No Assault Weapons Ban
-
See? You can all come down from the ledges now. A gun ban will not pass now, or In the future. Retire the idea.
-
See? You can all come down from the ledges now. A gun ban will not pass now, or In the future. Retire the idea.
See? You can all come down from the ledges now. A gun ban will not pass now, or I'm the future. Retire the idea.
Good, common sense wins. No on was on a ledge just protesting the notion strongly.
-
See? You can all come down from the ledges now. A gun ban will not pass now, or I'm the future. Retire the idea.
Good, common sense wins. No on was on a ledge just protesting the notion strongly.
-
Not really. Reid says she can put up her crap as an amendment to a current bill.
It does show how out of control, hysterical left wing emotionalism is extremely hypocritical (she has HER gun), and prone to failure as a legit solution.
-
It's. Not. Going. To. Happen.
-
Then. Come. Up. With. A. FREAKIN VIABLE INTELLIGENT NON-EMOTIONAL RANT. sorry. Solution.
-
Maybe if you believe this fiction hard enough iit will come true. That's how it works in never-land right?
-
Maybe if you believe this fiction hard enough iit will come true. That's how it works in never-land right?
Maybe if you believe this fiction hard enough iit will come true. That's how it works in never-land right?
Respond. With. Something. Relevant. Instead. Of. Personal. Attacks.
-
Maybe if you believe this fiction hard enough iit will come true. That's how it works in never-land right?
Respond. With. Something. Relevant. Instead. Of. Personal. Attacks.
-
Ok, cal Jr. Read about 1500 other posts. Sometimes you guys just aren't worth my serious attention.
I'm not going back to reread your old posts. I'm just saying that if you're going to rely on personal attacks to get your point across you are going to look clueless and dumb.
-
Ok, cal Jr. Read about 1500 other posts. Sometimes you guys just aren't worth my serious attention.
I'm not going back to reread your old posts. I'm just saying that if you're going to rely on personal attacks to get your point across you are going to look clueless and dumb.
I'm not going back to reread your old posts. I'm just saying that if you're going to rely on personal attacks to get your point across you are going to look clueless and dumb.
I guess its better to look clueless and dumb than to be clueless and dumb like, say, some pothead out driving around thinking he's doing a good job
-
Here's what's going to be the debate going forward: not whether or not there will be background checks, but whether or not those background checks will be kept by law enforcement officials. That's the only battle left.
If you don't keep the record of the checks the bill is essentially meaningless. You won't have any way to know if the seller performed a background check or not. Currently, the FBI can't keep the records of the checks it does now. It has to delete them within 24 hours. Under the Senate Judiciary Committee bill, which the NRA says they would not fight or score in their rankings (meaning you can vote for it and they won't ding you in their ratings or run ads against you), neither the seller nor the FBI would keep a record of the check beyond 24 hours. Under the bill Schumer wrote and Reid now says he's going to stick by, they would keep the records. The NRA will fight that.
This is where the fight is going to be. All the rest is a sideshow.
So what do you guys think? If you're for meaningful background checks, you need there to be a registry held by law enforcement. If you take that away, you might as well not bother. But you're going to hear lots of talk about this is going to lead to a "federal gun registry."
90% of the public wants background checks. This one could be interesting.
-
Check out the percentage of people who want gun registration.
The reason that "keeping the information on checks" is so unpopular.... is because
it IS registration on the sly. And, that gives them the locations of every gun.
And that leads to confiscation, historically.
We've already seen the abuse of the information ...location and ownership of guns, that has happened already.
You ain't seen nothin yet if the gov can keep all backround checks info. They want it because they want to use it.
They can't use it if they can't get it.
And that's a fact, jack.
-
Well that's a major problem with governing by polls.
Personally I have no problem with background checks.
Unfortunately if they are to have any effect whatsoever the process is going to have to be more invasive than any of the privacy Hawks are going to be able to accept.
And that's on the right and left.
I don't suppose the 90 percent have stopped to think about what an effective background check would have to entail.
Wss
-
Well, let's point out the obvious. An extensive background check is supposed to keep the unqualified from buying a gun.
So, why now, is the "we have to keep the information.." necessary? It served it's ALLEGED purpose, so get RID of the request.
It would come up the next time. We have computers, you libs.
So, why require the gov KEEPING the info?
