Defensive Carry banner

Who's really lying about Universal Background checks?

2K views 20 replies 14 participants last post by  gtfoxy 
#1 ·
#2 ·
He is afraid his job may be at risk if the regulators scale back infringements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StormRhydr
#3 ·
I'm not sure if I've said it recently, but think about it. If all criminals disappeared tomorrow, if all vegetable matter possession became a non-crime, there'd be thousands and thousands of agents, lawyers, judges and legislators with nothing to do. They do not want crime to stop. They want to criminalize law abiding citizens, WHILE disarming them (jealousy, easier pickings).

While they're busy investigating us, terrorists run free. While the legislators are busy making more 'gun free zones' criminals are busy more easily plying their trade.

Sometimes I wonder if there isn't a criminal lobby or PAC in Congress pushing these things through...oh wait! :)
 
#5 ·
The problem is entirely the definition of what is reasonable. The governments idea of reasonable would be to add additional agencies and thousands of hirelings to generate hundreds of pages of forms that would necessitate additional agencies with thousands more employees to study the impact on trees blaming over forestation, chemical pollution of lakes and rivers used in paper production on guns. The term reasonable when applied to the government is an oxymoron. Applying the word moron to our government would be a more accurate and reasonable description.
 
#6 ·
The problem is entirely the definition of what is reasonable.
IMO, the problem is simpler than that: It's the meaning of "shall not be infringed" and whether this holds any meaning whatsoever, whether we're going to allow continued Clintonesque slicing of our language to be tolerated amongst so-called "judges."

Seems clear that any infringement is patently unreasonable, unauthorized, unconstitutional. So long as we've got so-called "judges" in the back pockets of the liberty-haters and statists on this question, we'll continue to be chasing our own tails.

As you say, a government hireling's definition of "reasonable" is wholly different from a citizen's, particularly when control versus liberty is on the line along with the hireling's "gravy train" employment.
 
#7 ·
I find it amusing that in his opening paragraph he says
a firearm can be purchased with no record of the transaction, and no review of whether the purchaser is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm.
implying that this can be done anywhere, anytime, then just a few paragraphs later he describes how well the NICS system works. Uh, which way is it?
 
#8 ·
Easy to answer..... Bloomberg keeps talking about the "gun show loophole" ..... and "unlicensed dealers selling guns @ gun shows" .... neither exist. You won't come to any gunshow I've ever seen, and buy a gun from an "unlicensed dealer" or even be able to find a "unlicensed dealer" able to get in the door and set up a table to sell guns.

enough said.
 
#10 ·
There is precious little truth being told in this debate. The truth is, gun control doesn't make anyone safer. Not even their vaunted background checks can actually be proven to do that. There's also not a whole lot of evidence that loose gun laws make people safer either. The fact is, in any society, there are always a few worthless excuses for human beings running around and causing trouble. The real question boils down to, will we be a society that respects the rule of law (shall NOT be infringed) and the basic morality of letting people defend themselves as they see fit, or will we turn to an act of tyranny and disarm/handicap those who obey the law.
 
#15 ·
I think a talented 7th-grader could shoot a lot of holes in that article, starting with the underlying premise that anonymous purchases are necessarily bad. And if you're really tuned into logical fallacies, the article is a "target-rich environment."

I wish the author would respond to two questions of mine:

1. Nearly all the NICS reasons for denial have a 1:1 correspondence to the Form 4473 questions, and providing false answers those questions is a Federal felony offense.
Of the "one million" instant check denials [FBI web site says 700,000 today], how many prosecutions have been attempted and how many were successful?

2. You state "Universal Checks... will make transfers of firearms to prohibited persons easier for law enforcement personnel to detect, deter, and punish."
What potentially illegal gun buyers who are not currently exposing themselves to the NICS-validated purchases would pursue firearms purchases if all future transactions are subject to UBCs?
Stated differently, do you seriously think that criminals will expose themselves to background checks to buy guns?
 
#17 ·
They say (Bloomberg, Dem's, etc) that you can just order a gun over the internet and they'll send it to you with NO background check at all. Now, in the 1960's we could order rifles out of catalogs. But try to do that over the internet, without it going thru an FFL and a background check, and see how far anyone gets. It isn't going to happen.

The truth, doesn't fit their agenda, which is to develop a National gun registration data base. They know they can tell the American public what they are really after.
 
#19 ·
We should throw back in their faces the way the feds have failed spectacularly.
* failure to pull permits from people who have been accused, tried and found guilty of felonies
* allowing multiple DUIs back on the road (up to 13 or more)
* releasing the guy who murdered his mom, who then bought a straw purchase from a neighbor and had a shootout with the cops.
* multiple mistakenly released felons, releasing felons early to make room for white collar and lower violence new inmates
* allowing gang activity, afraid to go into certain neighborhoods
* Operation Fast and Furious and multiple bad fallout from that
* just read yahoo for the IRS scandal
* Secret Service scandal, Brazilian call girls and more
* kids in schools potentially going to jail for t-shirts with RTBA slogans
* bombers in Boston, alerted to by several agencies and overlooked, and the probable cover up of their murders

...it goes on and on. Who are they looking at? Guys walking their dog while OC-ing. Guys at the laundromat with their wife and child OC-ing. People pulled over for expired stickers disarmed and swept with their firearms. Histrionics, threats, and death threats from antis being the norm.

They should clean up their own house and quit worrying about removing the freedoms of the LAC.
 
#20 ·
He supports the NICS check system ..ok fine and attempts to use that as a springboard exuse for universal checks,but never bridges the so called cracks in the system to show how the "new system" would be effective.This is a trend i see when people talk about "universal checks". The anti defense crowd talks about how the laws need to be passed but no one seems to know exactly what the government is proposing .This should set alarm bells of in the heads of anyone with common sense.It's the whole Nancy Pelosi let's get the law passed first then read it crud all over again.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top