Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Frequently Needed Smackdowns (FNS) to Oppressive talking points on the 2nd amendment. Part II
Feb 15 2013

Posted on 02/15/2013 2:35:37 PM PST by Voice of Reason1

Universal Background Checks. At this point in time it’s clear that the Statists won’t get their ban on arbitrarily defined “Assault weapons” and “High capacity mags”, so now they’re going after even bigger fish: they want gun registration. Universal Background Checks (in reality Universal Gun Registration & Universal Gun CONFISCATION) are wrong on many levels, but these are the main points: A) The Feral government would be in control of one of it’s own constraints (The RKBA) – essentially rendering it meaningless. B) The government would have control of your personal property – something you know they will expand and abuse. C) Registration leads to CONFISCATION. D) Who knows the depths that ‘expanded’ checks will lead?

In addition it will be Unconstitutional on at least three levels: * Controls on your personal property are way outside the purview of ‘intestate’ commerce as defined in the enumerated powers. *They are also a Prior restraint on exercising the 2nd amendment. * AND finally, they infringe on the 2nd amendment. It will be another infringement on our rights in a long train of infringements.

The Statists are trying to push this as moderate measure – when it is nothing of the sort:

Gun Owners Message to the U.S. Senate: Defeat Every Word of Gun Control http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/gun-owners-message-to-the-u-s-senate-defeat-every-word-of-gun-control/#axzz2KnFrzr3T Anyway, here’s Harry Reid’s strategy: He has at least eleven Democratic senators running for reelection in pro-gun states in 2014 — and they don’t want to SEEM anti-gun.

All of these Democrats will vote for the national gun registry and gun licensure. And, in exchange, Reid will allow them to vote against the Feinstein gun ban, which will be the sacrificial lamb to the more important gun control which Democrats really want.

But aside from the fact that the Democratic “non-controversial” gun control bill is, in many ways, worse than the “controversial” bills, there are two additional problems.

For example, a Lautenberg amendment — supposedly intended to “combat terrorism” — would allow Obama to ban guns for every gun activist in America just by putting their names on a secret “watch list.” /////////////////////// This alone has to be stopped dead in its tracks for all the reasons outlined above.

These are some additional talking points from the Statists: 5). Why do background checks on people need data on the gun – if it’s NOT gun registration? 6). The mythical “Gun show” loophole. 7). Limitations on the 2nd amendment. 8). The Reason for Chicago Gun Control not working. 9). Assault Weapons. ///////////////////////// 5) If ‘background checks’ are ostensibly on the purchaser, why do they need any data on the gun being purchased?

This exposes the LIE as to the true purpose of ‘background checks’ – it’s not really about stopping certain people from buying guns, it’s just a setup for registration, plain and simple. Retail sales have to be on guns that can be legally sold – so there really is no point for this information to be recorded, except if the point is registration. Leftists never have good answer on this question because this is the true purpose for this practice.

6). Gun show loophole. We all know this is just another out and out LIE from the Proggies. FFL’s have to conduct background checks no matter where they are in any of the 57 states.

This a good reference point to make in refuting this LIE, as well as the 40 % LIE:

The So-Called Gun Show Loophole: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/08/background-checks-and-the-so-called-gun-show-loophole/

Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act—which created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)—all federal firearms licensees are required to conduct a background check for all firearms transactions, even if they sell the firearm at a gun show. This is under Section 922(g) or (n) of Title 18 of the United States Code.

7). Limitations on the 2nd amendment

Apparently the idea is that they are no restrictions on that right at present or some nonsense. This stems from comments from Scalia on the 2nd amendment. This is just another falsehood from the Left designed to imply that there are as yet NO restrictions on the 2nd amendment – unfortunately something that might be believed by the Low Information boneheads.

The best way to counteract this implied falsehood is to simply list out some of the limitations we already have on a right that is not supposed to be infringed upon.

We already have restrictions on what kind of weapons we can posses.

We already have restrictions on Full auto weaponry

We already have restrictions on the possession of large caliber guns

We already have restrictions on the purchasing of guns from FFL’s

We already have restrictions on FFL’s on the sales of guns.

8). Supposedly Gun control doesn’t work in Chicago because of guns that come in from other areas.

Simply point out that other cities that don’t have draconian disarmament laws also don’t have quite the same issue with guns. Other similar sized metropolitan areas don’t stop the innocent from defending themselves and they don’t have the problem with Criminals with guns

Other cities don’t have strict gun control and the people can defend themselves – why aren’t guns an issue in those areas?

