Would You Be Opposed To This

[Bennettjh]

I am VERY opposed to this, simple as that.

 

[ironman870]

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?

Youre using liberal tactics on me. Youre taking a small insignificant peice of what i said and creating an answer with it.

Infringments? You dont have to take the job that requires a drug test. Nobody is forcing you to. Just like i didnt have to volunteer at church or apply for the LTCH. You dont have the right to drive. Nobody does. Yet the DMV asks you personal questions for your license. You dont have to do that. Whats the big deal?

Back to my first post: all im trying to get is an answer on whats the difference between a background check on a new gun vs a used one?

 

[Smokepole]

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.

Yes, and none of these are being required by THE GOVERNMENT on an arbitrary basis. These are people and entities that are performing the checks for themselves. With the exception of the LTCH. And I don't agree with or like that but it is already in place and doesn't stop any criminal from getting a gun that he is intent on obtaining.

 

[jdmack79]

You dont have the right to drive. Nobody does. Yet the DMV asks you personal questions for your license. You dont have to do that. Whats the big deal?

Please tell me that your are not serious. How do I not have the right to freely travel? Should I have to beg permission from the government to leave my house?

The big deal is that you shouldn't regulate a RIGHT. Many gun owners seem to be OK with a few regulations and infringements upon the second amendment as long as it doesn't effect them.

Are the ill-informed ever going to realize that the constitution gives us the definitive answer as to how much gun control we should have?

 

[Cottong2001]

To me, universal backgrounds checks are like putting a 3' fence around your house for the purpose of keeping criminals from gaining access. It's only going to keep the honest people out.

Also, a lot of people use a car or drivers license as a comparison to gun ownership (I've done it but intend to stop doing it) There's a big difference. There's no specific mention of cars in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. "Arms" on the other hand, are specifically mentioned and your right to keep and bear them is expressly protected.

 

[TravisJ]

"Universal" bg checks are anything but universal, since anyone who wants to get around it can. The only thing it does is discourage more law abiding citizens from buying guns. I know the system we have right now does not work so why expand upon it. If a criminal wants a gun they will have their girlfriend/wife/family member buy one and then said family member reports it stolen and gives it to them. Thats just the easiest way that popped into my head, determined criminals will find countless other ways around it. So why infringe upon 2A even more for nothing. There is absolutely no sensible reason to do it. Unless your a gun grabbing liberal who wants every law abiding citizen disarmed, then there is every reason to make it look like a good idea.

 

[possum_128]

You know it's gun owners such as your self that are part of the problem. Willing to give up a little bit of our freedom one little law at a time. Do not give up an inch of freedom! When was the last time you heard of a freedom being restored? They want to take them not give them away.

We either all stand together or like you and the French, throw up the white flag and give up. I feel sorry for you and others like you, you all will be the downfall of our country.

 

[Grelber]

You know it's gun owners such as your self that are part of the problem. Willing to give up a little bit of our freedom one little law at a time. Do not give up an inch of freedom! When was the last time you heard of a freedom being restored? They want to take them not give them away.

We either all stand together or like you and the French, throw up the white flag and give up. I feel sorry for you and others like you, you all will be the downfall of our country.

Standing together on common issues is not the same thing as cowering down to the most conservative or most strongly voiced opinions in the group, and all who want to keep their guns are probably better served if we can stay away from assigning blame and name calling.

I think it is a universal truth that if you can look at the guy on the other side of an honest disagreement and come up with negative things to say about him, he can look at you and do the same thing.

 

[Hohn]

I personally believe that there are points on which gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters have to compromise with the federal government and every other entity which wants to get involved.

I also believe we've already done that numerous times. We each have to have a background check when we purchase a firearm. Firearms dealers must be licensed by the ATF. We must buy stamps from the ATF for certain purchases. We had to live under the last AWB.

The list goes on and on.

There has to be a line in the sand or else we're no better than the herd out there accepting every bit of b.s. the government decides to feed them.

WE all know that new gun control isn't going to do anything to stop criminals from using firearms to commit crimes.

WE all know that it won't stop some psycho from snapping and killing a bunch of innocent people.

WE all know that it won't make this country any safer.

WE all know that this is simply another in a long line of attacks on who we are and what we believe in at the very core of our beings.

I, for one, oppose ANY new legislation on gun control because it is simply another way to for the federal government to convince the herd that they are doing something to make things better. WE all know that it's nothing more.

This^^.

The compromising has happened time and again. They just keep moving the goal posts.

One common theme with big gov't Statist Liberals is that it's NEVER enough. Ask how clean the air should be or the water. How much should we spend on fighting poverty or on AIDS research? On public schools? How much tax should the most successful pay?

There's always the same answer to each of these questions: "MORE." It's never enough.


It's time to start moving the goal posts back the other way.

 

[BuddieReigns]

I'm not for it. I'm lazy and it seems like more hassle.

 

[jLr]

Back to my first post: all im trying to get is an answer on whats the difference between a background check on a new gun vs a used one?

