Anti Gun Movement Needs Victory....Background Check Solution

Having taken such a beating on much of the late gun issues, even with some measure of victory here and there, the gun haters and their mouthpiece media have checked in hard on the issues of background checks. They need this to look as if they are still in control of shaping what is best for the country.

Truth is the background check flap is a non sequitur to the late events that have lead to more gun regulation talk. The background check had zip to do with any of it and thus represents the true weakness of the anti gun worlds position. Even in this context the mantra of "common sense" is a desperation considering that background checks are already in place in most places and that no data is known to exist on the number of crimes committed by unchecked gun holders. Certainly none of the notorious recent gun violence had anything to do with background checks and gun shows.

Also remember, if you were around and those that were not need to know, that for 25 years the "gun show loophole" has been one of the anti constitutionalists priorities for closer.... even though now still without data that they have had 25 years to collect. Seen in its historic context it is very clear that the tragic deaths of late caused by mental cases are simply the newest gun show loophole convenience. The media is simply being forced to steer the publics attention to something that had zero to do with the recent causes of gun paranoia in this country in hopes of getting an easy victory in this charged atmosphere.....that they have created around gun shows.

How about some common sense media! If they cant have any we need to exercise ours!

The "mental illness" excuse is also a slippery slope to unconstitutionality.

With tens of thousands of "mental illnesses" to diagnose everyone with, and since most are vague and ambiguous, they could label anyone as mentally unfit for a gun.

So that won't be an acceptable route of regulation either, as it's far to easy to abuse and just deem 95% of the population unfit for guns rights (the last 5% being the tyrants left armed).

And this really isn't even about guns either, it's about owning humans as property.
That's what this all boils down to.

The government and control freaks just want to tell everyone how to live, what to eat, etc.
And they are willing to use guile and usurp the govt and use violence to get their way, they don't care how many people have to be hurt to accomplish the goal (of gaining power over other people).

It's like some wild incessant need to prop up their own egos at everyone else's expense.

OH and guess what, I did some background checks on the US Govt and they even admit straight up they have a very long sordid criminal history (of which over 90% of the culprits got away scot free). Hypocrisy is the foundation of today's system of governance.

And gun shows aren't a loophole, they are a human right.
You have the right to sell and trade any property you own, and can buy any property available on the marketplace.

That is an actual human right (that is violated often).

No one, not the govt or anyone else, has the authority or power to arbitrarily blanket restrict human rights without due process and explicit consent of the subject. As a result you cannot legitimately declare on a broad basis that all humans must have X right regulated or restricted. Each individual has to consent to giving up specific rights, and it requires a legal contract with witnesses and dotted lines *(they are technically called waiver documents).


And those typical methods of lying to people, entrapping them, or using coercive threats in order to force them into compliance with waiving their rights is technically illegal also.

Coercion:

The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.

See my 5 minute background check on the US Govt?
I already exposed them of countless crimes, organized criminal syndicate style crimes.

dissagreeing with the government is a mental illnes

All this whining about the checks failing.

You know, if they didnt load the bill with garbage and just left it a couple of simple lines like:

"All non-FFL firearm transactions taking place at a sanction gun show event are subject to NICS authorization."

It probably would have passed no problem. But noooooo every grabby politico had to get in there and lay a brick for future registries and limitations and that's what bit the bill in the ass.

A background check bill didnt fail since none was offered. What was offered was straight bull# and it died because of its bull# status.

reply to post by Logarock


I love how they always call it "common sense" gun control, though IMHO the sommon sense stance would realise that all the places with the tightest gun control, are the most dangerous, NY ChicagoN D.C.etc....

So where is the "common sense" in making everywhere else as "safe" as these places?

reply to post by inverslyproportional

you spelt "cents" * wrong
no offence ...just sayin

*refers to examples the harper rejime's missing 3.1 billion dollars which was earmarked for the security of what thye expect to eventually be a gun free ( read "vumnerable" ) population

cnsnews.com...
QUOTE:
46,455 Background Checks For Gun Purchases Each Day Under Obama
May 2, 2013

There have been 72,005,482 background checks for gun purchases since President Obama took office, according to data released by the FBI.

In 2009, the FBI conducted 14,033,824 background checks. If we subtract the month of January (Obama did not assume office until the end of the month) we get 12,819,939.

