Comments on: ‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not

By: Jeramy

Jeramy — Thu, 09 May 2013 11:04:01 +0000

Hi, this weekend is good in support of me, for the reason that this
moment i am reading this fantastic informative article here at my home.

By: Sallie

Sallie — Wed, 08 May 2013 05:04:42 +0000

I comment when I like a post on a website or if I have something to valuable to contribute to the conversation.
Usually it is triggered by the passion displayed in the post I
looked at. And on this article ‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not.
I was actually moved enough to post a thought I do have 2
questions for you if you usually do not mind.
Could it be only me or does it look as if like some
of these responses come across like they are coming
from brain dead visitors? And, if you are posting at additional places, I would like
to follow anything fresh you have to post. Could you make a list
all of all your public pages like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?

By: natural oil

natural oil — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:33:03 +0000

And, it is the perfect product to carry in my purse for use during the day.
It is possibly the most all-natural, healthiest, and friendliest skin moisturizer that
people can use. Of course the best advice is to avoid these larger branches
in the first place and to prune them when they’re small.

By: banana health

banana health — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:37:06 +0000

Some people prefer taking weight loss tea, appetite suppressant, or fat binder products.

o Other important areas for weight loss like exercise and psychological factors are not endorsed in this program.
Otherwise, you can replace the lukewarm water with
a cup of milk, or even a bowl of cereal with milk.

By: Seven Media Myths About The Gun Background Check SystemGrubbyhub Blog

Seven Media Myths About The Gun Background Check SystemGrubbyhub Blog — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 19:11:14 +0000

[...] That’s what “universal background checks” do. They turn traditional innocent conduct into a criminal offense. They target you, law-abiding gun owners. [AmmoLand.com, 1/23/13] [...]

By: Danno

Danno — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 16:47:33 +0000

What is the big deal with registration of guns? Why would anyone be against it? If I sell my car I need to transfer the registration and that doesn’t seem like tyranny to me. From where I sit I personally would like to find out who buys guns legally and then sells to the underground. I have a lot of trouble understanding the opposition to registration and background checks. Again, it seems no more tyrannical than the DMV.

By: Bill Baker

Bill Baker — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:46:00 +0000

@wldy1005: They get poll results like that when they look around the office at the DNC and say, who here supports universal background checks…

By: wldy1005

wldy1005 — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:35:04 +0000

it seems a majority of us are against universal background checks. i wonder where these polls of “90% of americans are FOR universal background checks” ARE?! and who is recording them then reporting them! so that if they are wrong they can be held accountable for thier false reporting!!

By: Cauthon

Cauthon — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 07:33:31 +0000

And what about all the guns we have that we bought or inherited decades ago without paperwork? Will we be arrested and thrown in jail if we can’t prove on the spot that those guns were bought legally? And is that the purpose of the new legislation that they are trying to pass? There are ways to write a background check law to make it almost reasonable, but I do not expect the pols to do that.

By: RockIsland29

RockIsland29 — Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:14:11 +0000

I believe the universal background check can only be accomplished by required registration of firearms and owners. We have seen the results of this in the wholesale confiscation of common firearms in G.B. and Australia.
If this administration would concentrate in enforcing the laws we have now, it would go a lot further than useless harassment of law abiding citizens.

By: FX

FX — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:03:55 +0000

Excellent points in the article Marion. To the ignorant trolls whose interjections are rife with their hatred of those of us who choose to enjoy our rights, you will always be eating the soylent the government feeds you because you will never amount to anything enabling you or your welfare offspring to escape your kennels. One big aspect of this whole program, is intended, as always, to create another government entity with thousands of government jobs that will have to vote for the party that gifts them these income streams that they would never qualify for otherwise (can you say TSA? Postal service?). Taking any guns and tracking any individuals who don’t swallow their shit is just gravy on top of creating this huge swell of new voters.

By: shawn

shawn — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:25:17 +0000

I agree with Fisherman – I think the realization has hit most non-koolaide drinkers in that (without sounding like a conspiracy monger) our government is too powerful. They do not fear us, other than the fear of an uprising to change the way they operate. They will take our guns away if we let them. The government wants us disarmed. PERIOD. They will use any ploy, policy, fear, and tactic “they” can. We have to stand up together and fight this. I’m for initial background checks. I think it holds some accountability and gives credibility to the institution of gun ownership. But if you give an inch, the govt will take 10 miles.

By: VINCENT

VINCENT — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:04:11 +0000

back ground checks is another violation of our rights in this country, IT WIIL FOR SURE, BECOME A TOOL FOR GUN CONFISCATION.WE NEED TO HAVE THESE PEOPLE TO STOP THIER ATTACKS ON LAWABIDING CITIZEN IN THIS COUNTRY.

