Universal Background Checks... What do they accomplish? - Page 9
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, 10:17 PM   #81
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
hawkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: austin,tx
Posts: 4,287
Liked 3021 Times on 1805 Posts
Likes Given: 2040

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus View Post
And that attitude is responsible for almost every major war in history. Politics is the art of compromise. Without compromise, every single emotional issue becomes a catalyst for armed conflict. You won't give up something for me unless I'm willing to give up something for you.
you guys you really need to think about this US CONSTITUTION that we all value so much.

i know y'all know your history. one of the great beauties of our great constitution, is the amazing compromises that intelligent men, who thought VERY differently made to get the job done. and because of their combined thought and compromise, they delveloped one of the most innovative and sensible documents to form a government of the people, by the people.

partisan thinking and NO compromise is one of many problems of what is destroying what these great men developed. they worked through divisions and differences and got the job done.....where and when did WE lose the ability to do this? and even worse...see this as a weakness?
__________________
hawkguy is offline  
locutus Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 10:18 PM   #82
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jpyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sewell,NJ
Posts: 4,816
Liked 762 Times on 441 Posts
Likes Given: 460

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy

i agree completely. get freakin TOUGH on crime, i will NEVER argue with that!

and i don't think law abiding citizens should get things removed from them based on the action of others.

but it is never that simple imo. half these scumbags who shoot up 10+ people at once, off themselves...it leaves everyone thinking "well, who do we punish for this?" or if they catch the scumbag....they can only kill him ONCE. i wish they could murder him for every murder he committed, that would feel more like TRUE justice. but life just isn't fair, i'm afraid. and as much as i would LOVE to see some of these psychos killing kids get strung up publicly, we have other rights we must value...such as due process, 5th amendment, freedom from cruel punishment and so on.

in the mean time, if people would REALLY sit down and think about how we could protect our children AND our fundamental rights, we might make things better....perfect...never...but better?....i think we always have room for improvement myself.
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.
__________________

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Jpyle is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 10:21 PM   #83
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6573 Times on 3638 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by locutus View Post
And can you explain to me exactly what "rights" we lose even if BC passes?? PITA, perhaps. Loss of rights??? Really???

I realize that there are some folks here that actually want armed conflict, but I think most of us are good patriotic Americans that reject that kind of fanaticism.
A UBC is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Plain and simple.



Let me ask you this, should minorities be required to have special licenses?

Should you be required to have a special license in order to practice your religion?

Should you be required to pass a government approved "fact" check before you are allowed to speak in a public setting?

Should you be required to pay a small fee, and fill out forms just to send your representatives a letter voicing your opinion?

After all, these things are just a PITA, and are not violating rights.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
jjfuller1 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 10:25 PM   #84
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Reno,Texas
Posts: 10,211
Liked 6573 Times on 3638 Posts
Likes Given: 27929

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkguy View Post
you guys you really need to think about this US CONSTITUTION that we all value so much.

i know y'all know your history. one of the great beauties of our great constitution, is the amazing compromises that intelligent men, who thought VERY differently made to get the job done. and because of their combined thought and compromise, they delveloped one of the most innovative and sensible documents to form a government of the people, by the people.

partisan thinking and NO compromise is one of many problems of what is destroying what these great men developed. they worked through divisions and differences and got the job done.....where and when did WE lose the ability to do this? and even worse...see this as a weakness?
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.
__________________
texaswoodworker is offline  
WebleyFosbery38 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 10:26 PM   #85
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,581
Liked 5930 Times on 3354 Posts
Likes Given: 5477

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texaswoodworker View Post
A UBC is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Plain and simple.
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.
__________________
“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us.”


Winston Churchill
locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 10:27 PM   #86
McCool@email.com
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
MisterMcCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bumfugg, Egypt
Posts: 8,649
Liked 7440 Times on 4061 Posts
Likes Given: 15311

Default

Sheniqua and Yolanda are responsible for their own actions. We don't need legislation to solve their inability or unwillingness to refuse to participate in illegal activities.

__________________

No offense and none taken (̿▀̿ ̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿)̄

MisterMcCool is offline  
hawkguy Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 10:29 PM   #87
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,077
Liked 4885 Times on 2368 Posts
Likes Given: 1524

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMcCool View Post
Sheniqua and Yolanda are responsible for their own actions. We don't need legislation to solve their inability or unwillingness to refuse to participate in illegal activities.
That's easy to say when your not the female who's 2 brothers, 3 cousins, and boyfriend are all gang bangers.

Tack
__________________
Tackleberry1 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 10:30 PM   #88
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Jpyle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Sewell,NJ
Posts: 4,816
Liked 762 Times on 441 Posts
Likes Given: 460

Default

Lets not lose sight if the fact that this call for universal background checks is a reaction to the contrived "gun show loophole." The so-called loophole was an exception to federal regulation to respect States right to regulate commerce within their borders but has somehow morphed into a loophole to be closed. Point is that the other side never compromises and that whatever we think will be gained or preserved by compromise today will be their target tomorrow.

__________________

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Jpyle is offline  
rocshaman Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 10:30 PM   #89
McCool@email.com
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
MisterMcCool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bumfugg, Egypt
Posts: 8,649
Liked 7440 Times on 4061 Posts
Likes Given: 15311

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tackleberry1

That's easy to say when your not the female who's 2 brothers, 3 cousins, and boyfriend are all gang bangers.

Tack
So..... The trouble with women is they have no balls?
__________________

No offense and none taken (̿▀̿ ̿Ĺ̯̿̿▀̿ ̿)̄

MisterMcCool is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 04-11-2013, 10:34 PM   #90
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver,WA
Posts: 6,077
Liked 4885 Times on 2368 Posts
Likes Given: 1524

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jpyle View Post
Lets not lose sight if the fact that this call for universal background checks is a reaction to the contrived "gun show loophole." The so-called loophole was an exception to federal regulation to respect States right to regulate commerce within their borders but has somehow morphed into a loophole to be closed. Point is that the other side never compromises and that whatever we think will be gained or preserved by compromise today will be their target tomorrow.
Bingo...

Tell ya what. Write in to revoke Reagan's restriction on any new full auto's so those of us willing to jump through ATF hoops to own one, don't need to pay 10k for the rifle and then... perhaps... we are starting to COMPROMISE.

Bend over... so we can shove a "little" bit more in your rear end in is NOT compromise... It's getting screwed.

Tack
__________________
Tackleberry1 is offline  
MisterMcCool Likes 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