Would You Be Opposed To This

[jLr]

Obama administration definition of "compromise" :
We will let you keep some of your 2nd Amendment right if...________________________.

Our rights were not granted to us by the government. They are not theirs to take away or let us keep, fully or partially. Agree completely with the NO COMPROMISES pledge.

 

[j4jenk]

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

The NRA has a shorter video that links background checks to registration using the Justice Departments own findings: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHmxY7zE5uc[/ame]

 

[danielson]

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.

SO a murderer should be able to legally buy a gun?

Its actually pretty easy to determine who shouldnt be allowed. When you commit a serious violent crime, you have just forfeited your rights.

I dont understand why there is nothing but pushback when I say this. No one ever complains that a criminal has his right to FREEDOM taken away, when hes incarcerated, but start telling me the constitution doesnt say certain people dont have the right to bear arms.

ITS OBVIOUS that some people have forfeited their rights. The 2A included.

Now heres the problem. How does a shop owner know the man hes selling to, has chosen to commit a violent crime, and thus, lost his right? Telepathy?

Some kind of check is required. Like the one we have. I say dont throw it out, just update it to make it more effective.

Anyone trying to push some background check that means you have to register your firearm, hasnt arrived at the most logical outcome, because they have another agenda.

 

[Bunnykid68]

SO a murderer should be able to legally buy a gun? No, they should be dead or in prison.

Its actually pretty easy to determine who shouldnt be allowed. When you commit a serious violent crime, you have just forfeited your rights. Then they should be dead or in prison

I dont understand why there is nothing but pushback when I say this. No one ever complains that a criminal has his right to FREEDOM taken away, when hes incarcerated, but start telling me the constitution doesnt say certain people dont have the right to bear arms. Some criminals should not have their freedoms taken away

ITS OBVIOUS that some people have forfeited their rights. The 2A included. And they should be dead or in prison

Now heres the problem. How does a shop owner know the man hes selling to, has chosen to commit a violent crime, and thus, lost his right? If they are free they should be able to purchase.Telepathy?

Some kind of check is required. Like the one we have. I say dont throw it out, just update it to make it more effective. How can you make it more effective when some people have not committed crimes yet or been caught?

Anyone trying to push some background check that means you have to register your firearm, hasnt arrived at the most logical outcome, because they have another agenda.

In red

 

[rvb]

SO a murderer should be able to legally buy a gun?

Its actually pretty easy to determine who shouldnt be allowed. When you commit a serious violent crime, you have just forfeited your rights.

I dont understand why there is nothing but pushback when I say this. No one ever complains that a criminal has his right to FREEDOM taken away, when hes incarcerated, but start telling me the constitution doesnt say certain people dont have the right to bear arms.

So you're ok w/ them getting one right back (freedom), but not another? If they aren't worthy of rejoining society, then they should still be locked up. The vast majorty of crimes are committed by repeat offenders... we could try to stop violent crime as you suggest by trying to stop them from getting the tools of the trade, or we could keep them locked up longer....

I support released criminals getting firearms, voting, owning property, etc. If they aren't fit to regain those rights, they aren't fit to be released. The current system of restricting rights of ciminals post incarceration is a bandaid on our in-and-out, early release, minimal punishment justice system.

you and i have discussed this before. yes, I would rather a person, even an ex-con, who wants a gun for illegal/violent purposes buy it in a store than steal one from me. He'll get it either way.

-rvb

 

[hornadylnl]

I think anyone who wants to attend church should have to pass a federal background check to make sure we're not getting any crazies in our churches and forming cults. Also, I think all churches should meet government approved standards to be legal.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I would rather a person, even an ex-con, who wants a gun for illegal/violent purposes buy it in a store than steal one from me. He'll get it either way.

-rvb

I never thought about it that way. At least buying it in a store they are paying tax on it, I still have my gun, I didn't have to report my gun stolen, the police did not have to waste their time taking a report.

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

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

No. Do not be sorry for starting a conversation. Talking about these issues is how we stay informed and how we counter the BS that the gun grabbers are spouting.

 

[rvb]

I never thought about it that way. At least buying it in a store they are paying tax on it, I still have my gun, I didn't have to report my gun stolen, the police did not have to waste their time taking a report.

