Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LaPierre: Fed Call For Background Checks ‘Will Be Used To Confiscate Your Guns’
AP ^ | February 24, 2013

Posted on 02/25/2013 5:43:43 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre says he thinks the federal government wants universal background checks on gun owners to make it easier for federal officials to seize firearms.

LaPierre told a crowd of more than 1,000 people in Salt Lake City on Saturday that President Barack Obama’s call for universal background checks fails to address the problem of the nation’s gun violence.

“This so-called background check is aimed at one thing — registering your guns,” he said. “When another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns … Imagine right now your name on a massive government list.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washington.cbslocal.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: guncontrol; secondamendment

1 posted on 02/25/2013 5:43:48 AM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

one correction: Will Be Used To “TRY TO” Confiscate Your Guns.

Come and get em boys, ammo goes first.


2 posted on 02/25/2013 5:45:49 AM PST by Mouton (108th MI Group.....68-71)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

We aren’t allowed background checks on our “leaders” and it is of course illegal to ask about someones national origin so why do they want to make it mandatory to buy a gun?


3 posted on 02/25/2013 5:46:51 AM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

There’s a new expression making the rounds:

“Close the police loophole”

Law of Unintended Consequences, anyone? Folks are now seriously asking why the boys in blue should be more heavily armed than the citizenry whom this administration clearly distrusts & seeks to dominate.


4 posted on 02/25/2013 5:54:05 AM PST by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

Just because someone APPLIES for a right to carry card (background check) does not mean they own a firearm. It simply authorizes they to carry one, which by the way is your constitutional right in the first place.


5 posted on 02/25/2013 5:59:08 AM PST by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

“one correction: Will Be Used To “TRY TO” Confiscate Your Guns.

Come and get em boys, ammo goes first.”

Agreed. LaPierre needs to grow a spine and stop shaking in his boots.


6 posted on 02/25/2013 6:01:18 AM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

Huh ?


7 posted on 02/25/2013 6:06:52 AM PST by Eric in the Ozarks (NRA Life Member)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

The worst thing that the NRA can do right now is back down on Universal background checks, we all know where that is going.


8 posted on 02/25/2013 6:09:44 AM PST by Rappini (Veritas vos Liberabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

There’s a new expression making the rounds:

“Close the police loophole”

Law of Unintended Consequences, anyone? Folks are now seriously asking why the boys in blue should be more heavily armed than the citizenry whom this administration clearly distrusts & seeks to dominate.


9 posted on 02/25/2013 6:10:10 AM PST by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Progov

Why does my natural right under the Constitution have to be “authorized” by anyone?


10 posted on 02/25/2013 6:14:51 AM PST by elcid1970 ("The Second Amendment is more important than Islam.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

It doesn’t...

You will note that I stated, “.......which by the way is your constitutional right in the first place.”


11 posted on 02/25/2013 6:21:15 AM PST by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970
Interesting
why are police officers and bodyguards allowed to conceal carry while off duty? Why not require they be disarmed when off duty?
12 posted on 02/25/2013 6:22:10 AM PST by John Galt's cousin (WTF? We couldn't rescue four men in Benghazi? Is our military IMPOTENT? ( /s ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

They won’t be able to register my guns since I lost them all in an unfortunate boating accident.


13 posted on 02/25/2013 6:24:42 AM PST by Thane_Banquo ( Walker 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

LaPierre: “that registry will be used to confiscate your guns”

What LaPierre should’ve said if he had a spine:

“that registry will be used to try and confiscate your guns, which is a wasted effort and will ultimately fail as it creates a massive backlash and non-compliance by gun owners”

Instead, he suggests a scenario of massive amounts of gun owners with their tails between their legs humbly complying and handing over their firearms at the governments command.


14 posted on 02/25/2013 6:29:28 AM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

15 posted on 02/25/2013 6:35:32 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Many LEO’s will say they never arrested a criminal who was using a registered gun...........


16 posted on 02/25/2013 6:41:12 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Any “background check” that requires identifying information on the firearm to be purchased is for the purpose of registration and eventual confiscation and not for public safety.


17 posted on 02/25/2013 6:48:41 AM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
The DoJ memo that La Pierre is referencing actually has some valid points in it, but 0bama will never acknowledge them and we will never read or hear them in the MSM - such things as:

... requiring background checks for more gun purchases could help, but also could lead to more illicit weapons sales.
... banning assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines produced in the future but exempting those already owned by the public, as Obama has proposed, would have limited impact because people now own so many of those items.
... even total elimination of assault weapons would have little overall effect on gun killings because assault weapons account for a limited proportion of those crimes.

Isn't it time for the leftists to stop the alarmism and sit down to a rational discussion?

Don't hold your breath - their brains are unable to think rationally about any subject!!!

18 posted on 02/25/2013 6:50:06 AM PST by jda ("Righteousness exalts a nation . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elcid1970

“Why does my natural right under the Constitution have to be “authorized” by anyone?”

