Stop background checks on weapons; LICENSE the purchaser

[41Slinger]

25,000 firearms laws already on the books and they've never stopped a crime, not one, ever. It's very simple, said it before, When the 2A is gone, so goes the rest. They don't care about you or your safety, they don't care about babies, (abortion), they don't care about race, (Chicago, 69, 47, two weekends), they only care about power. They will wipe you off like a booger. Agenda, agenda, agenda, that's it. They aren't Americans, they don't represent America. We play by the rules because we want to be safe and civil, (treat others as you want to be treated), they don't play that way so more rules or deals mean you are only playing into their hands. The only rule we need is the rule of ethic. If you break one of those 25,000, punishment is the choice you have selected from the wheel of life, Suffer b!tch.

 

[41Slinger]

I'm not a criminal and I'm not compromising on the 2A.

If they make me a criminal, so be it. Still not compromising on the 2A.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU>>>>>>>>>>>KKKKKKKKKKK TTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHEEEEEEMMMM !!!

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

The minute you license anything, you revoke that RIGHT and turn it into privilege.

And we all know the government gets off on denying people the privilege of everything. Licensing would take away what current freedom we struggle to maintain.

You'd litterally be asking for permission to buy a firearm at that point.

 

[EVILZ]

The left is relentless... Once they get the taste of blood they will not rest... Give an inch they will take a mile. That is there tactic in all politics. Our back is against the wall, what we do now will decide our future. Look at every other country that has fallen to "gun control", they have compromised, I won't make that same mistake.

 

[boogerhook]

The minute you license anything, you revoke that RIGHT and turn it into privilege.

And we all know the government gets off on denying people the privilege of everything. Licensing would take away what current freedom we struggle to maintain.

You'd litterally be asking for permission to buy a firearm at that point.

I fully agree with your statement there. The question is whether it would make sense to require licensing for carrying in public. I do not know of many mishaps by legal gun owners in public, but maybe others do.

 

[IheartSig]

Again, its all well and good to adopt the viewpoint that you "won't compromise" but that's not how its going to play out.

The NRA won't be able to stop it, or more likely they will secure a deal that allows them to continue making money in conjunction with some form of restrictions.

That's not how your elected officials will move forward and it isn't a successful strategy to waste time imagining it will actually work.

Regardless of the cause of the discussions, and changes, they are coming. You can keep rabble rousing and posturing about your "god given rights" on a forum, but its all talk and serves no purpose.

You guys need to get in the game and stop using tactics that are outdated. I don't have the answers, but I know what we have been doing will not continue to work.

Also, just because you were born on certain arbitrary grid coordinates doesn't mean you necessarily "should" own firearms. I know plenty of people who are American citizens who are law abiding for all intents and purposes, that have no business owning or operating firearms.

Using the "I was born here its my right to own guns, come and take them" is not going to hold water much longer, like it or not. If anything it lends credence to the stereotypes. Better come up with a plan B guys.

 

[Boboclown]

I agree with doing away the background check, disagree with the license. But I'd settle for a simple background check (what we have now, vs. what they're proposing) instead of a license.

 

[Lilhigbee]

Thats why in creating that law, specific limits need be set, what it CAN do, and what it CANNOT do! What it empowers, and what it Limits! Who administers it, what power they have, what limits they have, and language specifically stating no other infring from any outside that limit! You would have to set ALL aspects of said law before it could be accepted! We would also have to take up the challenges of the other things out side the 2nd, how a person gets on a list,who has access to that list, what limits the State and Fed have.

We have this. It's called The Constitution. It just gets ignored, just like everything else that doesn't fit the agenda.

 

[Lilhigbee]

I am quoting this from another thread so I don't have to retype it. It fits here as well as there.

I disagree completely with you about compromise. Not only will it not HAVE to happen, it cannot happen. Compromise is the result of two or more parties who have legitimate claims coming to an agreement with each side giving up something. The anti's have nothing to give up and no legitimate claim to my rights- they are inalienable!! An example; I sue you for a million dollars. We agree that it will cost you thousands of dollars to fight the lawsuit and "compromise" that you will pay me half of what your defense would cost, say two thousand dollars. I immediately sue you again for a million dollars. Nothing has changed, so again we "compromise" and I get two thousand dollars. I do this enough times and I have your million dolllars and no legitimate claim to any of it. This is the "compromise" the anti's offer us. It is NO compromise, it is the fabled "death by a thousand cuts." Anything that we give up is purely a victory for them, they lose nothing.

 

[nammac]

While the OP's ideas may seem logical, and I would actually agree, fundementally we still have a problem. Even a CHL, which should make the BGC un needed has not solved any thing! I agree that removing ALL restrictions could work, it would have to be the only LAW that would be in place! Restore all 2nd rights,to include concealed or open carry, re move ALL gun laws at all levels, both State, AND Fed, and then we MIGHT have something! Attach it to your drivers licence, WITH NO RESTRICTONS, and maybe! It would have to have very strict laws attached, NO serial numbers, No descriptions, or caliber, no limits on how many rounds it holds or if it has a switch, a can, a short barrel, ANY thing! The sole perp would be a felon banned from ownership, noting more! I could accept that ONLY if it were the only infringment, with no challenge to the 2nd ever again! If the Anti's were to accept those terms with out any additions, MAYBE!

Easily achieved by using the drivers license, tie any firearms prohibition to that... Done... Y'all get to carry in all 50 states, no restrictions... Just like them boys did in the old west...

 

[nammac]

Seriously people, what don't you understand about setting precedents through measures that were presented as benign, helpful, and progressive? Do you study history at all?
Rights are self-justified, and by definition are not to be further qualified or defined, as doing so moves the right into the realm of defined by those in power, and not Natural/Inalienable/God-given.
How about we place symbols on people's clothing to show they're good citizens, which we'll remove if they behave badly?

Kinda like the Scarlet Letter d

 

[Avogadro]

Does the issue primarily come down to crime? With 25,000 gun laws in the books. I suspect things should just about be covered. There are countless firearms, owned by an unknown number of citizens who NEVER offend with their weapons (sometimes with their point of view). Why isn't the push in the direction of crime and punishment?

Does the NRA actively denounce violent crime? Does it go out of it's way to clearly publicize the need to incarcerate those who commit a crime using a weapon? Do away with lenient sentencing to violent crime and repeat violent offenders. Why not push to keep the focus where it needs to be, on the criminal and not the means tools of the trade. Why don't gun owners lead the fight against gun crimes?

The Pulse nightclub shooting could have just as easily been a bombing.

 

[etrain16]

Any kind of licensing plan is easily defeated for those that want to get a gun - via straw purchase. The law against straw purchases has been around a long time, yet that doesn't stop people from doing it. Honestly, I think the only time it stops someone is when the buyer is actually stupid enough to tell the gun store they're buying it for someone else. Beyond that, mark all the damn licenses you want - they'll either get guns through straw purchase, theft or on the black market, just as they already do.

Nope, just a big government folly to get us to conform even further. It will never stop crimes committed with guns. Bad idea - all of it.

 

[Boboclown]

As I said before, our laws are already too restrictive. Don't give them more. They will never stop calling for more laws. You could find a solution that worked and kept your 2nd Amendment rights intact, hypothetically that is, and they will still keep calling for more laws.

 

[Member 5605]

Why not use a drivers license?

Simple solution.... When you buy gun, they enter your license number. If it says pass... Hand gun over counter and bye. If it says fail... No gun for you.

We don't need another ID. The list of people should be a prohibited list, not a pass list.

 

[mjbskwim]

Yeah,brilliant!
It would make it so much easier for TPTB to come collect gun from us!
BTW , Avogadro,you must be voting for hitlery. This would work percect for her agenda

 

[ThePhonMan]

As soon as somebody can explain to me how another law will actually PREVENT crime I'd consider listening.

There are ~210mil licensed drivers in the US. Most people get their license at age 16-ish. Several of these people will have a drunk driving incident during their driving years. So do we prevent all drivers from getting their license since some of them may turn out to be problem children? And driving isn't a right, it's a privilege (as all of our driving instructors told us repeatedly).

Try applying the title of this thread to any other constitutional right. 1st, 4th, 5th, 14th, etc.

"Sorry. You can't plead the 5th since you weren't licensed to do so prior to exercising that right".

This approach is not a slippery slope, it's a bottomless pit.

 

[BlakeStone]

the anti's have the feinsteins of the world to create multiple bills to diminish our rights.

where are the pro's creating bills to enhance our rights?!!!

 

[3MTA3]

Shall Not Be Infringed

Punish the criminals, don't punish law abiding citizens. We already have laws on the books - effing enforce them! Mandatory stiff sentences for violent crimes committed by firearm - no early out/parole.

If someone is on a "no fly" or "watch" list why is there no follow up? Why don't we simply deport aliens if we have a suspicion? That would certainly shorten the list, I would suspect that treatment if I were in a foreign country. A terrorist is GOING to get whatever weapon they need - the Paris terrorists had fully automatic weapons which are illegal in France. Why do they think that wouldn't be the case here?

Ask yourself, why don't the politicians trust "we the people"? What do they fear? Why do they concentrate on semi automatic rifles, when you are 40 times more likely to be murdered by a drunk driver? Why do they concentrate on semi automatic rifles, when you are 50 times more likely to be killed by a different type of firearm?

 

[mjbskwim]

I like the idea of pointing out the bad guys. Mark their drivers licence with something the guns shops and loe know what it is. Doesn't have to be a scarlet letter
If they don't have a DL or state ID sorry.
Don't mess with the law abiding citizens