Perspectives: Background checks, real target of the national gun control advocates

This is a discussion on Perspectives: Background checks, real target of the national gun control advocates within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Perspectives: Background checks, the real target of the national gun control advocates Excerpts: When this is the case, every person is considered to be a ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
Like Tree25Likes

Thread: Perspectives: Background checks, real target of the national gun control advocates

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749

    Perspectives: Background checks, real target of the national gun control advocates

    Perspectives: Background checks, the real target of the national gun control advocates


    Excerpts:

    When this is the case, every person is considered to be a felon, or otherwise ineligible to own a firearm until they have proven to the government’s satisfaction that they are not. This completely turns the time-honored concept of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head.

    It converts a personal right that preexists government into a privilege that becomes subject to the prevailing whims of government.
    Unfortunately, as evidenced in the comments below the article, most people don't understand liberty, or the concept of natural rights predating all governments and their many forms.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,214
    "Innocent until proven guilty" was turned on its head with the income tax. So that's nothing new.

    But, UBCs will be the last hasp on the coffin for our republic.

    NRA will probably stop AWB, may stop extended magazine restrictions, and "negotiate down" to UBCs.

    Why will they accept UBCs? Because La Pierre said they were acceptable (he didn't really say precisely that, BTW) back in the day.

    Letters, faxes, and emails need to go to the NRA, too. Tell them you won't stand for UBCs.

    Once UBCs are in place, confiscation will be easy... Not during this Administration though. After all, they told us they weren't coming for our guns... Yeah, right.

    Truthfully, they probably won't... It'll take some time to gather all the information from all the sources.

    So, when the antis get all of their team elected, and have majorities in both houses, and a POTUS, too....
    The blue helmets will help them take the guns.... ALL OF THEM.
    Ghost1958 and ANGLICO like this.
    It could be worse.
    "A law that burdens the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered “reasonably adapted” to a government interest, no matter how substantial that interest may be."
    Wollard V Sheridan

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,674
    I wouldnt say confiscation itself will be EASY. They will just know where to come try.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array SigPapa226's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    588
    WLP did not say he was for UBC, he said he was for Background checks for commercial sales.

    I think the best thing to negotiate down to is adding ADJUDICATED mentally ill to the NICS check system as those that cannot purchase guns.

    However, the article is correct in that the real goal is UBC, once that is done they can come back with universal registration. They will claim that UBC does not work unless you know where ALL the guns are. Then they will pass registration. May take a couple of years, but that is where they want to go. After that, they can do confiscation any time they want.

    Then it will either be give up, or Molon Labe.
    Last edited by SigPapa226; February 16th, 2013 at 12:00 PM. Reason: correct typos
    Ten Bears: It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. No signed paper can hold the iron. It must come from men.

  6. #5
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,842
    It will happen.
    If not this time,sometime later.

    When we get old and die, our grandkids will think nothing of it and see it as no big deal, because they have had all common sense and historic knowledge of how this country was founded bred out of them.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  7. #6
    Member Array Lindy1933's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Reno NV
    Posts
    206
    My worry is 'Who makes the determination of suitability for UBC.' A committee of psyc's determines that anyone who wants to own an assault weapon must be crazy. It gets worse from there.
    Retired AF pilot, Vietnam FAC 1967-68

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,674
    The best thing is not to negotiate at all period. But put on an all out full court press to repeal stuff instead of agreeing to add things. And publically call them out. They cannot back up any argument they have with facts. We are too wishy washy in the way we are fighting this. But half willing to go to the mat on this and half willing to negotiate wont work.

    This stuff passes and its going end much worse in a lot ways that a lot seem to think it will. I just hope I dont live to see it.

    Edit let me rephrase that. I hope I die of old age in bed with the wife before it happens
    Yogi223, HotGuns, zacii and 1 others like this.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  9. #8
    Member Array BelaOkmyx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    107
    Quote Originally Posted by oakchas View Post
    "Innocent until proven guilty" was turned on its head with the income tax. So that's nothing new.

    But, UBCs will be the last hasp on the coffin for our republic.

    NRA will probably stop AWB, may stop extended magazine restrictions, and "negotiate down" to UBCs.

    Why will they accept UBCs? Because La Pierre said they were acceptable (he didn't really say precisely that, BTW) back in the day.

    Letters, faxes, and emails need to go to the NRA, too. Tell them you won't stand for UBCs.

    Once UBCs are in place, confiscation will be easy... Not during this Administration though. After all, they told us they weren't coming for our guns... Yeah, right.

    Truthfully, they probably won't... It'll take some time to gather all the information from all the sources.

