Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow. Firearms anarchy. Let’s just have convicted felons and certifiable mental cases roaming around with their assault rifles. Welcome to the alt right mentality. Bullet proof vests anyone?
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say people don't want that. Come to think of that why would anyone think that is what would happen?
Welcome to the left mentality. See what I did there?
Why don't you find out what "well regulated" means first!
Well, we could look at the other Constitutional clauses that mention the militia, or we could just go full Gun Nut and decide that "well regulated" actually should be interpreted to mean "completely without restraint of any kind".
Wow. Firearms anarchy. Let’s just have convicted felons and certifiable mental cases roaming around with their assault rifles. Welcome to the alt right mentality. Bullet proof vests anyone?
If they are too dangerous to keep a firearm, they are too dangerous to walk the streets freely in society.
Why are you allowing them to be free?
You are looking at this from the barrel end and cannot see the sight picture.
They are not infringing your rights to own a firearm with a background check. They are regulating commerce of firearms.
The FBI provided database is the government's attempt to notify dealers of who should not be sold firearms.
The FFL dealer is not reporting your purchase to a state or federal controlled database. The local records kept by the dealer are a "loophole" that they can leverage but within the bounds of the law.
Can't the person just make their own? Like the Sten and similar weapons?
You the person(qualifier) ain't suppose to be keeping it in the first place, to even be forced to transfer it to them.
When someone buys a pack of cigarettes, they don't log the persons name, for their records, unless government mandates it.
When I get a receipt from the grocery store, it doesn't have my name on it.
Why does my name have to be on a receipt for buying a gun, but not a bow?
As a software developer and data analyst, I can tell you that the grocery store receipt is far more of an infringement of my 4th Amendment rights than any background check. If you are paying with any kind of card (even worse, using one of their discount cards), your 4th Amendment is probably being rode over roughshod and is a bloody and beaten mess. That's a conversation for another day though.
Shh... you are not suppose to tell them about our assault bows.
You are looking at this from the barrel end and cannot see the sight picture.
They are not infringing your rights to own a firearm with a background check. They are regulating commerce of firearms.
The FBI provided database is the government's attempt to notify dealers of who should not be sold firearms.
The FFL dealer is not reporting your purchase to a state or federal controlled database. The local records kept by the dealer are a "loophole" that they can leverage but within the bounds of the law.
Regulating distribution is a violation of the 2nd amendment. It infringes on the immediate right to arms.
If I was a felon I would not even bother getting denied at a gun store. I can simply have all the parts sent to my house, all legal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
