Why the Opposition to Universal Background Checks?

Maybe you are off just a little.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/0...r-confiscating-guns-after-hospital-visit-for/

"Last month, the Syracuse Post-Standard found nearly 39,000 names in the database and that 278 of those were gun owners who were in danger of losing their firearms."

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/12/05/gun-confiscation-underway-in-new-york-n1758137

"An estimated 500 recipients of the notices, which were mailed on Nov. 18, were given the options to surrender their gun, permanently move the gun out of city jurisdiction or employ a licensed gunsmith to modify the weapon to get into compliance with the law. Rifles and shotguns with a capacity of five or more rounds are affected."

http://www.truthandaction.org/ny-man-gets-gun-confiscated-15-year-old-misdemeanor-charge/

"A man from New York just got his guns confiscated for a 15-year-old misdemeanor charge by police who showed up at his door asking to check the serial number on one gun."

 

yuuuuuuuuuup. Registration leads to confiscation.

 

Since this is pretty much common knowledge, I didn't think I need to. However, in a subsequent post, i did, for those living under a rock.

 

let me restate this again.

all firearms that were legal before the SAFE Act, but became illegal to possess after the SAFE Act, were allowed to be grandfathered-in if one registered the firearm.

 

and had the money to pay a licensed gunsmith to modify the gun into compliance. If you own several guns, you might be SOL.

 

Too bad that line of reasoning doesn't also apply to voting rights. Guns, yes. Votes, no.

 

C'mon, man, you get it. "shall not be in infringed" is constitutional. "well regulated" is unconstitutional and is NOT to be considered.

 

"

I hadn't heard of that one, even went google-ing and ask.com and couldn't find the proper dialogue based on the assertion that "well-regulated" had anything to do with the private Individual Citizen's Right
Heller v. DC made it real clear that private ownership was indeed a Right. They didn't declare the "well-regulated" anything unconstitutional.

 

modify a gun into compliance?

there is no need, not with the grandfather clause.

all previously-owned assault-weapons could be grandfathered in if you register them.

AK-47, AR-15, whateva...

 

Last I heard, NYC was still part of New York. The "Safe" Act may have grandfathered existing guns in, but the door was left open for cities to go further and some are in NY.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1838978/posts

How were guns well regulated in early America? Rhode Island banned the placement of shooting ranges across public highways. Pennsylvania, Maryland, and North Carolina passed laws which mandated that citizens be disarmed if they refused to swear an oath of allegiance to the state. Ten states passed laws which allowed private guns to be confiscated and used in the war against the British. Citizens were required to show up on certain days of the year and present their privately owned weapons to militia officers for inspection. Militia officers kept detailed records of such inspections. Residents of Boston were prohibited from keeping loaded guns in their house. Later, in the 19th Century many states passed laws to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons.

The Tenth Amendment protects the powers of the states. Among those constitutionally protected powers is the traditional power to regulate guns.

 

It might have something to do with democrats being on record saying they support full on bans of firearms.
Example senator Feinstein

 

as usual, you cherry pick a blog. But here's the final result of the interpretation.

Heller v. DC backs up the fact that people are allowed town firearms.
Now I'm going to go through this long presentation that you didn't create. The gal didn't get the man's firearm, did she? Because he believed that just after a battle with the British, he wasn't going to give up his right to self defense. Neither would I. And Mrs. Brown, as it turn out, was a turncoat.

 

and so has Sara Brady:
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady
Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum
The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
So those who demand we surrender our arms are traitors to the Constitution. they are traitors to their neighbors, and as a matter of fact, only criminals are demanding that law abiding citizens surrender their guns. So they (the gun grabbers) are, without a doubt, criminals and traitors

 

That's a bogus quote.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus_brady.html

As I recall Sarah Brady bought a rifle for her son so she's not as anti-gun as some would have us believe.

 

nope, I've researched it. and she never bought a gun for anyone...that's just so sad to try and play that card.
And the quote is accurate.
http://izquotes.com/quote/22586
In their own words:
"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
-Sara Brady, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc, to Senator Howard Metzenbaum. The National Educator, January 1994, Page 3.
Wow! Adds a whole new meaning to "making the streets safer", doesn't it??


Our (Former) Fearless Leader
"We can't be so fixed on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans."
-President William Jefferson Clinton, March 1, 1993 during a press conference in Piscataway, NJ. Source: Boston Globe, 3/2/93, page 3.
Our President said this!!! Ok Bill, then exactly which rights should we NOT preserve? Freedom of speech? The right to vote?



This one is so weird, I'm not even sure how to react:
"My general counsel tells me that while firearms are exempted from our jurisdiction under the Consumer Product Safety Act, we could possibly ban bullets under the Hazardous Substances Act."
-Richard O. Simpson, Chairman, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. 1973
I used to think those guys who stockpile ammunition in their basements were a few beers short of a six-pack, but now it doesn't sound like such a bad idea.


More Logic From The Gun Control Crowd:
"We must do whatever we can to regulate how guns are used. I've been the victim of a stabbing."
-Al Sharpton, May 3, 2003
Uh, did I miss something? No, seriously. Did I friggin' miss something??
Couldn't have said it better myself...
"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
-Janet Reno
Well, there you have it. Waiting periods, registration, then prohibition. Do you still think the NRA is being paranoid?

I saved the best for last:
"Gun violence won't be cured by one set of laws. It will require years of partial measures that will gradually tighten the requirements for gun ownership, and incrementally change expectations about the firepower that should be available to ordinary citizens."
-New York Times, December 21, 1993
This of course explains how the plan (see previous quote) is being put into action; a little at a time. I suppose you could write the NRA's position off as simple paranoia if it weren't for the fact that these words are coming from the gun control folks themselves.
http://members.tripod.com/~waycool_dude/control_this.html

 

wow, that's a lot of silly name calling!!!!

 

Seems to me the 2A is protecting the right to own guns AND to effectively regulate them. That AIN'T what the gun-toters want.

 

*shrug* And yet they are, on almost every aircraft in the nation. In many restaurants, in most court rooms and schools... free men have been denied that use. And I think I'm OK with Jefferson's prediction being so very wrong.




​

 

Because anti gun scumbags will never stop pushing. Your definition of compromise is for us to give you something and get nothing in return - and then you come back next year for more.

How stupid do you think we are?

No compromise.

 

really........................... where did it seem that you read that?

 

Regulate:

1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: "to regulate household expenses."
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: "to regulate the temperature."
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: "to regulate a watch."
4. to put in good order: "to regulate the digestion."

The 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My interpretation is that the 4th definition is used and interpreted as follows:

In order for the militia to be a proficient fighting force to maintain a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Who or what is to be regulated by whom and what definition of regulate would you use?

 

The meaning is that the people are to regulate themselves. IE the people, who make up the militia, are meant to regulate themselves. Regulated in those times. meant well equiped.

 

There's nothing in the 2nd amendment that talks about regulating guns.

 

she just seemed to have read it. That doesn't make it true