Not even that.I voted no. If there must be one they should accept our LTCH and IN DL as a proper background check.
Haha! Not entering all the quotes here but a simple response. I voted yes, and respect the opinion not to sell to me. But rest assured within my company we share some like minded thoughts such as living within the confines of the law and would welcome your company and not hold it against you.
The Amendments are not literal, its been proven time and time over.
Drive your car across state line and any LEO will reference you ASAP. Were already on the grid, if you pay taxes, voted, or signed up for selective service as prescribed by law. Google has more info on most of us than our govt. It is a criminal check and affects non of us. It is an ounce of prevention. Society changes and what was applicable in the past may not fully apply today. No one is taking our guns away.
I'm a registered Republican from Tx. I dont subscribe to the curent Presidential administration however, I keep my state, senate and local reps. Informed of my stans
I'll say it again the system is broke. It will not affect me unless certain firearms are restricted but I have done my part by writting letters for myself and on behalf of my 6 children.
Now I have to worry about infractions on INGO
I'd settle for at least nothing. Accepting BG checks is a net loss, a surrender with nothing in return, a net loss. It's LESS than nothing.
It would be just another compromise to the left, what have they offered us?You missed at least two points. Accepting background checks is not a net loss or a surrender with nothing in return if it prevents a greater loss of rights. And the "nothing" part of "all or nothing" doesn't mean that nothing happens; it means that the loss of rights is greater than it otherwise might be.
Note: I haven't voted in the poll, and I haven't said that I'm in favor of submitting to background checks or any of the proposed restrictions. My point has always been that we need to choose our battles wisely and present ourselves as thoughtful and reasonable; sadly, I don't see this happening with a lot of the people who have posted replies on this thread.
It would be just another compromise to the left, what have they offered us?
I voted yes, but they have to do it right. First, if a state does a complete background check to issue a LTCH and requires a gun safety course (current LTCH's grandfathered and military/police exempt), then that LTCH is good anywhere in the US and is all that is needed with picture ID to purchase a gun. Second, LTCH numbers are put into a national database with expiration dates. Lifetimes would have a date of 99/99/9999. Third, any seller of a gun would have to have a LTCH and use their number to access the database to verify the LTCH of the purchaser and that they also checked valid picture ID. Fourth, FFL's would still need to keep records of sales. Fifth, anyone deem incompetant or convcted of a felon would be required to surrender their LTCH and it would be removed from the database. Sixth, the database should be accessible from any computer, tablet, smartphone.
In effect, you purchase a lifetime LTCH, keep your nose clean, you only need one background check.
I'm sure that there is a hold or two here, but it would only take a few of us to iron them out in a short time.
You missed at least two points. Accepting background checks is not a net loss or a surrender with nothing in return if it prevents a greater loss of rights. And the "nothing" part of "all or nothing" doesn't mean that nothing happens; it means that the loss of rights is greater than it otherwise might be.
Note: I haven't voted in the poll, and I haven't said that I'm in favor of submitting to background checks or any of the proposed restrictions. My point has always been that we need to choose our battles wisely and present ourselves as thoughtful and reasonable; sadly, I don't see this happening with a lot of the people who have posted replies on this thread.
1. What do you mean proven? Just because Franklin Roosevelt managed to pack the Supreme Court with ideologues who put ideology over the Constitution, that doesn't mean a thing other than that the court was corrupted.
2. It doesn't affect us? Wrong on five counts. It is a violation of the Second Amendment. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. As more activity is criminalized, you among others including your children and grandchildren may be reclassified as criminals without any changes in your behavior. Every time this is done, we are left with nothing but the word of the feds that they are not keeping records. When a confiscation comes as the predictable final result of fools compromising our rights I don't think you are going to get much mileage out of telling them that they weren't supposed to have records indicating that you have guns. Last, but certainly not least, CRIMINALS, BY DEFINITION ARE PEOPLE WHO DISREGARD THE LAW. Do you really expect them to buy their guns from a proper vendor following federal procedures of any kind?
3. The entire purpose of the Constitution, particularly the first ten amendments, is to prevent the whim of society from defining our rights.
4. No one is taking our guns away? Perhaps you should tell 'them' that. They seem not to have received the memo.
5. I don't doubt that you are from Texas. While its values are more congruent with our than someplace like New York, California, or Illinois, it is to a great extent the same substance with a different attitude in that right-wing statism rather than left-wing statism seems to be de rigueur there.
6. You apparently don't care about infringements as long as they don't affect you personally withing the parameters you have chosen for yourself. Thanks for throwing the rest of us under the bus. With friends like you we sure don't need any enemies.
Secondary poll: what percentage of INGO members are progressives or statists? I'm guessing 16%
You missed at least two points. Accepting background checks is not a net loss or a surrender with nothing in return if it prevents a greater loss of rights. And the "nothing" part of "all or nothing" doesn't mean that nothing happens; it means that the loss of rights is greater than it otherwise might be.
Note: I haven't voted in the poll, and I haven't said that I'm in favor of submitting to background checks or any of the proposed restrictions. My point has always been that we need to choose our battles wisely and present ourselves as thoughtful and reasonable; sadly, I don't see this happening with a lot of the people who have posted replies on this thread.