testtest

Below the Radar: Background Check Completion Act of 2020

If these loony, leftist, liberal politicians spent half as much time removing illegal guns and violent criminals from our streets permanently, there would be no problem. Catch and release is for fishing only! Ask them if they would include disarming their own personal protection details as well. These ridiculous attempts at pointless legislation that they feel are necessary are just plain stupid. Spend some time doing what the people who elected you sent you there to do, The People's Business, not your own personal agenda. The Founding Fathers of our country are turning over in their graves. Punish crime, not the law abiding firearms owner!
I think you really need to consider the fact that blaming gun violence on the existence of guns is the perfect straw man to draw attention away from decades of failed leadership and policies that drive poverty, broken homes, poor education, and a general lack of opportunities. Blaming guns is literally the perfect diversion because it appeals to simple folks who lack the understanding of the complex issues at play that lead people down the road to crime and violence, as well as the "educated" elitist left who are capable of understanding the situation, but can willfully ignore the positive aspects of firearms ownership because they live privileged lives in ultra-safe communities pursuing high-cost hobbies and activities.

The "left" will never cease to blame guns for the nations crime problems because its easy to get a large swath of people to support it.
 

jumpinjoe

Master Class
Guys, I'm not going to pick on anyone in particular, but let me say this and offer a couple of examples .......

1st - When the 2nd amendment was written by our founders, there was absolutely no restriction or limitations (infringement) to whatever type and size of 'arm' a citizen could own ("keep and bear"). As well, there was no 'requirement' to be in a militia. It was only that every able bodied man between 18-40 would be expected to answer the call to arms in any event of need and to bring his own arm. A citizen was guaranteed the "RIGHT" to keep and bear ANY arm that was currently in common use by any standing army and/or military. And yes, a common citizen could keep and bear even a full blown canon of any caliber or bore if he could afford it. And folks, that was about as big as personal arms were in that day.

Since the 'Gun Control Act of 1934, there has been limitations on the citizenry from owning any full auto firearm without first an intensive BGC and the payment of a substantial tax payment to the gov't. Now, here's a clue ... that's an infringement on our 2nd right. No matter how worthwhile any of us may feel it is, it is an infringement.

2nd - While I will take exception to a couple assertions in this thread, I do so with the utmost due respect to the writer...

#1 - "If by legally you mean from a legitimate retailer, then it seems that the background check is doing exactly what it was designed to do." NO, it isn't doing what it was designed to do. It was supposedly designed to "keep firearms out of the hands of criminals." psshaah! Those are the very first words used in describing what the legislation meant. Those are the words many politicians used to sell it to so many of the American people. In fact all it has done is to create another hardship for law-abiding citizens (an infringement) and helped to create an even larger percentage of 'guns on the street' to be sold on the black market. The NICS cannot be shown to have prevented even one bad guy from obtaining a firearm if he wanted one, even if the bad guy was stopped at the point of sale where a BGC was done. It can however be shown to have been an infringement to many, many law-abiding gun owners, either by way of delays, refusals, erc, even when mistaken.

#2 - "The real beauty of a background check is that it forces felons intent on getting guns to commit a non-violent crime before they even use the gun to commit a violent crime."
Now I won't actually take exception to this, but would certainly ask for the logic in it. Both the statement and the reality if it in fact exists. What the hell does it matter if a bad guy commits a non-violent crime before committing a violent one? If criminal sentences for any/every crime with a gun were strong enough to make an impression on some of these imbeciles there would be far fewer 2nd time offenders .......... of either non-violent or violent offenders.