By: Kenneth Trawick

Kenneth Trawick — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 03:56:14 +0000

Make no mistake, this is not about background checks on firearms purchases. It’s about recording all firearm transfers (from one person to another) so the FED will eventually know where all firearms are located. I think I should be able to pass my firearms down to my children or grandchildren without telling anyone. With universal background checks I can’t do that without violating the law.
This will empower the FED way more than I like to see.

By: The Real Reason for Universal Background Checks | GS2AC BlogGS2AC Blog

The Real Reason for Universal Background Checks | GS2AC BlogGS2AC Blog — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:46:12 +0000

[...] are hearing calls from President Obama for universal background checks and no private firearms transfers. The real reason for universal background checks is not to make sure bad people are not getting [...]

By: Robert Myles

Robert Myles — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 02:56:59 +0000

A quick and rather simple look at the history of Gun control laws will will show that they were written to restrict ‘law abiding citizen’s’ not to resctrict Criminal’s. Any additional regulation, licensing,Fee’s Universal background checks on any and all firearms transaction’. Willgive a Tyrannical Government all the information it needs to begin Confiscation. If you listen to Frankenstien past and present along with witch pelosi and now the impostoor in our whitehouse the end game, the true nature, the final desire is total disarmament of the law abiding citizen’s just as it has in England, Australia, Brazil and hundred’s of small dictator controlled countries. With the UN agenda and small arms trade treaty their end game is total disarmamwnt of all cilivian’s. This is not the action’s of a ‘benevolent government’ it is the steps toward socialism, communism the 10 planks of communism, or the 45 objectives. read them then read the gun laws and you will see quite clearly where we are headed.

By: Mom-of-8

Mom-of-8 — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:52:43 +0000

My 12, 10, 8, 6 and 5 year olds all target shoot with their grandfather, who did 2 tours as an officer and company commander in Vietnam. It is a wonderful experience, and if they shoul choose to hunt or target shoot competitively, I would highly encourage them.

By: scott

scott — Sun, 27 Jan 2013 02:50:23 +0000

I would like to see more saftey programs and gun saftey courses for first time gun owners and an end to civil lawsuits from criminals when a lawbiding citzen uses lethal force in self defense

By: Attila

Attila — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:39:58 +0000

Sure, the odd mental case will be able to buy. Criminals already can get one somewhere. So, what does the check accomplish? It puts you on the database that will be used when the fascist Democrats sic the BATF, TSA, FBI, etc on us to confiscate or liquidate.

By: Sammy Kosbar

Sammy Kosbar — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 21:15:14 +0000

Obama and his administration seam to foget that they work for us (The People) and would not have a job if we didn’t put them their. Know taking are god given human rights away from us makes him no better than any Dictator. Guns are not the problem, so stop working on new laws that will fail.

By: Daniel Hebert

Daniel Hebert — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 18:03:33 +0000

I for one am all for initial background checks and tight regulations for all gun purchases. After my conviction I lost my gun rights. I finished everything and petitioned to have my rights reinstated. I will follow any law that does not infringe on my rights. Now that my rights are restored I will not let them be stripped just because someone performed an illegal act with a “assault rifle”. Whats next people losing there right to sports cars because of to many high speed accidents. Or losing our trucks because of too many drunk driving accidents? Just because one person performs any violent act with any tool does not make that tool violent. A hammer cannot nail a nail without a person swinging it. A saw cannot cut wood without a person operating it. Just like a gun cannot kill without a person pulling the trigger. The size of the magazine does not matter, the type of gun does not matter the only thing that matters is the intent of the user. On my last handgun exercise with friends I fired 200 rounds in less than 5 minutes with a 1911 with 2 8 round magazines. All but 5 were either center mass heart rounds or head shots. Using a abandoned house for training. This is the training of a average person. I have trained against home invasion and breach entry. All of this training is with perfectly legal handguns. The size of the magazine/clip doesn’t matter. The type of gun doesn’t matter. Just the intent.

By: Fisherman

Fisherman — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 17:45:39 +0000

Doc, same here. I was almost 8 when I got my first 16 gauge shotgun. It was a bolt action Mossberg. Wasn’t ready the first time and it knocked me on my butt. LOL Anyway, my dad was there with me the entire time and we never had any mishaps. Then he bought me a Winchester 30-30 and we went deer hunting together. I was all by myself out there with a tool for harvesting meat. Didn’t get any but the point is that before all of this communist restriction, this country and it’s people did just fine and almost everyone was armed. In Bodie, CA, the toughest mining town during the Gold Rush period, the crime rate against citizens was almost nil. The rape rate was zero. In fact, there is on record, a case where one fellow spent 30 days in the local jail for using foul language in front of a woman. So, can you imagine what they’d do to you if you committed rape? It should still be that way. One fellow was getting robbed and saved himself with a bowie knife. Cut the robber to the bone he said. The point is, the good and decent people survived most attacks because they had the tools to fight back.

They start this and that and call for registration, I will not comply.

