Why the Opposition to Universal Background Checks?

That's rich coming from someone who posts fabricated quotes falsely attributed to George Washington, Sarah Brady, and Janet Reno. Thankfully, this forum has an ignore function. I'm going to exercise my right not to read your posts anymore.

 

The phrase "well-regulated" does not, apparently, mean what you think that it does. The phrase 'shall not be infringed', on the other hand, leaves no room for alternate interpretation.

 

The scope of no right is unlimited. Article 1 of the Constitution makes it clear who has the power to regulate the militia.

 

Arguing over semantics is futile. The spirit of the 2A is clear, as the SCOTUS has ruled.

 

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected, operating smoothly.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
​

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
​

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
​

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
​

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
​

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
​

Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only NOT the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so, that the founders wrote it. A reading of the Federalist papers will clarify the founders intents if there are any remaining doubts.

 

and that has nothing to do with the arms private citizens may own. Analogy. When you join the army, the government can say what sort of clothes you wear while in active duty. When you are at home, or you are merely draft eligible, the government has no power to tell you how to dress or what clothes to wear. same with weapons. when you are actively serving in the infantry, you will carry the weapons your superiors tell you to. when you are a private citizen or not on active duty, no such power exists. and the "right" of the 2A is merely a NEGATIVE restriction on the government to interfere with the pre-existing right of free men to be armed as they see fit. The 2A prevents the federal government from having any power over what small arms (arms capable of being carried by average citizens) citizens can keep and bear

 

fair enough.......

 

OK, Since you THINK you know all of the statistics, please list the stats and % where the robbers, rapist, murders, etc. all have guns?!
Do you realize sometimes people just look on these sites for a good deal or the one gun they can't find at a shop? OR maybe there is a felon who was arrested 20 or 30 years ago for a DWI. IMHO if I needed to defend myself, and I see what is going around these days, I would find a gun and I wouldn't care what law I was breaking to defend my family. The constitution clearly states We have the right to bear arms. Not why, or what religion, color, race or any other reason! We all have a right to defend ourselves!

 

The point is moot. The supreme court has ruled that the second amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms for personal defense, and is unconnected with militia service.

 

You are starting to sound like the guy in my signature. Circular logic, lack of content, and "ah ha! Gotcha" around every post.

Here's something to chew on: gun owners are not the problem. Guns are not the problem. People that misuse guns are the problem. People that force others to conform to another's world view are the problem.

 

and the gun control schemes of the Democrats only impede good people from having guns. Those laws actually make the lives of criminals easier

 

the liberals cannot exist without victims.

 

how does making it harder for criminals to buy guns, make the lives of criminals easier?

background checks take 5 minutes. That's not a huge burden upon my life as a law-abiding citizen.

 

tyranny..if it works for me, it is required that YOU do it as well.........

 

what are u trying to say?

 

background checks themselves do not. but the purpose of universal background checks is to register weapons and the purpose of registration is to facilitate confiscation. Those who support UBGCs are either ignorant of the true goals of the gun banning incrementalists or are dishonest.

The Brady bill was not found to decrease crime in any way other than the WAITING period deterred a small amount of suicides. why would an expanded BGC that cannot be enforced have any better luck?

 

Think of all the pot dealers on the streets. Do you think every one of them asks each customer to show their medical marijuana cards? Now how many pot deals do cops actually stop opposed to the number of deals they don't. It's near impossible to enforce. Gun transactions are just as easy between private parties.

 

the purpose of universal background checks it to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

How does it take 5 minutes? Have you ever done one? Let's do a worst case scenario that was once legal in my state, but no longer is.

We meet at Costco and prepare to trade cash/whatever for a gun that I am selling. We exchange concealed pistol licenses to see that the other isn't a felon, and..... GO. 5 Minutes,

 

that is what the advocates tell the weak minded. the gun banning Clinton administration said the purpose of the "assault weapon ban" was to protect the public from "weapons of war" even though the Police Chief of trenton noted that his officers were more likely to be mauled by an escaped tiger from the zoo than shot with an "assault weapon" Charles Krauthammer admitted the real reason for the ban was to desensitize the public and pave the way for additional bans (Washington Post, April 5, 1996)
we were told the same thing about the Brady bill but it did nothing to stop crime

we were told that CCW would cause the streets to run red with blood as gun toters shot each other over parking spaces or road rage


we were told that if the Clinton gun ban was allowed to sunset, people would be shot down in huge numbers with "assault weapons"

guess what-its all lies. those who push gun control at a national level are liars. they know that their schemes have nothing to do with public safety. But they cannot tell the sheeple their true goals

and many sheeple support those gun banners based on the fibs they tell the public

 

I believe I have done 3 NICS checks.

all were completed in 5 minutes or less once the paperwork was filled out.

 

Background checks are already done when buying from gun dealers.
How do you enforce them when transferring between private parties?

 

complete registration is the only way. those pushing UBGC know that.

 

Correct sir.... I was just wondering if Ronstar knew that.

 

Lol. OK. So move the goal posts a little. So its after the paperwork is filled out. How long was the drive to the FFL? How long did you have to wait for them to get the paperwork? How long did it take to fill it out? How long to actually physically do the transaction? Hint: all that time counts.

Even though it isn't the norm, I had one background check take 1:42 minutes. We were on hold for nearly 90 minutes waiting to get kicked to the second tier of the call tree.