Printable View
I could only support it as a resource for individuals to make sure that the person they are selling to is not banned. Any record keeping requirement throws it out for me. No-one is sponsering legislation anything like what I would accept. All of the ccurent talk about universal background checks is an attempt to register and eventually ban all guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by MJK
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJK
Excellent question. But it looks like that's just a given now.
OK, Sometimes even I put on a tinfoil hat. My problem with checks is that it is unconstitutional IMO. But they are here. My concern is the slippery slope. It is not beyond the realm of imaginatiion that in the future they will tie in credit checks and seeing if your taxes are payed as part of the background check. It will be under the guise of mental stability. Folks will say that if one is having financial problems then they are at risk of harming themselves and others.
More of a cliff than a slope.Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
Welcome to the tinfoil (I'm sure it looks good on you ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
We can no longer comfort ourselves with the notion that some travesty of justice will never happen because it is 'unconstitutional'.
The checks and balances are becoming more theater than process, and what remains is force of will and who will win.
Looks like the Police Chiefs of larger cities are pushing for this, while Sheriffs are more mixed:
Law Enforcement Leaders Urge Obama to Focus on Background Checks, Mental Health
Maybe we need to send arguments like this to our Police and Sheriff's representatives...
Just a thought.
Great avatar.Quote:
Originally Posted by ROFL SQUAD
This is all part of the "fundamental change." Black rifle bans and magazine limits are a problem, and if it is just the next step to ban all guns, then it is a huge problem, but I don't know if it is the biggest problem we face as a country. The federal government is becoming increasingly involved in the private sector while also imposing a variety of measures to decrease the privacy of its citizens. The financial situation is a mess, the illegal immigration system is a mess, the healthcare system is a mess, and the gun control issues are a joke.
I don't like the fact that we are living in an age were the government is beginning to monitor every little thing somebody does.
You also have to watch out for what you are not watching out for.
Some of the proposed legislation will get hidden in bills that have to get passed so that we can find out what's in it.
The weapons ban has nothing to do with preventing gun crimes, the crimes are just being used as a tool, it is all about government control, and the removal of the means for the masses to defend themselves against our fast becoming tyrannous government.
I'll repeat the simple rule that governs my beliefs about gun rights: If it's not something that a criminal would comply with, then we should never be subjected to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by phreddy
No background check will ever keep a firearm or anything else out of the hands of a criminal.
But most importantly, WHY IS IT ANY OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS WHAT ANYONE OWNS?!?! There used to be a concept in this country known as "innocent until proven guilty." This has somehow been perverted into "Sandy Hook is the fault of anyone who happens to own a rifle with some black polymer parts on it." That's right. If you put a plastic "scary looking" part on a Ruger Mini-14, then Sandy Hook is all your fault. Therefore, you must give up your 4th Amendment rights, the spirit of which is to keep government's nose out of your business. Then they'll use that infringement of your 4th Amendment rights (registration) to then attack your 2nd Amendment rights.
Do you have a pistol "clip" that holds more then 10 rounds? Then Sandy Hook is all your fault. So is the theater shooting, and so is every crime committed since the Stone Age.
That is not the future. It is here and now. The following is a requirement for getting a TX CHL.Quote:
Originally Posted by suntzu
"(11) has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, the tax collector of a political subdivision of the state, or any agency or subdivision of the state;"
I meant federal regulationQuote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Bump for people that need to see why Universal Checks are a badddddd idea!
Write your reps!
There was a story on CBS last week on BATFE and about how they are handicapped by not having the records computerized.
Supposedly it takes 350 employees to do traces on all weapons confiscated by LE, and it usually takes them 5 days do do it.
However, they can put a 'rush' on the trace. That's why when an Aurora or Sandy Hook happens, they can find the history of the gun before the evening newscast is over.
A few years ago a local group that called itself a 'militia' was busted on a Thursday night in a nearby town that has a very large area flea market. On Monday, an ABI agent (not ATF) showed up at my door asking about the gun I sold to a co-worker in the early 90's. I told him who I sold it to, and he left. I never heard another word about it, but it didn't take a rocket scientist to know that either the former co-worker had sold it at the flea market, or it made it there through several other hands before it ended up with the 'militia'.
So even without a UBC I think what is in place now is quite sufficient.
Will the expanded background checks cross reference our voting history?