The FBI conducted 14,409,616 background checks in 2010, 16,454,951 in 2011, and 19,592,303 in 2012.

Obama has been President for 1,550 days. That works out to 46,455 background checks for gun purchases each day. END QUOTE

Add to that the first four months of 2013 (2,495,440, 2,309,393, 2,209,407 and 1,714,433 respectively) and the total number of background checks under President Obama comes to 72,005,482.

Yet thee are people who honestly believe back ground checks are not performed.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Most of the commentary I've heard about gun control from lawmakers concerns limiting people affected by mental disorders from obtaining weapons.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, published by the American Psychiatric Association, lists "mood disorder" as a common cause of mental illness. The two most common mood disorders are major depressive disorder (MDD), also known as clinical or major depression, and bipolar disorder (BD).

Depression is the most common psychiatric (mental) disorder.

The number of people experiencing depression has skyrocketed since 2007 as our world has slipped into economic depression. Business Standard recently reported suicides have increased by over 28 percent in the last decade, particularly (according to the CDC) among people 35-64 years of age.

If you are depressed, and have sought help in a clinical setting, you stand the chance of losing your right to own a weapon. Below is a link to Wikipedia which lists the most popular antidepressants. If you take any of these drugs, your Second Amendment rights may soon be limited. 

List of popular antidepressants

Originally posted by 727Sky

Yet thee are people who honestly believe back ground checks are not performed.

edit on 4-5-2013 by 727Sky because: ......

I am thinking what they want is background checks across the board on everything. Which would equate to way more than 72million checks.

For example if you live down the street from me, I can legally sell you my shotgun without any background checks.
Texasgunlaws.org
I don't have a shotgun, it's just hypothetical.

So in reality a large proportion of the gun transactions taking place actually include little to no checking whatsoever.

I know someone who picked up a really nice hunting rifle and a shotgun off of a buddy who'd lost his job and had problems getting another one. The buddy had taken them to a pawn shop and was offered a decent enough price (for a pawn shop) but the pawn shop was going to charge $35 for the background check to pawn them and another $35 for another one if taken out of pawn in addition to interest. So the person who bought the guns from his buddy used them for a deer and turkey season while in the meantime the buddy got another job and got back on his feet. The buddy approached my friend about buying the rifle back (as it was a gift from his deceased father) which he did unhesitatingly and refused to take more than he paid (he had after all gotten probably more than the time value of his money from the use of the rifle for a productive deer season). Why should the government be involved in any way in this transaction between lifelong friends, or for that matter force them to pay a FFL each way in a private transaction?

I"m not as concerned about the ability of anti-2nd amendment forces getting their victory in the current environment of economic malaise, geopolitical instability, and vitriolic partisanship. More gun control is appropriately far down the list in polls on what should be Congress's priorities. However, the economy could improve, things may stabilize in the Middle East and North Korea, and the next Presidential/House/Senate elections might bring people more willing to work together into office and then we have a political situation similar to when the '94 AWB passed. I consider myself an independent but have been voting mostly GOP for the past decade due to the fact that Conservative Southern Democrats simply don't exist anymore. The Democratic position on guns is a major reason for that.

Background d checks is already Federal law. The proposed gun legislation was just feel-goodism, it addressed none of the problems that lead to gun violence in this country. There was absolutely no common sense to their proposals.

The anti gunner's already had enough victories, time they tasted defeat.

There is no 'common sense' coming from their side in fact;

'common sense', and government is an oxymoron.

Originally posted by neo96
The anti gunner's already had enough victories, time they tasted defeat.

There is no 'common sense' coming from their side in fact;

'common sense', and government is an oxymoron.

edit on 4-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Well there are several things that do actually lower gun crime, but none of those things were proposed. Instead, the legislation was aimed at limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

As much as I would love to keep guns out of the hands of those who are crazy we find ourselves in the position that ANYONE can be determined to have some kind of mental issues.


This takes use down the path of thought police where you don't actually need to physically do something wrong just think about it.

How about recklessness too? Get some speeding tickets and they should take you guns, have kids and not a gun safe...bye bye guns, have a low credit score or you are in a higher risk bracket for insurance, argue with your neighbor...etc

We can't forget the intelligence factor too...got to have an IQ between 110 and 125...

