Universal background checks fails - GC bill to be shelved for the rest of the year!!! - Page 5
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Universal background checks fails - GC bill to be shelved for the rest of the year!!!

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,352
    Quote Originally Posted by cluznar View Post
    Expanded background checks can do no harm so why would people be against it? What is the sense in having most people take a background check but not all? This is all so silly to me. Like having expanded background checks is gonna hurt gun owners or something. It is no big deal, extend background checks already. Sometimes I feel that many gun owners believe the only important thing in the world are the guns they own. Human life is important, food is important, money is important, a place to live is important, etc.
    You are quite correct... it is silly to have most people take a background check but not all because no one should ever have to submit to a background check of any kind when buying a firearm. There should be absolutely no restrictions on who can keep or bear arms!!!

    What should be done is use the laws we already have to punish those who use the arms they keep and bear to commit crimes. Punish the criminal... not the gun!

    If background checks actually had any effect upon the criminals or the nutty then I would say that the premise that background checks are a good thing would be valid except we already have background checks... and the criminals and nuts still get guns because....

    Now pay attention...

    Criminals and nuts do NOT submit to ... background checks!!!!

    Got that?

    Background checks do not have any effect on those who do not submit to them.

    Got that?

    And if background checks are so wonderful consider this.... Lanza didn't get a background check... he just murdered his mom and took her guns and then went to the Sandy Hook school and murdered more people. How would a background check law have helped there? And why have our politicians, the same politicians who are pushing for these new laws, said themselves that the new laws (that include background checks) would not prevent another Sandy Hook shooting?

    Human life most certainly IS important... and the bare essence of that is for everyone to have the ability to protect their lives from the criminals and nuts that DO NOT SUBMIT TO BACKGROUND CHECKS!

    You said you sometimes think, no wait... you said "feel", many gun owners believe the only important thing is the guns they own. What really is important is the freedom to own and carry a gun because if we don't have guns that give us the ability to defend our lives from criminals and nuts the concerns of money, food, and a place to live are totally unimportant to a man or woman who is dead because a criminal or nut who didn't submit to a background check shot them.

    Now here is the greatest harm that background checks can do... again... pay attention!!!

    The power to decide who will pass and who will fail background checks is just another method of government mandated gun control.

    When the government is in charge of what things will cause a person to fail a background check then the government has the power to gradually change that criteria to the point where no one could possibly pass that background check. We see that happening right now with the debate about "mental health" but who decides which mental health issues will cause a person to fail a background check? Why... the government of course!

    Now consider this........ if laws worked then no one would be murdered because there is a law against that... no one would be robbed because there is a law against that... no one would be raped because there is a law against that too. And considering that innocents are robbed, raped, and murdered everyday by criminals and nuts I'd say that laws aren't working very well to protect the innocent. Especially since all those laws say no one is "allowed" to rob, rape, or murder.

    And now I would like to thank you cluznar... because your post gives me, and others, the opportunity to show the premise that universal background checks will stop criminals and nuts is............ false... an illusion... nothing more than yet another gun control scheme. Please do keep posting .... you are helping the fight against gun control more than you realize.

  2.   
  3. #42
    ezkl2230 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by cluznar View Post
    Expanded background checks can do no harm so why would people be against it? What is the sense in having most people take a background check but not all? This is all so silly to me. Like having expanded background checks is gonna hurt gun owners or something. It is no big deal, extend background checks already. Sometimes I feel that many gun owners believe the only important thing in the world are the guns they own. Human life is important, food is important, money is important, a place to live is important, etc.
    OK -- I am sick and tired of the reasoning that says, if you're not guilty, then you have nothing to be afraid of if they want to go digging through your life.

    I have one response to you - the Bill of Rights.

    The Bill of Rights was instituted with a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress and 3/4 supermajority of the legislatures of the States to do two things - LIMIT the federal government and protect the inalienable rights of the People. Read the Preamble when you get the chance. Protection of our Constitutional rights is supposed to be the top priority of the federal government. Period.

    THE BILL OF RIGHTS SUPERSEDES THE CONSTITUTION!!!

    Here's what's wrong with your reasoning. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It doesn't say, "The right of the state to investigate your affairs in the absence of a warrant regardless of the lack of probable cause or evidence of guilt shall not be violated." The government is only justified in performing a background check on you, Constitutionally, when there is probable cause to do so, and when there is sufficient evidence to warrant the issuance of a warrant. Only at that time can your "persons, houses, papers, and effects" be reasonably searched.

    Furthermore, the Second Amendment, explicitly guaranteeing the unabridged right of the Citizen Militia to bear arms at all times, provides for no qualifications on that right. Nothing in the Bill of Rights can be construed as providing the government AT ANY LEVEL the right to qualify or otherwise limit/abridge that right.

    Your reasoning is screwed up at many levels, and there is no evidence in ANY mass shooting - from Columbine to Newtown - that universal background checks would have saved a single life. In fact, Rep. Jackson recently said it best: "You can't condemn gangbangers. They're using trafficked weapons!" Explain to all of us how universal background checks are going to stop gangbangers or anyone else from getting their hands on trafficked or stolen firearms. I'll answer that one for you - THEY WON'T!

    And BTW, it has been said, and I believe it, when the interrogator comes, the last thing in the world you want to be is innocent - because you have nothing to confess.