By: ‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not « How A Conservative Thinks

‘Universal Background Checks’ – Absolutely Not « How A Conservative Thinks — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:33:16 +0000

[...] Read more at Ammoland.com [...]

By: Doc

Doc — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 05:47:03 +0000

First of all, I don’t care what Anyone from another Country thinks about our laws, or our guns.
At 8 years old my Father gave me my first shotgun, after he taught me firearms safety and how to take care of it. In a legal sense, it was still his until I reached a legal age 18.
I did hunt by myself by around 10 years of age, and I have handed down a few guns to younger people in the family. I did teach them firearms safety and I did refuse an older family member, due to conduct issues. The biggest issue is being responsible and using common sense.
The 1994 Clinton Gun & Magazine ban Failed to reduce violent crime, just like the “gun free zones” have Failed, so why would anyone want what has failed already?
Mental illness is a complex issue, as there are several forms of mental illness. The only people that should be prevented from buying a gun, are those that are not in touch with reality, or a danger to others.
Let’s Register All Violent Criminals, and let them pay the price for Violent Crime!
We should have “Term Limits” on the Senate & Congress, because they get too powerful over the years.

By: Dave Dubé

Dave Dubé — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 04:17:06 +0000

I’ve “done that thing” for my country once already. I certainly don’t need (nor care to join) the NRA to task my legislators to put this gun registration crap to bed. I’ve written to them. I’ll call them. I’ll let them know where exactly it is that I stand when it comes to my rights. Everyone should do the same. Which ever side of the aisle they’re on, they’re still YOUR public servants.

By: SuburbanDad

SuburbanDad — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 02:04:01 +0000

Oh damn.

I thought this article was going to be about background checks and drug test on welfare recipients, not gun owners.

By: ken Z.

ken Z. — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:28:20 +0000

Washington tells us they cannot enforce the laws on the books now, so they want to make more laws? Enforce the gun laws on the books, prosecute criminals who use guns, and leave the law abiding citizens alone already.

By: Bill Snyder

Bill Snyder — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 01:03:10 +0000

My Father grew up on a farm in Ohio, he and all 8 of his brothers had shot guns by the time they were 12, and not ONE of them EVER had any firearm related injuries or deaths.

By: B. miller

B. miller — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:44:39 +0000

@Thomas Robertson. I killed my first small game when I was 10. A couple of rabbits with my father. If you teach your children to respect firearms they are way less likely to treat them as a toy and have an accident. Teaching people at an early age that firearms are a tool used to kill is the best way to make sure people respect them as a child and when they grow up. As a Brit though I don’t expect you to grasp that fact. Your gun laws have got your citizens so out of touch with firearms that yo only see the bad side. We aren’t talking about just giving a child a gun to play with unsupervised. It’s about giving them their own firearm that stays in the gun safe with dad’s guns and is used for hunting and shooting responsibly. Sure guns can be used for evil but more often then that they are used for hunting, self defense, and just enjoying the sport of shooting. I guarantee if I took you to a skeet/trap range to shoot clay pigeons you would have a blast!

By: tim venable

tim venable — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:37:42 +0000

Sorry brit if you were in a free country you would be aware
You have to be 18 to have a rifle or shotgun. You might be shooting with adult supervision under 18.

By: tim venable

tim venable — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:30:58 +0000

I have read second amendment several times where do you
Get regulation from. It says shall not be infringed. Shall is not permiisive. Regulation is infringement.

By: Thomas Robertson

Thomas Robertson — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 00:12:14 +0000

As a Brit, I find the first paragraph desturbing! Who in their right mind would give a 12 year old a shotgun? Only in America!

By: Brigido Garcia USN Ret

Brigido Garcia USN Ret — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:19:02 +0000

I am still firedup about the Fast and Furious so called investigation, and if the liberal Obama admnistration get their way with background checks on gun owners, what about those legal gun that the federal government lost track and wound up in Mexico ? Will the Anti-Gun Liberal of the Obama Administration vigerously go after them to find out the cuurent ownership of the gun , count the bullets in he magazines and so forth.

By: clearanceman

clearanceman — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:41:09 +0000

If they made it like drugs and made it 100% illegal, criminals would still get as many as they wanted. And the powers that be know it. This is all just to get rid of the “gun culture.”

By: Paul Yoder

Paul Yoder — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:36:56 +0000

If they really want to insure no felons/ dangerous mentally ill/ domestic abusers get firearms, simply make available a list of barred persons. Anyone wishing to sell/loan/transfer a weapon could check the list to insure no one disqualified gets one. No paperwork, no background check, NO government database on decent citizens. NO PROBLEM. Enforce the laws that are already on the books, STOP COLLECTING DATA ON INNOCENT, LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.

By: clearanceman

clearanceman — Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:22:08 +0000

First Last they would say. Well, you might develop mental illness so you need a yearly mental illness check up to make sure you can keep your piece of paper. Nevermind that the constitution says nothing about being assessed for mental illness in order to keep the right to own a firearm.