite them in and show them.

 

[chraland51]

I do not want more background checks. I have been fingerprinted more times than I can count before I got my lifetime permit to carry. I have no criminal record. I have no mental illness record. As a decent person and a citizen, I just do not want to have to tell anyone everything that I have. None of it is illegal. It is just none of their buisness. Why should I list all of my guns when I know that the criminals will not list theirs? If I had an old Marlin bolt action 22 rifle and wanted to give it to my grandson, I do not want to have to pay for that privilege and then have his name put on some list so that he has to perpertually pay for the privilege to have his grandad's old rifle. I do not believe the reasons for doing such things that the federal government is spewing out of the filthy lying mouths. They have lied about and spun and biased and skewed everything that they have told us. They act like their intentions are pure, but even if some of them did have good intentions, the rest of them would use such information to confiscate all the weapons that I may or may not own. It would only be a matter of time before some federal goon would come to my door demanding to search my property and sieze all firearms. I can easily see an annual owner's tax on each and every firearm that a person might own. All this talk about registering your firearms every five years would not be a free program. I am sure that there would be costs associated with that.

Did anyone else see a program on public television last night where for parts of the program they had liberal college professors trying to tell us exactly what the 2nd amendment intended and what it allows for? After I got quite sick and puked all over my carpet, I had to change the channel to pawn stars and American pickers to watch those crooks at work. I knew that their presentations would be biased as soon as they were identified. I guess that I will never again donate any money to public television.

 

[Beau]

Well I can tell I should have kept my mouth shut. sorry ingo, just wanted to be informed

You asked a question and received answers, some passionate. Don't get mad because the answers aren't in line with your established opinion on the subject.

 

[EvilleT]

BAD IDEA!

 

[Mark 1911]

An LTCH is not needed to purchase a handgun now. Not everyone who owns a handgun carries a handgun. NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Time to end all discussions of compromises or additional controls of any kind whatsoever. The other side will not stop until all of our rights are gone. This administration can not be trusted, do not give them a single inch. We need to push back in the opposite direction. If you want to write a letter to your state rep, ask him to introduce a bill as was done in MO, to make the introduction of any further gun control legislation a felony.

 

[Bunnykid68]

We already do not have a right to carry a handgun, why on earth would we want any other laws?

 

[mjblazor]

statistical propaganda

Top 10 most common murder weapons |

 

[rvb]

Time to end all discussions of compromises or additional controls of any kind whatsoever. The other side will not stop until all of our rights are gone.

What we need is better compromising / negotiating skills in congress. What we are doing currently is NOT compromising, it's just conceding to give up less freedom than the gun-control folks would like us to. It feels like we are bargaining with theives, and walking away happy if we only give them half of what was in our wallets!

I've even written my representatives saying that -IF- we must give in to new regulations, then compromise means the other side must give up something too. For example, if background checks become "universal" and we put our faith in the implied registration and "worthiness" of gun buyers, than we should reduce the NFA registration tax for silencers and SBRs/SBSs and eliminate the additional months-long NFA background check for those items [just keeping them in the NFRTR]. Or -IF- we have to give in to magazine capacity restrictions, then we should also repeal the '86 FOPA machine gun ban since w/ reduced capacity mags the potential for violence from MGs should be considered reduced.

Compromise should result in "win-win," or at least both sides conceding something. It's possible that such amendments would make gun-control supporters squirm and perhaps not vote in favor of new legislation, maintaining the status quo. We need to turn the tables.... such tactics are how the '86 FOPA MG ban was included in a bill that otherwise was supposed to be pro-gun-owner. For decades gun owners have been in a purely defensive mode (w/ exception for right-to-carry issues) and it's time we start putting the other side on the defensive... especially since we now have decades of proof that more restrictions don't result in reduced crime.

-rvb

 

[TravisJ]

As had been stated, it's just backdoor registration. It's a bad idea and just because liberals call it "reasonable" or "sensible" or my favorite " common sense gun safety" does not make it so. If it isn't going to do anything to reduce crime, it's anything but. And even if it would reduce crime a little, it still wouldn't be worth losing more liberty. Just my.

 

[mistap]

Vehemently.

 

[IndyDave1776]

There is only one thing regarding gun laws that I would accept:

Constitution\SecondAmendment\infringements> del *.*

 

[ironman870]

I have everything to hide. It is no ones business what I do or do not have. If I want someone to know what I have I will invite them in and show them.

Do you have a job? I guarantee they did a background check on you after your interview. What about a drug test? Im pretty sure lots of druggies are able to keep jobs so whats the point? They check on you to get a LTCH too.

2 years ago I applied for a weekly volunteer position to work with kids at my church. Guess what? Background check.

 

[Mgderf]

Some members of Congress want to introduce legislation that will require universal background checks for all gun purchases. I do not know why gun owners are opposed to this idea.

I want to write a letter to one of our senators if he would introduce a bill saying that if people want to purchase firearms from a private seller the buyer needs to have a ltch. Since most private sellers won't sell a pistol without seeing a ltch, is it a bad idea if it became law applying to long gun and pistol private sales.

Any input is appreciated.

Those who would give up liberty for perceived security deserve neither.

"A free man shall never be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson

 

[2cool9031]

They want you to think by making a compromise that... that will be the end of it....In reality they will never be happy till we are all disarmed. I think that gun owners have been pushed too far already.

 

[UNLOCKEM]

The problem with the government starting with background checks is that they won't stop there. They continue to get another foot in the door (which is already there) and they will take and take and take!
If they ever did what they said they would do and thats it, we might believe them, but once they start, they don't stop!

 

[zippy23]

Its not about background checks, its the first step to establish a GUN REGISTRY. they need to know exactly who has what so they can plan to take it. its that simple. They dont even enforce the laws on the books already so it has NOTHING to do with safety or reducing crime...again its the first step to eventually getting all of our guns, it has been done numerous times in history and always ends bad, since it is the result of liberalism.

 

[zippy23]

Do you have a job? I guarantee they did a background check on you after your interview. What about a drug test? Im pretty sure lots of druggies are able to keep jobs so whats the point? They check on you to get a LTCH too.

2 years ago I applied for a weekly volunteer position to work with kids at my church. Guess what? Background check.

this is just the first step in getting a gun registry, to find out who exactly has what, bills in washington state have been proposed to allow cops to INSPECT homes of rifle owners, this is just one example of many that they are doing to gain access to your information and eventually take what you have. And yeah why dont you get pissed about a background check and drug test for your job? Druggies get around drug tests all the time, there are numerous ways to beat the tests, again proving that background checks do very little to stop anything.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Do you have a job? I guarantee they did a background check on you after your interview. What about a drug test? Im pretty sure lots of druggies are able to keep jobs so whats the point? They check on you to get a LTCH too.

2 years ago I applied for a weekly volunteer position to work with kids at my church. Guess what? Background check.

And because you submitted to all of these infringements makes it ok?

You just admitted you do not even have a right to carry a handgun. What else are you willing to concede?