If We Had To Swallow One New Gun Control Law, Which One?

Least damaging gun control measure

  • Universal Background Check

    Votes: 28 73.7%

  • Assault Weapons Ban

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • Ban/limit Online Sales of Guns and Ammo

    Votes: 2 5.3%

  • Firearm Purchase Limits

    Votes: 6 15.8%

  • Excise Tax on Guns And Ammo

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the points about background checks not brought up in this discussion is the obvious one, background checks do NOTHING to stop anyone who doesn't have something prohibitive in their background.

Take a look at the mass shootings of the past 30 years or so, you'll find a significant percentage of the killers had no prior criminal record. SO blanket claims it will stop that kind of thing are BS.

we've discussed this before, more than once. It is entirely possible to do a firearms background check on any individual WITHOUT connecting any specific firearm to the check. you could make it a block on your dirver's license or ID.

Every proposal like that has been refused by the folks pushing their own version of background checks which link a person with a specific firearm in the database. WE have already seen instances where records that should have been purged under the law were kept, in violation of the statute. Don't think for an instant that any line in a law saying the data cannot be used for registration will be scrupulously obeyed.
 
I'd trade Universal background checks in order to get universal acceptance of my carry permit AND making suppressors legal for everyone.
Click to expand...

That might seem enticing if the other side could be counted on to deal in good faith. They absolutely cannot.

Their "universal background check" bill will be poisoned with some backdoor for a national registry of gun owners (which was the point of the Brady Act in the first place) and any promise of a concession in return will quickly be broken.

If anything came from the 1994 laws, it was the fact that their idea of "compromise" is to take from us with the (false) promise that it won't get worse. Negotiating with the gun-control lobby is never going to be a zero-sum game.
 
I have an idea.
How about every official,Congress,Military Officers,etc,.....
All get a refresher course on the US Constitution and then renew their Vow to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies,foreign and domestic.

You folks who say you would bargain away one Freedom for a concession.????

You can say whatever you want,but the Constitution is not composed of "Things" that can be owned and bargained. Neither politicians nor Government are the source or Grantor of my Rights. My Creator took care of that.
If one of you wants to publicly advertise you are willing to squander YOUR freedom away,I think that should remain a civil contract ,like buying a time share.
Liberty is not a possession to be granted or bargained. It is a Legacy to Guard with your Lives so our Children and their Children will not be without it.
We ought to swear the Oath to the Constitution before we Vote.

That IS what guides MY vote!
 
People do not get it. It is NOT about guns, it is about POWER. They Know that if they can take away one right, they can take away others. This whole movement is to destroy anything American, the Flag, monuments, and the entire Economic system and current social system. It is a Marxist revolution. And we greatly under estimated them.
 
I say none of the above and the list above is kind of like a list to choose from on your method of execution.

IMHO the problem with UBC is it will at minimum be a foot in the door for registration. Here in Illinois we have UBC on the "gun purchaser as an individual" but now politicians are saying that is not good enough and they want the gun description and serial number as part of the process. Why is that? I think the answer is pretty apparent to most.
 
I have an idea.
How about every official,Congress,Military Officers,etc,.....
All get a refresher course on the US Constitution and then renew their Vow to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies,foreign and domestic.
Click to expand...

Why would you think that would do any good or change anything?? The same people who hold their oaths meaningless now will still hold their oaths meaningless after any "refresher" course, mandatory or not.

Too many people see their oaths as empty meaningless words, after all, what it the penalty for breaking their oath? MAYBE losing their job next election??? being tried for treason? When was the last time we tried any public official for treason?

People do not get it. It is NOT about guns, it is about POWER.
Click to expand...

Of course its about power. Every good Marxist knows Mao's quote about how "power comes from the barrel of a gun".

They aren't going after our right to arms simply because it is first on their list, it is first on their list because it is the one thing (along with our will) that can stop them. Sure, armed resistance is a worst case situation, but think about it.

If you remove the people's arms, and their legal right to them, there's damn little the people can do to stop anything else you do, and that has, historically, led to sending people to camps, from which they do not return.
 
My personal choice is UBCs. Why? Well if all is required is a NICS check similar to when buying from an FFL, even for private parties, this would (IMO) do the least damage. Yeah it would stifle private party sales some, and probably increase purchase expenses such as a fee to use an FFL. This would still be the easiest pill for me to swallow, so long as exceptions were made to exclude the criminalization of lending or gifting of firearms to close family.
Click to expand...

UBCs are bad and here's why, lets say you're going hunting with a buddy and you're lending him a gun to go hunting with, with UBCs your friend would have to go through a background check just to borrow your gun and then you would have to go through a background check to get it back.
 
I've read that the Imperial Japanese and the Soviets had discussed the possibility of invading the US. The ideas was dropped because both came to the same conclusion that the armed American Citizenry would annihilate their armies.
 