  4. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by cluznar View Post
    Expanded background checks can do no harm so why would people be against it? What is the sense in having most people take a background check but not all? This is all so silly to me. Like having expanded background checks is gonna hurt gun owners or something. It is no big deal, extend background checks already. Sometimes I feel that many gun owners believe the only important thing in the world are the guns they own. Human life is important, food is important, money is important, a place to live is important, etc.
    Apparently, you don't think avoiding living in a ghetto is all that important:



    I've read everything you have posted online as a "writer," and I'm here to tell you that you're definitely not making "important" money pursuing that so-called avocation.

    Food is definitely important. I'm just wondering, when you work up an appetite sittin' in that dump pounding out posts on the multitude of gun forums that you joined within just a month or so of each other, for no other reason than to see how many gun owners you could piss off with your brainless twaddle, do you take a left when you walk out of your driveway and grab a bite at the Dairy Land?



    Or do you take a right out of your driveway and chow down at the Babas Restaurant? Or maybe grab something to eat on the run at the Holy City Grocery?



    For anyone thinking maybe I "stalked" this government shill, please, get a grip. I simply searched on his user name and found his real name, his address, his "professional" associations as a "writer" and "screenwriter," all of his many memberships at gun forums where he posts the same tripe and illicits the same reactions as he does here, almost all of which he joined within just a few days of each other, and the ones that fall outside that range, were joined within three or four weeks of each other. Anyone is welcome to search Google or Bing or any other engine on my user name and post up whatever you find that I've been stupid enough to allow to remain in the public domain. If you think you found my home on Google Maps, post it up. Don't post my real address, just like I didn't post cluznar's, but you won't find mine anyway, and you will find cluznar's if all you do is search on his user name and do a little digging within the results.

    Obviously, cluznar doesn't understand cyber-security any better than he understands most of us being adamant about keeping our rights secure. Not my fault he can't cover his tracks any better than he does.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  5. #44
    BluesStringer are you sure you are not stalking? You seem to have a problem with someone who is just expressing his views. Maybe you are paranoid or feel I am a threat to you? To take this so personal as to do research on a person is not normal at all. Maybe you should see a shrink? Whatever your problem is, if you can not allow me my opinions without
    taking it personal, you should not be on a forum. I don't agree with everyone on this forum, but I do not research where they live and attack them with words and pictures, I simply state that I don't agree and post my view. Think seriously about your behavior and try and realize what I am saying. I wish you the best and hope your anger settles down.


  6. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by cluznar View Post
    BluesStringer are you sure you are not stalking? You seem to have a problem with someone who is just expressing his views. Maybe you are paranoid or feel I am a threat to you? To take this so personal as to do research on a person is not normal at all. Maybe you should see a shrink? Whatever your problem is, if you can not allow me my opinions without
    taking it personal, you should not be on a forum. I don't agree with everyone on this forum, but I do not research where they live and attack them with words and pictures, I simply state that I don't agree and post my view. Think seriously about your behavior and try and realize what I am saying. I wish you the best and hope your anger settles down.

    This would all seem perfectly rational, calm and innocent to anyone who doesn't know that you PM'ed me to tell me that you sent a post of mine to "the House of Representatives, Congress, newspapers in Utah, and Texas and Ohio and PA." That post contained an article by a very good friend of mine who gave me permission to post it in its entirety, which is any author's right to allow or deny. You had no right to do that, and when I asked you for more information on who you sent it to, you told me to "take it easy" and denied you had any responsibility to honor my friend's copyright rights under the law.

    YOU made it personal you government shill. YOU put your cyber tracks out there for all to see you copyright thief. YOU are trying to get government interested in monitoring me you autocrat-loving hack. I have proof of every word I've said here, and you know it, so take your whiny little ass back to your DHS handlers and tell them I said MOLON LABE MF'ers MOLON-freakin'-LABE!

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  7. #46
    When you post things in public domain such as the internet, it is available for people to use. As long as I did not claim to have written the info there is no problem showing it to someone else. Do you realize how many stories and articles are taken off the internet every day and shown to other people? Showing someone something from the internet is not a crime.
    I think you are paranoid, I am not trying to get anyone to monitor you. I hope you learn to understand.


  8. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,414
    Quote Originally Posted by cluznar View Post
    When you post things in public domain such as the internet, it is available for people to use. As long as I did not claim to have written the info there is no problem showing it to someone else. Do you realize how many stories and articles are taken off the internet every day and shown to other people? Showing someone something from the internet is not a crime.
    I think you are paranoid, I am not trying to get anyone to monitor you. I hope you learn to understand.

    You are bound and determined to blather your way into a lawsuit, aren't you?

    Here's an excerpt from the .gov synopsis for copyright law under the "Fair Use" doctrine:

    U.S. Copyright Office - Fair Use

    "The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."


    Back off Conrad, or you'll be hearing from both my and my friend's attorney. You're out of your depth.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    Although polls show support for background checks, there was growing concern that the Toomey-Manchin bill would lead to a national gun registry. "
    Of course any gun control being mentioned by this disgusting administration and their enablers is the foot in the door for national gun registration, which then leads to confiscation. I do not trust this federal government--period/end of story. Already, I believe the state of Missouri has already violated confidential information on gun owners and sent info to the feds. If someone in this administration is moving their lips, they are lying--pure and simple.

  10. #49
    BluesStringer unleash your attorneys at will.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

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