So it can be used, that's why. They want to know where the guns are, and who has them.
Any other reason I may have missed on background check records kept by the gov?
-
Cal I guess you are probably right that there are plenty of people who would like to have that information close at hand.
1 reason that doesn't bother me is that most likely only the most horrendous reasons for disqualification are going to show up anyway.
If someone has been convicted of beating his wife or some other violent crime or actually been admitted to asylum sure great, let that information be public.
The vast majority of wackos who shouldn't own a gun arent even in the system so...
WSS
-
I'm fine with background checks.
Just throw the info out after it's used.
There is no reason to keep it unless it's for a bad, very dangerous to our 2nd Amendment reason.
That's why they aren't keeping them now. By popular demand.
The same for ammo. A background check for ammo would clog the system, and give
anti gunners the information they would use to intimidate ammo buyers.
Like, if you buy more than a hundred rounds in a month, you end up on the no fly list or something.
Meanwhile, we happily finally found .22 mag ammo at our local outdoor store.
They have a 500 round limit on those, less with other rounds. The supply is starting to bounce back.
That was in the morninig, about 9:45 - 10 o'clock, though.
-
I'm fine with background checks.
Just throw the info out after it's used.
There is no reason to keep it unless it's for a bad, very dangerous to our 2nd Amendment reason.
That's why they aren't keeping them now. By popular demand.
The same for ammo. A background check for ammo would clog the system, and give
anti gunners the information they would use to intimidate ammo buyers.
Like, if you buy more than a hundred rounds in a month, you end up on the no fly list or something.
Meanwhile, we happily finally found .22 mag ammo at our local outdoor store.
They have a 500 round limit on those, less with other rounds. The supply is starting to bounce back.
That was in the morninig, about 9:45 - 10 o'clock, though.
I'm fine with background checks.
Just throw the info out after it's used.
There is no reason to keep it unless it's for a bad, very dangerous to our 2nd Amendment reason.
That's why they aren't keeping them now. By popular demand.
The same for ammo. A background check for ammo would clog the system, and give
anti gunners the information they would use to intimidate ammo buyers.
Like, if you buy more than a hundred rounds in a month, you end up on the no fly list or something.
Meanwhile, we happily finally found .22 mag ammo at our local outdoor store.
They have a 500 round limit on those, less with other rounds. The supply is starting to bounce back.
That was in the morninig, about 9:45 - 10 o'clock, though.
Intimidate ammo buyers? I thought the point of being armed is so you feel safe and powerful. I think this is the root cause of the gun control opposition. That the largest part of the enthusiasts are easily intimidated. Your totem makes you feel safe, I get it. It's a totally false sense of security, but I get it. It's sort of like standing on a fifteen foot ladder with half your body in the drop ceiling. Because it looks like there's something solid around you it lulls you into not realizing you're fifteen feet off the floor and if you fell you'd go right through it.
Nunboy produced some number that said you have a better chance of winning the lottery or getting hit by lightning or something than being killed with a gun, so I ask this: if its so unlikely that we don't need to take any precautions to protect children at school; then why is it so important that YOU be armed?
-
Again, if you want a background check system that works, you have to allow law enforcement to keep the data about the checks. Otherwise, the law can't be enforced.
As for Steve's point, yes and no. This information is already compiled and used for the background checks the FBI currently does for licensed gun dealers. The new law would require that every gun sale use the same system. So, that information you talk about "privacy hawks" freaking out about is already compiled in the FBI system. So you can throw that point out.
As to what else they might decide might disqualify you from buying a gun - mental health and the like - there might be some new criteria that involve privacy concerns, but no one is proposing that yet. They're only proposing that the current system be applied to all purchases.
The stumbling block here is the notion that I'm sure Cal raised, where gun rights people imagine that this is the way the government is going to come steal your guns. This isn't the only concern, but this will be the crux of the NRA's push - that these are legal guns and they don't want to be in a government database just because they own them. Of course, they already are in a database because they own something legal (a car) but that's not going to stop them.
I'm sure you could write the law in such a way that accommodates their fears about gun confiscation, but I doubt that's going to change any votes. This is going to be a fight.
And one I suspect the NRA will win. And if not in the vote, they'll win it in the rule writing stage.
-
I have no problem with strict backgrounds checks. I have had High Clearance level and have been background checked to near death.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login