"UBCs are bad and here's why, lets say you're going hunting with a buddy and you're lending him a gun to go hunting with, with UBCs your friend would have to go through a background check just to borrow your gun and then you would have to go through a background check to get it back."

Once the Socialists take over and start banning guns, do you really think they will still permit hunting? This is about power hungry condescending elitists trying to erase not only our Constitution, but our very culture and way of life. Hunting, wood burning stoves, ATV's, snowmobiles, fossil fuel burning vehicles, rural living, private ownership of land, "Freedom" as we know it... its ALL on their list. Globalization & Agenda 21, not a conspiracy theory, its happening... research it.
 
I've read that the Imperial Japanese and the Soviets had discussed the possibility of invading the US
Click to expand...

If you mean discussed it with each other, I highly doubt that.

If you mean each considered the possibility, then yes every war college staff plays all kinds of "what if" games...

There was a quote attributed to Yamamoto (debunked as no proof could be found he ever said it) about how "You cannot invade America, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"

He may never had said it, but he certainly knew the possibility of our industrial capacity and military potential, once we got organized and focused.

He promised his superiors he could "run wild for 6 months, after that I can promise nothing" and that is the way things worked out.

Back to UBC for a moment..
UBCs are bad and here's why, lets say you're going hunting with a buddy and you're lending him a gun to go hunting with, with UBCs your friend would have to go through a background check just to borrow your gun and then you would have to go through a background check to get it back.
Click to expand...

My state has a UBC law, (being contested but until settled, still the law) which requires you, your friend, and the gun to all go to an FFL (in person) and has specific provisions for when this does not apply. Exemptions are when hunting or at a "certified" range.

The issue with this is that since there are specified exemptions, that means the law applies all the rest of the time, right?? Like, in your home, for example??

There is no clarification of what is, and is not a transfer requiring the background check, which is one of the points the law is being challenged over.

The UBC concept has a SMALL degree of merit, but the proposals we are offered of imposed on us already as law are written like crap, criminalizing common everyday LEGAL behavior due to overly vague language.

SO, if you support the concept of UBC's, be sure to READ THE FINE PRINT, because you might be supporting a bill that makes you a criminal for handing a friend a gun to look at in your own home, makes him a criminal for accepting it and then moves you into FELON when he gives is back and you take your own property without both of you and the gun being sanctified by an FFL (at his location during regular business hours) running, (and you passing) the background check required by the new "holy writ" of the law.

Its a BAD THING...don't be fooled by a benign title and LIES about what it will do.
 
And never forget that these laws are the frame that an unelected bureaucracy has the power to hang regulations with the force of law upon.
Like Forrest Gump's box of chocolates.

Cases in point? How about the ITAR rules affecting your local Gunsmith,or AR pistol brace rulings.

You can fall asleep a lawful citizen and wake up a felon due to a rule change.
 
My state has a UBC law, (being contested but until settled, still the law) which requires you, your friend, and the gun to all go to an FFL (in person) and has specific provisions for when this does not apply. Exemptions are when hunting or at a "certified" range.

The issue with this is that since there are specified exemptions, that means the law applies all the rest of the time, right?? Like, in your home, for example??

There is no clarification of what is, and is not a transfer requiring the background check, which is one of the points the law is being challenged over.

The UBC concept has a SMALL degree of merit, but the proposals we are offered of imposed on us already as law are written like crap, criminalizing common everyday LEGAL behavior due to overly vague language.

SO, if you support the concept of UBC's, be sure to READ THE FINE PRINT, because you might be supporting a bill that makes you a criminal for handing a friend a gun to look at in your own home, makes him a criminal for accepting it and then moves you into FELON when he gives is back and you take your own property without both of you and the gun being sanctified by an FFL (at his location during regular business hours) running, (and you passing) the background check required by the new "holy writ" of the law.

Its a BAD THING...don't be fooled by a benign title and LIES about what it will do.
Click to expand...

My point exactly about why universal background checks are bad.
 
You can fall asleep a lawful citizen and wake up a felon due to a rule change.
Click to expand...

All the more reason why its wrong to deny convicted felons the right to keep and bear arms and why the Gun Control Act of 1968 was and is one of the biggest infringements on the 2A.

Johnson was one of the most rotten, if not the rottenest president to ever take office.
 
And never forget that these laws are the frame that an unelected bureaucracy has the power to hang regulations with the force of law upon.
Click to expand...

This is maddening! It's "red tape" run amok. Frustrating is much too mild a word for how bad and unfair and just plain Un-American this is. We ELECT people to make our laws and THEY should be the only ones doing so.
 
Question 5Whiskey on purchase limits:

Are we talking total number of weapons (ie.; New Jersey limit: 5 guns = prohibited arsenal) or I can only buy 1 gun a week limit?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top