- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What do liberals mean when they say “universal background check”?
Posted on 9/4/19 at 6:59 am to ChineseBandit58
Posted on 9/4/19 at 6:59 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
I am NOT in favor of unregulated/undocumented sale of firearms to unknown people without some sort of 'background check' - Need to be a responsible gun owner. If you are not a liscened dealer you DO NOT NEED to be selling firearms to the public at large
You fit right in with the Liberals, not just for firearms, where a person must prove thier innocence, therefore assumed guilty until proven otherwise.
A right delayed is a right denied, by placing the burden of proof on the accused (universally and unjustly accused) you can create an indefinite delay.
Background checks, Brady Bill, GCA, all of them, are pure BS.
1
Posted on 9/4/19 at 7:03 am to papasmurf1269
Drugs like heroin and cocaine are illegal.....and people still buy that stuff. So if it’s illegal for you to purchase/ own a gun, people are still going to buy guns. The second the liberal sheeple realize this is nothing more than priming the pump for gun confiscation.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 7:05 am to papasmurf1269
They believe a national gun registry is the answer and the federal government should have control versus states.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 7:10 am to themunch
Wanna know what a bigger fricking problem is.....doctors overprescribing opioids. Talk about tearing apart families by the pill. Yet they are licensed and sanctioned by govt, but those Big Pharma kickbacks are quite nice.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 7:12 am to East Nasty Swaaaaag
The same thing they mean every time they discuss guns:
We want to take all weapons from private citizens and force you to live in tyranny and be completely controlled and dependent on the state. Your right to self defense is so fundamental that if we strip you of this we can easily control you.
We want to take all weapons from private citizens and force you to live in tyranny and be completely controlled and dependent on the state. Your right to self defense is so fundamental that if we strip you of this we can easily control you.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 8:43 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:How does a “background check” predict how a person will act in the future? The idea that a “background check” is going to reform criminal behavior is... frankly... silly.
I am NOT in favor of unregulated/undocumented sale of firearms to unknown people without some sort of 'background check' - Need to be a responsible gun owner
Posted on 9/4/19 at 10:00 am to mouton
quote:
Private sellers at gunshows? What is the negative in this?
We can see you have never been to a gun show or attempted to buy a gun at a gun show.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 10:04 am to East Nasty Swaaaaag
quote:
Drugs like heroin and cocaine are illegal.....and people still buy that stuff. So if it’s illegal for you to purchase/ own a gun, people are still going to buy guns.
Same logic could be said on the following:
Crossing the border is illegal and people still cross the border. Putting up a wall won't stop people from crossing.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 10:33 am to jamboybarry
quote:
original argument was to require background checks on all private (non dealer/FFL) sales
I can see this type of sale becoming criminalized. Whoever the poor bastard is who sold a gun(s) to that dick is in store for some shite too. Not saying I agree really.
quote:
we all know this is just a stepping stone to buybacks and confiscation
Buybacks will be tried but only make it so far as voluntary as a “we tried” gesture.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 10:43 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
NOW - when a leftist begins advocating for "universal background checks" you can bet that what they REALLY mean is "have you ever been a conservative or voted for a conservative??" as the root question they want to use as an excuse to disarm the rational public.
The problem is that people will compromise freedom for safety. And they are trained to do it all the time. Think about the Patriot Act. How about the Sedition Act of 1918 (contrary to my posting habits, I'm more well read that I appear).
I agree with you Bandit, but do you honestly believe your average Joe will fight against this?
Posted on 9/4/19 at 11:04 am to volod
quote:
do you honestly believe your average Joe will fight against this?
I think "honest Joes" will - but the question is = "how many 'honest Joes' do we have left in America?"
I fear that we have become populated with too large a bunch of nihilist parasites courtesy of our failed 'education' system and abdication of parental obligations.
Time is running out on our ability to save ourselves - I am not optimistic.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 11:13 am to dakarx
quote:
You fit right in with the Liberals, not just for firearms, where a person must prove thier innocence, therefore assumed guilty until proven otherwise.
A right delayed is a right denied, by placing the burden of proof on the accused (universally and unjustly accused) you can create an indefinite delay.
Background checks, Brady Bill, GCA, all of them, are pure BS.
Perhaps I have not pre-qualified all my posts with my standard = "Do NOT compromise with DEMOCRATs on ANY gun control legislation - NONE - as long as they are acting in bad faith."
HOWEVER - I feel a person should perform his own "character check" on anyone he loans or sells a firearm to. There are people who I would not loan my lawnmower to, let alone my 30-06.
I wold not sell my truck to some meth-head looking character. Why would you want me to NOT make those judgements??
A person has the right to bear firearms - nothing says I have to assist him in exercising that right unless I think he is of good character.
Just like I dont fee compelled to build a platform and round up an audience for you to exercise your 'right to free speech' - especially if I profoundly disagree with your opinions and policies. Get your own platform and audience.
Your 'rights' do not impose any sort of liability on me.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News