Jump to content

Manchin says his background check for everybody bill won't fly


Recommended Posts

well, the way it's being phrased...it requires all guns purchased at gun shows... the buyer must

be background checked.




Now, all dealers still have to do a background check. At gun shows. What they are talking about...


is private citizens being required to do background checks if they sell their guns at a gun show.


Ordinarily, I would be okay with that. Most people would...except. The rabid anti-gun left

would have all the information they need... to have de facto gun registration. Meaning, they

will know where all guns are. That is, except for the criminals' guns.

So, you have a backdoor gun registration right there, like has already happened in NY, etc.


Now, one could argue that background check doesn't mean gun sale, necessarily. But it will

still be able to be figured, that the check was done on a gun owner. And they will come after you,

if you had a background check, and never register any guns. You'll be guilty, even if you passed

the background check with flying colors. And and, they will come after you for taxes. And fines.

and fees. Then they can say "you can't register these guns", so you have to give them up.

And they won't let you resell them. then they can start levying larger and larger fees all the time,

to price them out of existence.


And, even if you got a background check, and didn't buy, your name will still be in there database,

where they can happily publish it, to socially ostricize you. like happened...in NY.


Bingo. The left does not respect our 2nd Amendment, and have done all these things in bits

and pieces certain states/cities in liberal areas. Why not figure they will do it nationally,

given the information nationally?


If it weren't for the anti-gun left/democrats/progressives/marxists/political/culture ware vultures...


the background check bill wouldn't be a problem. But they've made it one.


And criminals never go to get background checks. They don't follow the law. It won't stop

these murders from happening. Not one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there background checks for other things in life? For example, if you want to work with kids in the UK you need to pass a criminal record check amongst other things. That check is quite universal - it's the same thing for a lot of activities.


I wonder if that same check could be applied to gun purchases? If keeping anonymity in gun purchases is so important that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I don't think any honest person can say that they think background checks will make any measurable difference. It's just something that gun lovers don't want so gun haters love just to fuck with them. Seriously Guy what kind of mental disorder would you need to be unqualified to legally purchase a pistol? Then ask yourself if outing that person would comply with HIPAA law? I doubt it. How about unrelated crime, smack your girlfriend get into a bar fight, reckless driving burglary? None actually related to a gun right? How many people do we know that could have been treated for depression, or should have been? Or have been? Remember, you guys on the left, you seem perfectly willing to let a human being that believes he or she is actually the opposite sex serve in the military, assumedly with some sort of deadly weapon? And finally which of the tiny amount of lives lost in public shooting sprees might have been prevented?



Now to be the devil's advocate let's say we ban gun sales to anyone without a highschool diploma, and perhaps at least a 3.0 grade point average?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

"How about unrelated crime, smack your girlfriend get into a bar fight, reckless driving burglary?"


Well for a start you could argue that people who have shown a violent disposition maybe shouldn't get to own a gun. Someone who gets in to a fight because someone spilt his beer, or looked funny at him - if you're that quick to anger over trivial matters, should you really have the right to carry a deadly weapon in these cases?


I'm not sure how you think these things are unrelated, unless you're saying the only related things are if people have shot someone, then they should be disqualified, but that's the only way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough Chris. We should probably eliminate anyone who is deemed to be quick to anger. How about anyone who has ever been in a fist fight (or more than one!)? Yes it may have only been once but how many times do you need? Of course if no one was arrested, that's not a very good test right?


Here's one, even though I doubt he's ever been convicted of a crime, just by reading his posts would you, if you were in charge of the licensing committee, give Walter White a permit to own a firearm?


(I think you are probably correct in that the only way to seriously reduce gun violence is an outright and enforceable ban.

But my position remains the same it's all politics and we don't really care about human life that much anyway.)



Link to comment
Share on other sites

right now, if you are in a wheel chair, and on social security, ObaMao and the left

wants to take your guns away.


If there's a disaster, like Katrina, they want to take your guns away.


If you were in the military in combat or not, they want to take your guns away....


I'm fine with background checks - I've passed them, most people, a very high percentage do.


But, I just explained, that the left couldn't care less if "gun control" doesn't stop these murders they

rant about. It's all about winning another huge battle in the culture war only they are fighting.


Fiddling around with the criteria after any gun law is passed, is the left's mo. The number of bullets

in a mag. If the stock folds. Changing the definition of "automatic" to include semi-automatics, when

they don't know anything about guns at all. Changing lists of guns they don't like.


Once the anti-gun left gets a national registry, all an ObaMao would have to do, is just "adjust" that

registry with an executive order, and order totally unintended criteria in place.


Like, if you live in the city. How big the city is. If something in your life caused you grief, and sadness.

Who the manufacturer is. Then add in licenses to own fees. Keep changing the fees higher and higher,

and you disarm a LOT of Americans. You'll hear "well, what's a little one thousand dollar license fee when

it comes to saving the lives of those who get shot?"

All the warped rationalization, and this ObaMao above-the-law stinkin regime could, and would, have a field day.


And that is why a national database must never be created. And you can't have a universal gun registry database

without universal gun registration. And universal gun registration history leads to confiscation.


And Chris... you posted " For example, if you want to work with kids in the UK you need to pass a criminal record check amongst other things". Is there a giant political leftist movement to ban working with kids? We...already.....have....background checks....

with all.....gun dealers......and they......also have to do.....gun purchase background checks..... IN FREAKIN GUN SHOWS.


I BOUGHT OUR PISTOL AT A GUN SHOW. I PASSED the background check easily - the gun dealer was

surprised it was approved so quickly. But the push to get universal background checks, as in, giving a family heirloom

shotgun to a son or daughter or niece or nephew...really? All those millions and millions of people have to

harrassed, etc, to prevent what it will not prevent anyways? Makes no sense, except for the ulterior motive -

to get a universal registry, which requires universal background checks.... and use it against all gun owners.

Because the left wants them banned anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and btw, I thought the left was so hating of profiling?


As usual, they hate profiling...they don't like. If they like the profiling, it's ON.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again my only complaint with background checks is the same as taking any action relating to any issue that will do nothing to slow it or stop it.


Opponents will cry but you would want to just do nothing??? I answer yes. Nothing is as good as something that's not at all effective. It's a waste of time, and will disappoint you in the end.

Possibly even worse than a waste of time since it gives naive people the impression if they have done something to help.



Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...