- Messages
- 581
- Reactions
- 180
time to bust out the tinfoil out!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I guarantee that the records of sales are not destroyed as required by federal law. All it would take is one ATF conspirator with a large hard drive in his basement
My 2-cents.
A background, as what is in place today or being proposed for tomorrow only really does two things, if it were to work perfectly:
1) Makes one avenue of obtaining a firearm unattractive to criminals. It still has two other sources to deal with; stealing and black-market.
2) Has the potential of denying a firearm to someone contemplating suicide (the biggest death statistic involving guns). Caveat is that records are being provided properly (which in to many states, it is not). Yes, I know that it wont stop all 20,000 each year. But I do think proper health records would help, since I think a good portion of the population wouldn't know where to steal/black-market without an extra amount of effort.
Where the gun-control lobby's have their marshmallow rainbows and unicorns, I have my vision above.
Personally. if the mental records were more available, and it keeps the criminals away from stores and gun-shows, I'd be ok with that and a general background check that does NOT contain a list of what I am buying. Just that it is OK for me to buy that category of product. It might help the police/doctors focus more on were the real problems are. If we did have to keep records, let the private citizens keep them.
The real problem is one of trust. I don't trust the gun-control lobby and their ultimate goal. I don't trust that there are more good-guys than government power-mongers.
Vaultman,
There was a time not to long ago for a few weeks after all the shootings I really pondered the idea of BK checks.
I am going to stick with the simple clear statement.
" Constitutional rights should not and can not have conditions added "
I am trying to think how to clarify it for you.
Ok lets say you tell your 10 year old in the many teachings we all do as parents.
We tell them never feed the dog chocolate. We know it will make them sick. That is a stern house law to our kids and we do not budge because of safety.
Now the neighbors kid comes over, and says hey. Let feed the dog chocolate and make him do tricks.
They give the dog chocolate and they dog does tricks. Chocolate contain theobromine and is toxic to dog.
They see no immediate affect and give him more. They dog does more tricks. Seems ok to me, the neighbor leaves and goes home.
The Dog goes into Cardiac arrest that night an at age 12 the dog dies while it was vomiting and having diarrhea all over your living room rug. The neighbor is no where to be seen, and you are stuck with the mess to clean up that other made because of ignorance.
Moral of the story is, even if it looks sweet, and may seem to taste good, does not mean it can not kill you.
Background checks equal nothing more then a violation of my 2nd amendment.
Hope this helps.
... happy about old age because they won't be around long enough to not see the complete collapse of America, what sad state of affairs.
Instead of any enhanced background check crap,the govt. should simply put in place a registry of people that have a prescription for psych-drugs.Would just be included in the normal gun check we have now.
Where do you draw the line of what drugs you take = you're on the no-no list. Designer anti-depressants? Anti-anxiety pills? Bi-polar meds? Who decides who reports these people and breaks HIPPA laws?
That puts a LOT of otherwise normal and non-violent people on the list.
Me included and probably more than 50% of the people on this forum.
I would agree to any background check to purchase any firearm. Shoot, even a knife. If it was a background check, period. This is not the fight I think we should be in.
The good fight (imho) is any sort of a registry. Background check to purchase should be fine, but there should be NO mention of make, model or serial number in this "Background Check." But what the liberals are trying to do is get a registry and they are calling it a background check. We must fight this so-called background check, that is really a registry in disguise.
I am a conservative and stay pretty strong to the right. But let the government know who is trying to purchase a gun, but they should not be allowed to know what the make and model are, and should not be allowed to know if the transaction went through. Would you be ok with getting a background check prior to deciding if you want to purchase? I think that way anyone could get a 'check' whether or not they buy. I know there are probably technicalities that may not work, but overall I think this is the thing that we should propose. Say I am looking at a rifle at the pawn shop, and I agree to the background check. It passes, and then I decide that I want a shotgun too. No further background check, just the one. That is how it should be.
Again all this is just my opinion. But I think that is "Common Sense", as the President likes to put it. But as soon as there is a registry, that is too much.
Background checks equal nothing more then a violation of my 2nd amendment.
We need to go to work to roll it all back to pre-1934. Seriously.
No ATF, no IRS.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
No more background checks at all, and far stiffer penalties for those who break the law.
I have one more purchase to make through a dealer later this week, and then I will never do it again. You do what you must to get what you need, or want. After the end of this week though, I will be private sale only and no paperwork. I will never assist these would be "rulers" with the creation of even one scrap of paper that could possibly help in the eventual tracking and confiscation of a firearm.
I'm done with the games.
If all this was really about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals in an effective manner, few of us would oppose it. It's not. Heck, if it were truly about reducing negligent deaths, we wouldn't have an issue with a regularly renewed gun license that requires a competency test, much like our drivers license. Sadly, it's not.
But just for a moment, think about what a wonderful world it would be to live in if we could truly trust in systems like that. Imagine a world so devoid of gungrabbers that we could start using programs that would require gun safety competency. Of course, in a world with people that sensible, we probably wouldn't need any sort of safety courses in the first place.