"Don't go all wobbly on me now George" -- Margaret Thatcher to George H. W. Bush.
Background Checks: Senate Republicans In Disarray Over Popular Gun Control Measure.
"Don't go all wobbly on me now George" -- Margaret Thatcher to George H. W. Bush.
Background Checks: Senate Republicans In Disarray Over Popular Gun Control Measure.
12 comments:
If we capitulate to forced background checks for private sales, we are admitting that firearms are not our private property but in reality, property of the state. We will be exchanging "state" owned property and the "state" will be regulating and monitoring ownership of their property. At any point in time, the "state" will simply reclaim their property.
The "state" would like to license, regulate,background check and tax anything and everything it deems necessary for "state" security.
There will be no end to these intrusions -- as we've already witnessed through legislation forcing background checks for ammunition sales and licensing ammunition sellers.
Shall we also be licensed to "manufacture" ammunition? Shall the sales of powder, primer, brass and bullets be also regulated through federal or state licensure and background investigations?
Will the "state" investigate why we've bought 1000 rounds of ammunition when we only have one "registered" weapon with a magazine capacity of 7 rounds?
Shall we be required to account for every round of ammunition fired through every firearm?
It will not end with mandated background checks for FTF sales. You will never be in compliance because the "state" will forever change the laws for compliance until there's no possible way to attain compliance.
...shall not be infringed ...
Bloody cowards.
The correct response would be OH, HELL NO.
Like the republicans who were asked about better background checks... tell me more. Just what does 'universal background check' mean, anyway? I always worry when the terms of any argument are not clearly defined. Maybe it would be a good thing and maybe not. I would hope our representatives have learned that when told they must vote for a bill to find out what is in it - to run in the other direction.
whats an email that we can send info to you at? Thanks.
And we should expect anything different from the neocon establishment? They want firm control over society as much as the collectivist progressives do. The only difference is the collectivist neocons want to be in control rather then the progs.
If/when they do regain control again, they are going to want to have the option of using a compiled list to confiscate guns just as the progs do since they will fear rebellion against their authoritarian rule.
Nous Defions
There can be no more bargaining away of our rights - NO renewed AWB, NO magazine limits and NO registration.
What other piece of property must a person go through a background check in order to buy or receive? None that I can think of, yet NO OTHER PROPERTY IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION!
I will NOT run my son or daughter through a background check if I wish to gift or leave them a firearm - that is a CLEAR infringement on my rights and theirs.
The House controls the purse strings and it has a Republican majority. There should be a meeting between House and Senate republicans. The
House should inform the senate that if they support any kind of gun control, the house will defund their pet projects. In the meantime, while this discussion is going on, defund the ATF. The Republic has enough trouble makers and shitbags running loose around the country.
Universal background check.
Universal healthcare.
Sound familiar?
But what the hell is a "tighter b/g check?" John is right -- it is an undefined term. Biden just pointed out they don't bother to prosecute people who fail current b/g checks. Actually enforcing current law and going after felons who try to buy firearms via a 4473 would be a "tighter b/g check," I would suppose, and I wouldn't complain.
I'm completely opposed to mandatory b/g checks for private sales, but that isn't what was asked.
This is another good example of gun controllers trying to confuse the debate so they can force "laws" on the public against our will while pretending to have public support.
the telling statement--
"I'm going to look at it," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
What this means is that someone (GOA, NRA, anyone?) needs to educate these people quickly why they need to filibuster fully and oppose it. If Rand Paul is not clear yet, then the real squishes -- and there are many -- REALLY don't get it.
Ooh, those poor R Senators, they DO want to "compromise" somewhere. They wet their pants over a negative news article in a newspaper about to go under. And we already know what Rand Paul is made of.
Gang, you'd better start getting used to ignoring the law. Either that, or turn all your guns in right now; we won't be needing your "help".
Post a Comment