    So, when the antis get all of their team elected, and have majorities in both houses, and a POTUS, too....
    The blue helmets will help them take the guns.... ALL OF THEM.
    If this is true, why is it that my state has background checks and mandatory training for carry permits, and everybody still gets a gun as long as they pass the background check? And no blue helmets come around and take our guns? The Second Amendment is intact here; everybody who wants a gun and hasn't given up their rights by committing a crime, gets a gun.

    Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how checking a guy's record to see if he's done time for armed robbery or just checked out of the crazy house before you give him a gun is going to lead to confiscation of guns from people who aren't felons. There has to be some additional steps in there that I'm not getting. All of the suggestions I'm hearing about for credentials to buy or carry seem like they would just mimic the Connecticut system, which works reasonably efficiently and nobody is confiscating our guns. We have a left-wing D. for a governor and heavy D. majorities in the state legislature and nobody is confiscating our guns. No blue helmets. No FEMA prisons. I've been lectured about guns by antis and I just show them my permit, and tell them "The state police gave me this because they think it is safe and legal for me to carry a gun. But you think you know more than they do. Please explain yourself."

    If this is played right by the NRA and all of us, we can trade a few minor, symbolic inconveniences like criminal background checks (which I assume everyone here would pass, right?) and minimal proof of competency for a national carry permit that would supersede all state and local carry restrictions. That would be huge, and more than we could ever have hoped to get without negotiation.

  10. #9
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,842
    If this is true, why is it that my state has background checks and mandatory training for carry permits, and everybody still gets a gun as long as they pass the background check?
    Study up on your history.

    There is only one reason for registration of weapons, so that they can be confiscated sometime in the future.

    And NO, you aren't getting it. Universal background checks must be passed for the sole reason of registering gun owners. Thats it. There is no other reason in spite of what you believe. Its not for safety. This country has gone for over 230 years without them.

    The Federal Government wants to know who is buying what. You might want to ask yourself what business it is of theirs. Fact of the matter is, that it is none of their business. We have a bunch of socialists and subverter's in high places running this country. You might want to ask yourself why the concern for background checks...or the new buzzword that became know a few months ago...universal background checks...where no one can buy or sell without government approval.

    As it stands now, you cannot buy a new gun without government approval. Now, they government wants to expand that to private sales. Ask yourself why that is. If you can figure that out, let me help you. background checks are registering YOU as a gun owner. They know your name, what you are buying, when you are buying it and where and who you are buying it from. They are trying to tighten the noose by a massive disinformation program that many people like your self are buying, and you are buying it because you have been brainwashed into thinking that it is the right thing to do. You are being lied to and you are believing it.

    You are being told that background checks get scrubbed after 3 months that no records are kept longer than that. If that is the case, then explain to me why the ATF Examiner that audited me a couple of months ago pulled out some sheets of paper that every NICS transaction that I did for the year 2012.

    Someone is lying here. Now ask yourself why they would do that. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out.

    No one in the Government is going to say, "we want your guns"...unless you are a lawmaker in New York. They will lie and make you believe that you are doing the right thing for the kids, for the safety of the public while they are stripping your rights away.
    If you aren't opposed to mandatory background checks, then you are part of the problem. Your ignorance is helping them to achieve their ultimate goal of eventual confiscation.
    Ksgunner, OD*, peckman28 and 6 others like this.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  11. #10
    Member Array Bhamrichard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Birmingham, AL.
    Posts
    234
    Quote Originally Posted by BelaOkmyx View Post
    If this is true, why is it that my state has background checks and mandatory training for carry permits, and everybody still gets a gun as long as they pass the background check?
    Inalienable right = Definition: a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred
    Ghost1958 likes this.
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

    Alabama Constitution of 1901 - That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

  12. #11
    Member Array BelaOkmyx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    107
    Then there's no such thing as an inalienable right. The law can rightfully imprison or execute you after a fair trial, they can certainly take your right to bear arms away too.

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,674
    Quote Originally Posted by BelaOkmyx View Post
    Then there's no such thing as an inalienable right. The law can rightfully imprison or execute you after a fair trial, they can certainly take your right to bear arms away too.
    If Im a violent criminal then ive by the voluntary choice to commit a violent crime also voluntarily chose to give up my rights.
    Up until that point where I chose to do that my inalienable rights are mine that nobody can take away legally.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    In Wisconsin(do not know if this is nationwide) when they do a background check they do not require any information on what type of firearm you purchased. Obviously they know you have purchased some type of weapon due to the check.

    The part I do understand is why there is a fee(paid by the buyer) for a background check when purchasing a handgun and not a fee for rifles and shotguns(long guns).