It should not be. If you can own one you should be able to carry one. Every state should have constitutional carry.


19 posted on 02/25/2013 8:02:01 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

bttt


20 posted on 02/25/2013 8:57:45 AM PST by Guenevere (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jda

“Isn’t it time for the leftists to stop the alarmism and sit down to a rational discussion?”

With all respect, jda, I write this in reply to the question you posed: “No.” The question should never be allowed the first breath of life.

Whenever we permit the debate to take place we will lose ground. That’s backed up by history.

When someone wants to “debate” gun control it means only one thing. When asked to debate the issue we should say firmly that a Constitutional, God-given right cannot ever be up for debate. It’s non-negotiable no matter what stirred the question on it (which, the more I learn of it (CT), the more I highly doubt) or any other Constitutional, God-given right. None should ever be thrown up as debatable to begin with.

We “debated” the right to choose.

We “debated” prayer in schools.

We “debated” the “rights” of homosexuals.

We are debating ourselves to Hell in a handbasket by playing the fool and it must stop now.

Best Regards Always,
SC


21 posted on 02/25/2013 4:42:37 PM PST by SouthernClaire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SouthernClaire
Whenever we permit the debate to take place we will lose ground.

I understand our point and agree we should not debate God-given or Constitutionally-provided rights for the purpose of redefining those rights. But, we need to have answers to those who want to debate.

First answer: God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are not negotiable. In regard to the latter, there is a mechanism to change the Constitution, and it does not include Executive Orders.

Second answer: Your arguments are based on hysteria and emotion, but the facts (at least in regard to gun control) do not support your desire to infringe on my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

22 posted on 02/26/2013 4:36:48 AM PST by jda ("Righteousness exalts a nation . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe; Travis McGee
The question to be answered is very simple: Are we willing to die fr your rights? that is the only one. Why? Because sometime in the near future, the obama administration is coming after our guns. After that , our asses [bodies]. The "if" ship has already sailed and the "when" ship is being provisioned. Again the "why" rears its head. Because the next step in the Socialiation of America requires that the thinking,the moral segment of our society be disarmed and neutralized [readkilled]. They now have or soon will have corupted enough politicians and necessary for their purpose. Exactly when this wil happen I can't say, but just as sure that Monday follows Sunday it is coming. obama now controls two of the three branches of the Federal Government. The Executive and as demonesrtated by Roberts betrayal, the Judiciary. And with the aid of the media and Republican Party, he has neutered and emasculated the Leglisative Branch. And he is making progress corrupting and demoralizing the Armed Forces via the homosexual, the women in combat issue by purging those who disagree with him on these issues. Over time, he will have enough yes men/women to begin. Those in the police and Armed Forces who still believe in the Constitution, God, and freedom will join us. Either on the battleline or iin the extermination camps.

In closeing, my FRiend, we have two options: One is that we can do what the Jews in Germany did when faced with the delima; deny that it will happen. Two, we can prepare and resist to the uttermost. The choice is ours. The other side have made their decision.

Matt Bracken,a/k/a, Travis McGee is currently pouring his heart out trying to warn people

23 posted on 02/26/2013 5:14:11 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Background checks are the camel’s nose under the confinskation tent. Do not delude yourself into thinking that it is anything else, My FRiend.


24 posted on 02/26/2013 5:19:45 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jda

Thanks for the reply, jda.

I certainly appreciate your answers. If it were the case that you weren’t dealing with rage-filled, rabid (fill in the blank) in the debate, I would encourage you to go for it. As it is, however, I know that they aren’t interested in your logic. They are not interested in your reasoning ... which is great, by the way.

History has proven that if you give them today ... some scary looking thing ... they will be back for another scary looking thing tomorrow. Debating, they plead for “common sense measures” and since you are the only one trying to hang onto something and they have nothing to lose, you are automatically going to lose something each time you go to the table.

“Want to debate gun rights?”

“NO.”

I liked your answers, but I’m sticking with mine. ;-)

Best Regards,

SC


25 posted on 02/26/2013 6:09:05 AM PST by SouthernClaire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SouthernClaire
... they aren’t interested in your logic. They are not interested in your reasoning ...

Part of our side's problem is that they have bought into the leftists' mantra that all things are negotiable. Therefore, the left thinks they can propose anything preposterous and then frame the argument that our side is somehow expected to compromise - to agree to some something not quite so preposterous.

Gun control, sequestration, budgets and taxes are just a few examples. We don't do a very good job of shaping the discussion by stating (and then sticking to our guns) that some things just aren't debatable. But, at the same time, I think we should educate those who will listen (recognizing the 50% who support 0bama may not be educatable) as to why certain things aren't open to compromise and why the left's hysteria is not based on rational thought or facts.

26 posted on 02/26/2013 10:19:31 AM PST by jda ("Righteousness exalts a nation . . .")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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