Universal Background Checks... What do they accomplish? - Page 11
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 04-12-2013, 01:40 AM   #101
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Ez2b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: MODESTO CA.
Posts: 1,766
Liked 546 Times on 369 Posts

Default

Wow I am completely shocked. Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. Just had a segment where he was saying he supports gun registration .wtf

__________________
Ez2b is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 01:41 AM   #102
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,145
Liked 2066 Times on 1223 Posts
Likes Given: 1007

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.
Infringe: to limit or restrict!! BGC's both limit and restrict our RIGHT! How can anyone with a room temp IQ or above not see this?????
We have 'compromised' (give in to) the anti gun progressives EVERY TIME any legislation has been proposed by them for the last 100 years. Why can't anyone with any common sense admit they will not stop until they have outlawed the procurement, possession, and use of all firearm's by any one except those who support them (government agents)!!! This is the bases and history of ALL the anti gun legislation EVER enacted!
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau is offline  
MisterMcCool Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 01:41 AM   #103
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6576 Times on 3639 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
i respect your opinion, but i disagree.





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.

Ok, requiring anything special for certain races/ethnicities is unconstitutional. Shouldn't requiring gun owners to go through this process be too?

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."

Separation of church and state is a limit on the Government, not the church. If the vast majority of people in the US are of one religion, laws based on their morals will be passed.
Ok, you can't force kids to pray, but you can force gun owners to go to an FFL, get a background check, and pay a fee for the FFLs time?


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.

Is it the schools job to punish the kid? Not really, it's the parents'. Also, unless you work for the government, your boss is not the government. Either way, you have the right to say whatever you want. Your boss won't fire you because you expressed your freedom of speech, he'll fire you for being disrespectful.

no, but you have to get through their secretaries or interns or whoever it is that answers their bothersome emails....

You don't have to actually go see their secretaries, and play a fee though like you would have to do with a UBC.

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!
This isn't about being bothered about doing a background check, its about our right to bear arms without government interference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
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!
Were there debates about which rights were going into the bill of rights? Yes. That debates is long over with. Should we compromise RIGHTS that we already have today? HELL NO!.

Old Ben Franklin had something to say about people who would do that.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-Benjamin Franklin


Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus View Post
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.
There a connection, whether you want to admit it or not is your problem.

All of those things are a violation of rights. You cannot require things like that. That's exactly what a UBC does.

It doesn't really matter how you see it. YOU are in the minority with this issue. The Constitution never gave the SCOTUS the ability to have final say on the Constitution, they decided that themselves. In the end, it's what the PEOPLE want. If they want something bad enough, they WILL get it. The people want their rights.

Poll at the bottom of this page says 77% of people say they would not support a UBC.

http://www.wwmt.com/news/features/poll/news_results.shtml#.UWdXVE4o5jo
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
MisterMcCool Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 01:44 AM   #104
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,145
Liked 2066 Times on 1223 Posts
Likes Given: 1007

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ez2b View Post
Wow I am completely shocked. Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. Just had a segment where he was saying he supports gun registration .wtf
Why would that surprise you??? He was educated at Harvard and is a progressive! There are progressives both with 'D' and 'R' in front of their names, as well as those who are labeled 'L' or 'C'.
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 01:46 AM   #105
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6576 Times on 3639 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

You two keep saying that background checks would stop crime, but we got along fine without them for hundreds of years. If they laws we have now were actually enforced, crime would go way down, but their not. If this UBC law passes, it will just be one more thing for the Government to not enforce. IT WON'T WORK.
Plus, this is the first step toward registration. Do you really want to end up like the UK, Australia, and Mexico?

__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 01:56 AM   #106
McCool@email.com
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
MisterMcCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bumfugg, Egypt
Posts: 8,931
Liked 7768 Times on 4213 Posts
Likes Given: 16424

Default

The issue with background checks is they could be denied.... by the government. For prior crimes, previous domestic violence, mental illness, political affiliation, religion, race........
In 1791, it was decided that all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. ALL AMERICANS.

__________________

No offense and none taken (̿▀̿ ̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿)̄

MisterMcCool is offline  
texaswoodworker Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 01:58 AM   #107
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,425
Liked 3136 Times on 1872 Posts
Likes Given: 2185

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker View Post
You two keep saying that background checks would stop crime, but we got along fine without them for hundreds of years. If they laws we have now were actually enforced, crime would go way down, but their not. If this UBC law passes, it will just be one more thing for the Government to not enforce. IT WON'T WORK.
Plus, this is the first step toward registration. Do you really want to end up like the UK, Australia, and Mexico?
i'm against registration for all the obvious reasons. the point i made several posts ago, is you CAN make UBC without documenting or registering, if our POS representatives cared about the BOR's, they would pass the UBC WITH guaranteed protections against registration and documentation of the checks.

perfect? no....compromise?...its a start imo.
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 02:03 AM   #108
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6576 Times on 3639 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
i'm against registration for all the obvious reasons. the point i made several posts ago, is you CAN make UBC without documenting or registering, if our POS representatives cared about the BOR's, they would pass the UBC WITH guaranteed protections against registration and documentation of the checks.

perfect? no....compromise?...its a start imo.
Can it be done? Yes. Will it? NO. If that law passes, the next time a wackjob shoots up a school, the libs with go after registration like they are UBCs and bans on semi autos and magazines. YOU KNOW THIS.
As said before, they don't even enforce the thousands of gun laws we have now, why would this new one be any different?
Its a start? Yes, it's a start toward us loosing more rights.
Criminals will always find a way, laws don't effect criminals, only punishments do.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 02:07 AM   #109
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,425
Liked 3136 Times on 1872 Posts
Likes Given: 2185

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMcCool View Post
The issue with background checks is they could be denied.... by the government. For prior crimes, previous domestic violence, mental illness, political affiliation, religion, race........
In 1791, it was decided that all Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. ALL AMERICANS.
those with violent histories? people confined in institutions? the mentally unsound? i'll never agree with that. in fact, i think 99% of the populace would disagree with this stance. but you are, of course, entitled to it.

release a con (i know, they shouldn't...but they do) from prison for a violent assault (or assaults) with a deadly weapons and direct him to the nearest gun store? am i understanding you correctly, or have i misinterpreted?

your ACTIONS have nothing to do with your race, gender, or ethnicity. everyone in this country now has the freedom to make good or bad choices.
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2013, 02:07 AM   #110
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The Free State of Winston, AL
Posts: 3,145
Liked 2066 Times on 1223 Posts
Likes Given: 1007

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
i'm against registration for all the obvious reasons. the point i made several posts ago, is you CAN make UBC without documenting or registering, if our POS representatives cared about the BOR's, they would pass the UBC WITH guaranteed protections against registration and documentation of the checks.

perfect? no....compromise?...its a start imo.

Two things you seem to over look.
1. Progressives are the most ruthless and dishonest people on this earth.
2. The vast majority of politicians are progressives.

"ALWAYS LOVE YOUR COUNTRY, BUT NEVER TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT"
__________________

An armed society is not always a polite society, but it is a free and safe society!
Self Defense is an absolute and natural right!
Keep your head down and your powder dry!

JimRau 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 01:37 AM
History of Background Checks Sniper03 Legal and Activism 4 03-14-2013 03:51 PM
Background checks kirbinster Legal and Activism 2 02-23-2013 03:10 PM
Universal Background Checks? Tackleberry1 Legal and Activism 6 01-12-2013 01:09 AM
CCW bypasses background checks blucoondawg Legal and Activism 35 05-01-2012 03:08 AM