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nic...icensee-manual
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,674
    Quote Originally Posted by BelaOkmyx View Post
    If this is true, why is it that my state has background checks and mandatory training for carry permits, and everybody still gets a gun as long as they pass the background check? And no blue helmets come around and take our guns? The Second Amendment is intact here; everybody who wants a gun and hasn't given up their rights by committing a crime, gets a gun.

    Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how checking a guy's record to see if he's done time for armed robbery or just checked out of the crazy house before you give him a gun is going to lead to confiscation of guns from people who aren't felons. There has to be some additional steps in there that I'm not getting. All of the suggestions I'm hearing about for credentials to buy or carry seem like they would just mimic the Connecticut system, which works reasonably efficiently and nobody is confiscating our guns. We have a left-wing D. for a governor and heavy D. majorities in the state legislature and nobody is confiscating our guns. No blue helmets. No FEMA prisons. I've been lectured about guns by antis and I just show them my permit, and tell them "The state police gave me this because they think it is safe and legal for me to carry a gun. But you think you know more than they do. Please explain yourself."

    If this is played right by the NRA and all of us, we can trade a few minor, symbolic inconveniences like criminal background checks (which I assume everyone here would pass, right?) and minimal proof of competency for a national carry permit that would supersede all state and local carry restrictions. That would be huge, and more than we could ever have hoped to get without negotiation.
    No disprespect to this poster meant but this is what is going to kill us in the end. Well meaning and probably thinks he is strickly pro 2a brainwashed into buying this crap. Take a bit of time and look back across the history of every gun regulation ever passed. All failed to do anything they were proposed to do. And were followed by another push for another reg just as useless. And the second you give the feds the ability to supersede the states with this much praised national carry permit it will be revoked for everyone and you just handed the whole 2nd amendment into the shredder.
    This is very simple. They havent took your guns yet because we havent been quite dumb enough to believe them otherwise you wouldnt have a permit or gun now.
    NO check of any kind stops a criminal from getting a gun because the criminal wont go thru the check to get one. Criminals dont obey laws. That is why they are criminals.

    Checks wont stop someone with a screw loose planning to do something because he hasnt done anything yet to catch in a check. If hes that obviously looney hes already committed and cant get a gun anyway.

    No violent criminal has ever been stopped from getting a gun he wants. And never will be. Not by a background check or anything else. Because he doesnt get his guns from a dealer or law abiding person he gets them by stealing them or from another criminal.

    The officials pushing this junk KNOW none of this stuff works. All they have to do is look at the statistics and be able to read. Its not about criminals, or safety for kids, its all about eventually disarming the American public. No other reason. Plain as the nose on your face. You just have to wake up and look and think out of the box they want you thinking in to see it.
    wmhawth and SigPapa226 like this.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,110
    Quote Originally Posted by BelaOkmyx View Post
    Then there's no such thing as an inalienable right. The law can rightfully imprison or execute you after a fair trial, they can certainly take your right to bear arms away too.
    Inalienable simply means there is no lawful authority to have such a thing stripped from a person. Doesn't mean armed thugs cannot pursue their misdeeds if we let them do so.

    Well, that gets to the crux of it all: the right exists; the People have reserved the right unto themselves and specifically denied the lawful authority of anyone to fool with that; taking it is a crime against the Constitution and the People; the corollary being that, technically speaking, resisting such attempts to take it does not constitute any crime at all. Though, of course, those left standing in such a confrontation will see it how they see it, irrespective of any semantics.

    Now, granted, if taken down you'll end up without a gun, branded a felon, jailed/fined and perhaps even seen into the grave. But they needn't get your obedience unless you give it. Not that that will ever go down well, if the temporarily-elected tyrants are gunning for your head.

    And THAT is the whole point of a People reserving their every right to remain armed. To avoid such crimes and predations against them. As you point out, however, it's fluffy semantics short of a People's staunch willingness to back up the claim of inviolability with action. In a very real sense, unjustified and unlawful predation by the pen is just as eviscerating to a person as any predation by a violent felon who doesn't happen to have been hired by the People to do such dirtywork. In this sense, there's little difference between the two: violent felon, and extrajudicial violent felon hired by the People. In the end, that's the tyranny against which the People recognized at the Founding that they had every right to resist, no matter the cost, even at the cost of our form of governance, or their lives, or ours.

    Think it through. Think to the logical conclusions of attempts to document, trace, inhibit/criminalize, confiscate and any other subsequent actions against a People who are being systematically attacked with respect to their rights to defend themselves and others. Compare what we're seeing here to any other nation on the planet in which confiscations have been allowed by a People. Ask yourself what could possibly stop that from occurring here, in the USA, short of an armed People.
    Ghost1958 and SigPapa226 like this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

gun control and background checks paid by purchaser

,

gun control perspectives

Click on a term to search for related topics.