... possibly assaulting my wife / kids / me, dealing w/ the trauma, sentimental guns never returned, etc etc. Nah... we HAVE to make sure they can't buy them in a store or through a private sale... for the children!

-rvb

 

[churchmouse]

Wow. This took a turn.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Wow. This took a turn.

Good or Bad?

 

[verv]

Given the current times I have to say im selling of my registered guns and going unregistered that way im not one of the first doors they break in when the gun grab starts. I will NOT give them up without a fight. And if universal background checks are being done then the govenment will have all of the information they need to come and try and take them.

 

[churchmouse]

Good or Bad?

That will play out over the evening. Just noting it took a turn. Nothing more.
Carry on.......................................

 

[churchmouse]

Given the current times I have to say im selling of my registered guns and going unregistered that way im not one of the first doors they break in when the gun grab starts. I will NOT give them up without a fight. And if universal background checks are being done then the govenment will have all of the information they need to come and try and take them.

Easy big guy. Open forum remember. The walls have ears. We are not alone in here.

 

[38special]

I think anyone who wants to attend church should have to pass a federal background check to make sure we're not getting any crazies in our churches and forming cults. Also, I think all churches should meet government approved standards to be legal.

Hey! You can't infringe on my right to practice religion. Even just "regulating" it infringes my right to freely practice.


Oh, how about that. I see what you did there.

 

[Light]

Given the current times I have to say im selling of my registered guns and going unregistered that way im not one of the first doors they break in when the gun grab starts. I will NOT give them up without a fight. And if universal background checks are being done then the govenment will have all of the information they need to come and try and take them.

If they were to knock on doors based on 4473's I would think they would just run down the list. Owned a gun before? Show us what you got. Don't have them anymore? Show us proof of where they went.

It however would take them a long time to compile all the paperwork (if they aren't actively adding 4473's into a database as of now)

 

[VoteRedTeam]

You don't know.
Haven't you read the reasons on other threads that people have posted.

The federal government is only allowed to do what is in the Constitution.
The claim is that the "Interstate Commerce" clause allows them to regulate firearms sales between states.
Hence they have justified (in their minds) the need for FFL transfer and background check being legal.
Now... How can you make the justification that they regulate what I sell to someone in the state, maybe even a family member???
Should they just throw out the rule of law. Make their own rules with no regard for the laws that created the federal government in the first place??

Another problem.
Universal Background Checks.......AREN'T UNIVERSAL.
Gang members buying... NO CHECK.
Drug dealers...... NO CHECK.
Murderer...... NO CHECK.

How about this.
The checks we already do... HAVEN'T STOPPED CRIME.
Not even a little.

Go back in history.
There was considerably less crime.
Enough happened, that people wanted some "gun control" to feel safe.
Then more crime.
Then more gun control.
Then more crime.
Then more gun control.

Notice a pattern?

How about the enforcement??
How do you make EVERY SALE conform to the law?

As regards to saving a life.
chemicals, baseball bats, swimming pools, fists, and hundreds (or thousands) of other things kill more people.
Do we start requiring a background check for a baseball bat?
Why not?
Isn't it still blaming the object?

I have to disagree with one main point. I check EVERY gang banger and drug dealer that I sell to. One driver's license and one gang sign gets you a gun!

 

[mrortega]

Let's put this in perspective. How about "reasonable" restrictions on abortion, like making it illegal to kill a baby just before delivery by drilling a hole in its skull and vacuum its brains out. How about "reasonable" restrictions on the 1st amendment, like forbidding any gun used in a crime to be even shown on TV or in a movie or video game? How about "reasonable" restrictions on our right to be secure in our homes by letting police enter any time they want to come in to check on us.

The point is, yeah, there have probably been inadvertent sales to felons by private sellers but that isn't the ruler. The elitist lefties and ruling class know that any restriction on their beloved rights to abortion, the press, etc. is the camel's nose under the tent. The whole body quickly follows.

Do you really want to have to go thru a check to sell/give a gun to your son or daughter?

 

[BoldCourageousWoman]

NO MORE "COMPROMISES".

AMEN!!

 

[mrortega]

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

Before you get slammed for appearing to be willing to compromise I'll say that I think I get your point. Let me state it in a typical tasteful Ortega manner: If you are about to be neutered by a thug in an alley and you have no escape be sure you do something to also move him from the bass to the alto section of the choir. Is that about your point?