The simple answer is the likelyhood of the government keeping the background check information for registration purposes. In a private sale (no background check), no one (aka government) knows what you have. And why should they?

 

[churchmouse]

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.

Really....................just stupid in my mind but you can see things as you wish.
Having the pink does not make you a proper person. We do that with out credentials and background checks.
Just having a piece of paper does not make us who we are inside.

How does the pink make anything better, really. I know more than a few LTCH credentialed idiots that do not have the sense to own or carry but that is my opinion and not a right to infringe.

This is of course JMHO and not a knock on you or your views of the world and our current predicament.

 

[ashby koss]

Get your fire suit on, here comes the **** storm.

No truer words have been spoken lol.

There should be no more compromises. ANY "infringement" (as I see it) on the 2nd amendment is traitorous as being against our Constitution.

 

[Cpt Caveman]

)
I do, however believe that a person should be vetted in some way, prior to purchase, and most people here do as well.How do we make this happen?

Are you the guy qualified to make the decision as to who does or doesn't get to own a firearm?
How do we go down that slippery slope when we can't trust elected officials to even speak the truth?
You expect an elected (or more likely, appointed) official to fairly decide who gets to own guns...seems like you're ok with allowing someone else to decide your fate. Lotsa folks here aren't willing to give up that right.

I for one don't want a government employee deciding whether or not I'm ok to buy a rifle.
You got to quit the mental gymnastics and decide what you think. There's not much room for gray areas in this.

 

[ironman870]

The simple answer is the likelyhood of the government keeping the background check information for registration purposes. In a private sale (no background check), no one (aka government) knows what you have. And why should they?

You answered my question! Thank you. I was totally unaware that a background check would potentially mean the government knew what you had. So back to another question, does Indiana have gun registration? If I went out and bought a new 870 at GM, would they know I had it? (serial number, model, specifications etc.)

 

[dfranks]

The short answer is because it wont do crap to stop anything.
CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS

Rather than post what has already be said many times over.
Try reading this pdf online. It is a letter from the NRA-ILA's Executive Director to the U.S. Congress covering "Universal Background Checks"

http://cms.nraila.org/media/10900841/nra_letter_to_congress_2-13-13_backgroundchecks.pdf

I totally agree and say that quite often. All of this gun legislation and laws are for law biding citizens. People who do bad things with guns are not concerned about the laws because they are NOT law biding citizens. And until the day comes when we start cutting the hands off of the criminals they will continue to not care about gun laws.

 

[jLr]

You answered my question! Thank you. I was totally unaware that a background check would potentially mean the government knew what you had. So back to another question, does Indiana have gun registration? If I went out and bought a new 870 at GM, would they know I had it? (serial number, model, specifications etc.)

Technically, no there is no registration in Indiana or at the federal level. I look at background checks as "kinda registration." As long as there is no background check for private sales, their "kinda registration" will be ineffective in my opinion. Private sale background checks are the missing link to full blown registration.

Watch this video. A very good explanation:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._want_universal_background_checks_do_you.html

 

[Cpt Caveman]

If you think they don't know you have it then I'd expect you're sorely mistaken. Do you trust them enough to believe that they will NOT keep or use that information for a purpose other than it was originally intended?
They're debating whether or not its ok to kill US civilians here in the US with drones for goodness sake! How do you not see the creeping over reach ?
I'm still not convinced that we don't have a bunch of folks on here that are here simply to inject doubt in the minds of 2nd amendment supporters.
Stand up for the things you believe in folks. May come a time when we have to do much more than debate pro infringement folks to keep them.

 

[ashby koss]

If you think they don't know you have it then I'd expect you're sorely mistaken. Do you trust them enough to believe that they will NOT keep or use that information for a purpose other than it was originally intended?
They're debating whether or not its ok to kill US civilians here in the US with drones for goodness sake! How do you not see the creeping over reach ?
I'm still not convinced that we don't have a bunch of folks on here that are here simply to inject doubt in the minds of 2nd amendment supporters.
Stand up for the things you believe in folks. May come a time when we have to do much more than debate pro infringement folks to keep them.

Totally agree. There has been alot of no backbone posts lately talking about compromise. No more Compromises. I see ANY infringement of the 2nd amendment as a traitorous act, (to be quite honest). This was all laid out in plain english in our constitution, something that our "dear" President has vowed to protect while at the same time attempting to tear it apart. How can this be allowed? We should, IMHO, treat traitors as traitors.

 

[Hammerhead]

No compromises. None. It does nothing to curb gun violence. 99% of gun violence is perpetrated by criminals, not law abiding gun owners.

For those of you interested in where to start on reversing the tide of restrictions placed on gun owners via LTCH and related background checks, I'll just leave this right here:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...censing_and_the_nfa_are_unconstitutional.html

Compromise is an agreement between two parties. I don't see any sentiment of compromise from those who wish to infringe on our inherent natural rights. They aren't giving anything in return, they're only taking. That's not compromise, that's a false negotiation.

I will not give my rights up to a politician, or anyone who attempts to legislate them away, no more than I would give my rights up to a LEO.

My rights are non-negotiable.