9). Assault Weapons First of all, point out that there is NO Difference between the arms mentioned in the Constitution and arbitrarily assigned term “Assault Weapon”. Point out that is just a fraud designed to ban guns while perpetrating the LIE that the oppressives support the 2nd amendment.

Ask what is the definition of an “Assault Weapon”? Look at the Definition of WEAPON http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weapon

1: something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy 2: a means of contending against another Examples of WEAPON assault with a deadly weapon

Technically anything that could be used in the act of ‘Assault’ is a ‘Weapon’ by definition.

It’s an entirely arbitrary term combining a verb with a closely related noun rendering it meaningless.

This would be like trying to define a Travel Vehicle or Shelter Housing.

This phrase is just meant to distract from the point that the gun grabbers are going after ALL Guns and lying about that very fact.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics; Reference
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; guncontrol; secondamendment
And just for reference, this a link to part one of the series: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2985985/posts

Please feel free to use, change to suit ,copy, paste and of these FNSs in dealing with a the leftist on this issue.

1 posted on 02/15/2013 2:35:49 PM PST by Voice of Reason1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

“Why do background checks on people need data on the gun – if it’s NOT gun registration”

Good question.


2 posted on 02/15/2013 2:47:37 PM PST by lacrew (Mr. Soetoro, we regret to inform you that your race card is over the credit limit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

When Rats say that they aren’t wanting to take away your guns, point to the Rats in several states who have introduced bills to confiscate firearms arbitrarily deemed too scary.


3 posted on 02/15/2013 3:03:33 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (There is no requirement to show need in order to exercise your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1

****..now they’re going after even bigger fish: they want gun registration.****

Gun registration has ALWAYS been the goal since 1962.

It has always been about handguns. Assault rifles are just a decoy to try and get their anti-gun foot in the door.

Once they get a ban on AWs then they will use the same reasons to go after handguns.

John Kennedy killed with a 5 shot bolt action rifle.

Charles Whitman, killed 14, wounded 32 others mostly with a bolt action 6mm hunting rifle. Also used a shotgun and an m1 carbine.

Medgar Evers, shot with a 5 shot 1917 bolt action Enfield rifle.

Martin Luther King, shot with a 4 shot Remington 760 pump action Gamemaster rifle.

Bobby Kennedy with a .22 Iver Johnson Cadet revolver.

George Wallace wounded with a 5 shot Charter Arms .38spl revolver.

Howard Johnsons shooter killed nine, wounded thirteen with a 4 shot RUGER .44 mag Deerslayer rifle.

Gerald Ford attacked with a 7 shot 1911 semi auto.

Edmond OK post office with two National Guard 7 shot 1911 pistols.

Ronald Reagan and Jim Brady with an RG-14 .22 revolver.

What do they all have in common? NONE over 7 rounds, yet after each one came a cry of panic to ban all of them or register all of them.


4 posted on 02/15/2013 4:58:20 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( Too old to cut the mustard any more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.

“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.

Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.

So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.

My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered.

And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”

-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58

“Yes, I’m for an outright ban [on handguns].”

-Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., 60 Minutes interview


5 posted on 02/15/2013 5:00:48 PM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar ( Too old to cut the mustard any more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Voice of Reason1
Anyone that ever starts a sentence with, "why do you need"... regarding firearms, mags or ammo gets this response from me... It's a God given right, not a need and all questions about "need" or "justification" are null and void. See my tagline and start quoting this Scripture properly to the gun grabbers.
6 posted on 02/15/2013 5:04:18 PM PST by DocRock (All they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 Gun grabbers beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DocRock

Yup, its called freedom.

I don’t have to explain what I need to defend myself, or my justifications for my exercise of a God-given and Constitutionally protected right.

BTW, “God-given” tends to upset the Proggies – too bad for them.


7 posted on 02/15/2013 7:38:48 PM PST by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Take a look at part one – I listed some of them out.

But that was last week, more keep on cropping up everyday.

They can’t seem to hide the gun grabbing ways.


8 posted on 02/15/2013 7:42:00 PM PST by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lacrew

Many have pointed out that Universal Background checks can only work WITH registration.

Trust me, this isn’t the end of their scam, they are eagerly awaiting the next massacre they can capitalize on.


9 posted on 02/15/2013 7:45:10 PM PST by Voice of Reason1 (Absolute power corrupts absolutely Lord Acton 1887)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson