Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Universal Background Checks... What do they accomplish?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-11-2013, 10:57 PM   #91
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6561 Times on 3635 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus View Post
No, it isn't. It does not in any way infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. And that is what the 2A guarantees.
You didn't answer my questions. The are the same scenario set up with different rights. Would they be acceptable?

And yes, I see it as an infringement, as do most people.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 11:35 PM   #92
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 3,802
Liked 2653 Times on 1560 Posts
Likes Given: 1671

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jpyle View Post
But those types of crimes are actually quite rare despite what the months of 24/7 coverage lead us to believe. The bulk of gun violence is committed by repeat offenders with multiple weapons offenses that are somehow still free to walk the streets.
right on! i agree completely. but murder by any means is a serious concern. and though uncommon, mass shootings (and now stabbings) are becoming more & more common.
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 11:47 PM   #93
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 3,802
Liked 2653 Times on 1560 Posts
Likes Given: 1671

Default

Quote:
texaswoodworker;1210887]A UBC is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Plain and simple.
i respect your opinion, but i disagree.



Quote:
Let me ask you this, should minorities be required to have special licenses?
of course not, luckily some simpletons were forced out of segregation and inequality quite awhile back. no one here has advocated anything of this kind.

Quote:
Should you be required to have a special license in order to practice your religion?
there is the separation of church and state, which is a regulation on religion that i agree with. think about it. virtually everything has some rules/regulations/restrictions. ypou can't force kids to pray at a school, even if your religion promotes "spreading the word."

Quote:
Should you be required to pass a government approved "fact" check before you are allowed to speak in a public setting?
no, but threats are not generally allowed, even though they don't technically hurt anyone. school kids can't tell a teacher to "eff" off w/o consequences, even when they are 18. people lose jobs over exercising their free speech.

Quote:
Should you be required to pay a small fee, and fill out forms just to send your representatives a letter voicing your opinion?
no, but you have to get through their secretaries or interns or whoever it is that answers their bothersome emails....

Quote:
After all, these things are just a PITA, and are not violating rights.
i still say state vehicles inspections are 10X worse........"sorry, sir,..we don't have time for that "today.".... yet, i live with it. and hanging around for 10 min while a background check clears in a LGS, never bothered me...too much eye candy around!
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 11:53 PM   #94
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 3,802
Liked 2653 Times on 1560 Posts
Likes Given: 1671

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker View Post
Those great men created the bill of rights in order to list rights that cannot be taken away because they were given to us by our creator. They would be ashamed if they saw what America is becoming today. Rights are NOT negotiable. There were never intended to be by our founders, and they definitely were not intended to be by God.
There are a lot of thing is politics we do need to compromise with. Rights are not one of them.
the rights in the constitution WERE negotiated and compromised on. disagree?

i think our founders would also be shocked by our complete inability to get anything done, due to our inability to COMPROMISE.

the founding fathers were JUST AS DIVIDED as democrats and republicans are today. they sucked it up & compromised...thus the REASON we HAVE a constitution to begin with.

do i have to take you back to middle school history and discuss the federalists & anti-federalists? lmao...i'm just messing around with you here!
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
locutus Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 12:00 AM   #95
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
redscho's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Newberry,Florida
Posts: 295
Liked 94 Times on 50 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackleberry1 View Post
What is the intent of UBC's?
It is very simple. It will give the government a list of all gun owners. If people can't figure out what that will eventually lead to, God have mercy on them and our country.
__________________
redscho is offline  
MisterMcCool Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 12:02 AM   #96
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,065
Liked 5462 Times on 3097 Posts
Likes Given: 4740

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker View Post
You didn't answer my questions. The are the same scenario set up with different rights. Would they be acceptable?

And yes, I see it as an infringement, as do most people.
There is no connection. Not even remote.

And it doesn't matter how you see it, what mastters is how the SCOTUS sees it.

But I seriously doubt that more than 2 or 3 percent of the general population see a BC as an infringement.

Sure glad the founders were willing to compromise and compromise and compromise on virtually every issue. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a Constitution at all.
__________________
"We will have peace when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us."

Golda Meier.
locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 12:12 AM   #97
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 279
Liked 87 Times on 66 Posts

Default

A couple of years ago Derek bird went on a killing spree in the UK. This guy was by all accounts a stand up guy, a pillar of the community you would say. His background checks came out just fine.. until he flipped.
David Cameron our prime minister stated that you can't legislate for the flipping of a switch in someone's head!

legislation is about outcomes, you have to ensure it's gonna work. Especially if it effects the masses and it's intrusive. Token gestures are not justifiable reasons for legislation.

Bgc will only work if all legal guns are registered. If you can't track a particular gun to an individual you can't do a check on them.

But then what about all the illegal guns in circulation ?

__________________
lfcshooter is offline  
MisterMcCool Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 12:20 AM   #98
Proud to be an American
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Pasquanel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: S.Maine
Posts: 1,047
Liked 792 Times on 365 Posts
Likes Given: 373

Default

Good God almighty! The same BS over and over again, by definition criminals are people who break the law, so how does passing more legislation (laws) benefit the law-abiding community? The answer? It does not, we are already "law abiding" so we do not break the law! We need to enforce the existing laws with sufficiently severe penalties making deliberate violations something to be feared! Not the casual slap on the wrist we now delve out.
While we are on this note what part of "shall not be infringed" are some of you struggling with? Causing me or other "law abiding citizens" to leap through more hoops makes society safer in what way? I'm just asking?

__________________

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Pasquanel is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 12:27 AM   #99
Table of Warriors prospect
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
MisterMcCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bumfugg, Egypt
Posts: 7,830
Liked 6573 Times on 3593 Posts
Likes Given: 12878

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pasquanel
Good God almighty! The same BS over and over again, by definition criminals are people who break the law, so how does passing more legislation (laws) benefit the law-abiding community? The answer? It does not, we are already "law abiding" so we do not break the law! We need to enforce the existing laws with sufficiently severe penalties making deliberate violations something to be feared! Not the casual slap on the wrist we now delve out.
While we are on this note what part of "shall not be infringed" are some of you struggling with? Causing me or other "law abiding citizens" to leap through more hoops makes society safer in what way? I'm just asking?
Ho yeah! High five!
__________________

No offense and none taken (̿▀̿ ̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿)̄

MisterMcCool is online now  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 12:35 AM   #100
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 279
Liked 87 Times on 66 Posts

Default

Back ground checks will only confirm that you have been law abiding and sane up until that moment in time and does not guarantee future conduct!

__________________
lfcshooter is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
The Case Against Background Checks Rentacop Legal and Activism 0 03-24-2013 12:37 AM
History of Background Checks Sniper03 Legal and Activism 4 03-14-2013 02:51 PM
Background checks kirbinster Legal and Activism 2 02-23-2013 02:10 PM
Universal Background Checks? Tackleberry1 Legal and Activism 6 01-12-2013 12:09 AM
CCW bypasses background checks blucoondawg Legal and Activism 35 05-01-2012 02:08 AM