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 ...
one correction: Will Be Used To “TRY TO” Confiscate Your Guns.
Come and get em boys, ammo goes first.
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?
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.
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.
“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.
Huh ?
The worst thing that the NRA can do right now is back down on Universal background checks, we all know where that is going.
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.
Why does my natural right under the Constitution have to be “authorized” by anyone?
It doesn’t...
You will note that I stated, “.......which by the way is your constitutional right in the first place.”
They won’t be able to register my guns since I lost them all in an unfortunate boating accident.
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.
Many LEO’s will say they never arrested a criminal who was using a registered gun...........
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.
... 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!!!
“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.
bttt
“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
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.
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
Background checks are the camel’s nose under the confinskation tent. Do not delude yourself into thinking that it is anything else, My FRiend.
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
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.
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.