The problem is that until someone does something physically we can't act. With Sandy Hook, Aurora, OK bombing, Boston Bombing etc. these people all acted for the first time, so how can anyone label them before they act. There might have been signs that these guys had some issues, but nothing suggesting they would do what they did.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by Logarock

 

I love how they always call it "common sense" gun control, though IMHO the sommon sense stance would realise that all the places with the tightest gun control, are the most dangerous, NY ChicagoN D.C.etc....

So where is the "common sense" in making everywhere else as "safe" as these places?

Yea they dream this stuff up in the war room and then pass out the memo. Next thing you know it sounds like a convention of parrots. No ducks. A bunch of quacking ducks.

At the front end of this thing you heard them saying at ever turn "I don't want....ect..ect". As if by the very force of will and hot air we were all going to give in to their wants and their picture of America.

They also tried the characterizations and still do. You know the American gun culture are a bunch of.....fill in the blank. Well none of it has worked. These methods say a lot about them. They simply expose themselves further every time they use these tactics.

Originally posted by Xtrozero


The problem is that until someone does something physically we can't act. With Sandy Hook, Aurora, OK bombing, Boston Bombing etc. these people all acted for the first time, so how can anyone label them before they act. There might have been signs that these guys had some issues, but nothing suggesting they would do what they did.

MSMBC had one of their favorite talking heads on the other night talking about the gun show free background check zone. Although he confessed that the events of late had nothing to do with back ground checks he said that the day it does the "blood will be on our hands". As you see they are trying to get a preemptive strike on one of their main wish list points, decades old.....yet unrelated.

They do have an agenda, they do love it when some nut case goes off and they are trying to use Sandy Hook for a big net anti constitution sweep.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by neo96
The anti gunner's already had enough victories, time they tasted defeat.

There is no 'common sense' coming from their side in fact;

'common sense', and government is an oxymoron.

edit on 4-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Well there are several things that do actually lower gun crime, but none of those things were proposed. Instead, the legislation was aimed at limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Which absolutely demonstrates how little they really care about their poster boy/girl victims while providing a clear picture of their true political nature. Weaken the constitution, get those guns away from the citizens, turn on the propaganda machine and lets go into 1984 mode just as soon as we can.

Originally posted by jefwane


I"m not as concerned about the ability of anti-2nd amendment forces getting their victory in the current environment of economic malaise, geopolitical instability, and vitriolic partisanship. More gun control is appropriately far down the list in polls on what should be Congress's priorities. However, the economy could improve, things may stabilize in the Middle East and North Korea, and the next Presidential/House/Senate elections might bring people more willing to work together into office and then we have a political situation similar to when the '94 AWB passed. I consider myself an independent but have been voting mostly GOP for the past decade due to the fact that Conservative Southern Democrats simply don't exist anymore. The Democratic position on guns is a major reason for that.

Make no mistake though, there was a charged domestic atmosphere back during the 94 AWB flap.

These modern day progressives that have managed to get so far along in the political "leadership" of this country and its 'press" were the same ones back in the 80s that were preaching "direct action" as a final solution to the oppression of the "establishment". They were the next generation produced by 60s and 70s radicals. Now they have come into their own but realized they themselves may be the target of "direct action". So they need those guns turned over one way or another.

They don't do it so much in public, or didn't, but you should here they way they talk among themselves about it. Constitutions got to go....I have heard it with my own ears.

Originally posted by 727Sky


Add to that the first four months of 2013 (2,495,440, 2,309,393, 2,209,407 and 1,714,433 respectively) and the total number of background checks under President Obama comes to 72,005,482.

Yet thee are people who honestly believe back ground checks are not performed.

edit on 4-5-2013 by 727Sky because: ......

Around here we have a good number of gun shows. Near a major city. democratic leadership of same has come out and flat accused these check free shows of being the primary source were city "gangs" are getting weapons. Naturally they cant present any case by case demonstration of a weapon used in crime being purchased at the gun shows.

But they knew that they couldn't. All they were doing is demonstrating another front in the war on the constitution was taking place by trying to tag the gun shows as a sort of gun runner for the "gangs". They are after the gun shows and the gang fiction was simply a good propaganda tool.