Rally For Gun Background Checks Quickly Becomes Pro-Gun Event (Mayors Against Illegal Guns)

WBNS-TV ^ | August 30, 2013 | Jim Heath

[2ndDivisionVet]

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

COLUMBUS, Ohio - It was a rally organized by gun-control supporters, but by the end, it looked more like an NRA rally.

"As a gun owner, I'm a responsible person and I think it's responsible to ask to have all gun owners have a background check," said Blanche Luczyk. "It's just common sense. Any responsible person who is willing to take the ownership of a gun should be willing to have that background check."

Luczyk was one of a half dozen members of the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns who hosted the rally in the Arena District on Friday.

But when Luczyk started her speech by telling the crowd that former President Ronald Reagan supported background checks, she was drowned out by shouts of "Germany 1933" and "Hitler."

About 50 guns-rights supporters were on hand, some with rifles over their shoulders and others with handguns in hip holsters.

Charlie Roberts said he was there to make sure that gun rights advocates had their voices heard.

"I want to show my support for the NRA, gun rights and the 2nd Amendment," said Roberts. "We need to go after the criminals who commit crimes with guns and not the honest law abiding citizens. We don’t need any new laws, just enforce the ones on the books."(continued)

[Durus]

Criminals will be able to find guns even if the law abiding are stupid enough to submit to the government being able to determine who actually gets to have the rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. Background checks were never about making people safer. We know they don't work. It has always been about expanding the power and scope of government.

[Red in Blue PA]

Post from the comments section:

If there were background checks at the time of the founding of this nation, the Founding Founders would have been rounded up and executed with that information.

[wita]

Agree. No free man should be restricted or registered. Any man too dangerous to own a gun is a man too dangerous to walk the street.

I would suggest that some of whom you speak might even seek out jobs related to arms, such as police, military, government alphabet bureaucracies, National Guard, Drug gangs, Street gangs, “the mob”, and since it is just about impossible to know just who is “too dangerous” God created the second amendment.

We the people are the ultimate protector of human rights enumerated in that God Blessed document and Government is the fox in the hen house attempting to strip us of the means of protection, while acting as something other than the furry long nosed critter with four legs and a very bushy tail that will see to it that no chickens survive.

[wita]

Amen and Amen.

[ronnie raygun]

he he he he he he he he he he he he.........................

[teeman8r]

shall not be infringed means just that.

[Venturer]

I don’t believe most of us have a problem with background checks, what we have a problem with is having our name on a list in Government hands that underlines our names and says this man has a gun.

We have watched and we are not stupid. We know that the end game with these gun grabbers is confiscation. Getting a background check is almost the same as registering a weapon. They know you have it because they have your name. From the background check.

Only honest people apply for a background check, those criminals who use guns get them from theft, or off the street from other criminals. When a background check shows that you are a veteran, smoked marijuana, got a traffic ticket or spit on a sidewalk and then you are refused a gun, that is why we oppose background checks. That and the fact that check is recorded and tell the Government where gun owners are—setting you up for confiscation.

[jdsteel]

But when Luczyk started her speech by telling the crowd that former President Ronald Reagan supported background checks, she was drowned out by shouts of "Germany 1933" and "Hitler." I hope none of those 2nd amendment chest pounding dimwits are never confronted by dimmer wits that SHOULD have had a background check.

You are the dimmest wit of all. I hope you never learn the hard way of what it would be like to be confronted by a known, illegally armed adversary that wished you harm as your application for a legal firearm languished in a forgotten file.

[SpeakerToAnimals]

If one must get government permission to buy a gun, a Right becomes a government granted privilege. Get it?

[Sirius Lee]

Constitutionally ignorant gunphobes should be required to get government permission prior to posting their opinions.

[Red in Blue PA]

There should be zero gun laws. Commit a crime with a gun, and get a minimum of 50 years.

If people cannot be trusted to own a gun, then why are they walking the streets?

[Wurlitzer]

“I don’t believe most of us have a problem with background checks, what we have a problem with is having our name on a list in Government hands that underlines our names and says this man has a gun.”

---

Well as owning a gun is constitutionally protected I do have a problem with background checks SOLELY for guns.

I you were to say, someone who is so unstable as to be a danger to society needs to be on a funny farm then we might have common ground.

To have just a background check for a constitutionally protected right and allow defective humans to drive a car or operate heavy machinery, or provide us with editorial comments in our news papers or other media OR TO BE POLITICIANS then it is not common sense.

The people who can do the most damage are not gun owners but POLITICIANS and lawyers and they need yearly background checks up the wazoo.

When law abiding gun owners start killing more people than our government I will support your position. Until then NO!

[lewislynn]

Because not being vocal in the face (literally and figutatively) of rights-grabbing politicians has worked out so well for California?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Nor do you have a clue why Ca. politics is the way it is.

This website and it's founder are IN California

You gave us Jimmy Carter we gave you Ronald Reagan.

[lewislynn]

Criminals will be able to find guns even if the law abiding are stupid enough to submit to the government being able to determine who actually gets to have the rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment

Why stop there? Why not end the requirement for federally licensed gun dealers?

[lewislynn]

shall not be infringed means just that.

Some of you people aren't too bright if you think federally licensed gun dealers are only here for you to buy guns.

[Oatka]

Go to these events and hand out copies of the BATF 4473 form with a notation at the top along the lines of "Isn't this enough?" and/or "This is what a background check requires." It won't change the libs opinion, but might open the eyes of non gun owning people as to what's involved.

There's an obsolete form (they added "White Hispanic" to the race question (I kid you not)) HERE.

[FreedomPoster]

I’m an Army brat, that was before my time in GA. It’s a ridiculous deflection in any case.

We have excellent firearms laws in GA, relative to the rest of the nation.

And you didn’t answer my question - you realize what these pols are calling for is de facto registration, right?

[lewislynn]

Constitutionally ignorant gunphobes

Woo another paranoid constitutional scholar posting their ignorance on who is or isn't a gun owner.

[lewislynn]

You are the dimmest wit of all. I hope you never learn the hard way of what it would be like to be confronted by a known, illegally armed adversary that wished you harm as your application for a legal firearm languished in a forgotten file.

By "illegally armed" do you mean "illegal" because they acquired a gun without government approval?

I don't know if that's called contradictory or hypocrisy.

[lewislynn]

I’m an Army brat, that was before my time in GA. It’s a ridiculous deflection in any case.

Not any more than your pathetic attempt at 'look at me, I hate California too' comment.