#3 - "I firmly, yet respectfully, disagree with your position that a background check is an infringement on your 2A rights, and hope that you recognize the value in background checks that do not support some sort of database of firearms owners."
I simply do not understand the logic in this statement. If a BGC is a hindrance or interferes with your obtaining any arm to keep and bear in any way, then it most definitely is an infringement. I'm going to explain to you why that is in a moment. But for now, here's the definition of "infringe

verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing
  1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
    "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
  • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
    "his legal rights were being infringed"
Notice the term "break the terms of 'an agreement'. No matter how much any of us agree with any 'gun control' law, and there are some I honestly agree with, they are an infringement on our 2nd amendment right. At the time it was written, there was no limitation to it and all these things are limitations to some extent. We citizens made the first allowance for an infringement to our 2nd amendment right by allowing, even asking for the GCA of 1934. The people were tired of gangsters constantly shooting up their people, cities and towns with "Tommy" guns. And you have to remember the 20'-30's was the heyday of the gangster. It only made sense to the people that if the FBI and other top law enforcement agencies said they were bad (Tommy guns) and should be regulated, then "yeah" let's have them regulated. Now keep in mind that was never an outright ban, it was only making them a 'regulated' firearm. To a great surprise of many they are still legal for the American citizen to 'keep and bear; if you can 'bear' the financial costs.

Over many years, local and some state governments legislated various 'gun control' laws as they felt were needed, and in almost every case the people went for it because it didn't seem to drastic at the time, was only a small infringement on their right to keep and bear arms, and Oh yeh, was for the public safety. Then in 1986 came the big one. We the people again saw fit to give up a substantial portion of our 2nd amendment right and a major piece of 'gun control' legislation happened. It further regulated many semi-auto firearms based not on facts, but on cosmetic factors and put limits on many mag sizes/capacities, neither of which offered even a pittance of public safety, but was sold as such. The fact is this legislation mainly affected only 'para-military type "assault" weapons' (think AR-15) which at the time was a pretty limited market, but excluded many, many exact copies functionally of civilian looking hunting/plinking firearms. So, we the people again gave in to the vocal few. Then in 1994, the biggy. A ban on manufacture, sale, and/or import of many, many semi-autos. Virtually all of them in common circulation. However, in order to get it passed, the politicians knew that we the people were tiring of the rhetoric, lies, and the BS. So they added a 'sunset' date to the bill in order to get it passed, assuring themselves that by the end date they woukld have enough evidence of how well it worked to entice we the people to accept it permently. In Nov of 2004 it was pronounced there had been no demonstrable evidence that the law had reduced any gun related crime at all, much less any gun related crime using semi-auto "Assault" weapons. It was 'sun-setted' in that year and basically went away. Since then it has been made evident that some politicians, among them Sen Dianne Fienstein, has been recorded as saying that she would have had total confiscation if she could have, will not rest in their agendas to disarm the American people at any cost.

Now, basically all that says is that no matter how much the responsible, law-abiding gun owners give in to 'gun control', it will never be enough. And as days go on more and more of we the people are finding fewer reasons to even own a firearm, so it becomes an even more off balance situation of pro-gun folks vs anti-gun folks. I'm not saying either side is wrong in their beliefs, what I am saying is that I personally am against the manor in which the 'anti-gun' side claims to be enhancing public safety by infringing on my 2nd amendment right, yet never admitting to that infringement. I'm not a criminal, I'm not irresponsible, and I'm as safety minded as any individual who ever walked. In other words there is absolutely no reason to prevent me from exercising my full and unadulterated 2nd amendment right. To infringe on my rights when the same gov't will not make penalties for the bad guys harsh enough to get through to them is simply not right.

I've said about enough to make it apparent which side of the "keep and bear arms" question I'm on and earlier I promised to explain just why I've supported the 2nd amendment as I have. I readily admit there are some laws regarding firearms I can agree with but that still doesn't over ride the fact they are infringements to the 2nd, and in most cases I disagree with the method of the enforcement (or lack of) of those laws. The fact is the 2nd "Right" is a given. It is inalienable or 'God given'. It has never been the pervue of any gov't to grant that right, and no gov't should be allowed to take it away or infringe upon it.

I started this out by saying my disagreement was with all due respect and I mean that. I'll fight to the death your right to believe as you do, but will fight your faulty, even bogus methods of enforcement with every legal means at my disposal. The bottom line is this ........ punish the bad guys and leave the good guys alone. Create laws that will in every way negatively impact the bad guys, but in no way negatively impact the good guys, and you'll have my full support. Note: I don't like criminals having guns either. But if any law or regulation negatively impacts the responsible, law-abiding gun owners, I'll fight it in every legal way possible.
 
Last edited:
Top