RejectedStone

Comparing those countries to the US is alarmist nonsense

How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution? It gives them the ability to log all gun users after a time and makes it very easy to confiscate all of them at some time......... which has happened so many times in history, we don't want to give them the opportunity to do it again....... To the point, we don't trust the government with that information, and it's none of their business. You conspiracy theorist people really need to knock it off. It wouldn't be possible for the government to confiscate all the guns in a country this size. China did it, and the USSR also - both bigger than the United States. Do I need to point out the difference between those countries and the US? Ask yourself: Is the United States heading toward a Marxist/Socialist system? Absolutely, positively not. Then sadly, you are willfully blind. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. None of the unspeakable collectivist horrors that some on the far right claimed would come true in his first term have come to pass, and I don't see any on the horizion. Be sure to let me know when it happens though.

How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution? It gives them the ability to log all gun users after a time and makes it very easy to confiscate all of them at some time......... which has happened so many times in history, we don't want to give them the opportunity to do it again....... To the point, we don't trust the government with that information, and it's none of their business. You conspiracy theorist people really need to knock it off. It wouldn't be possible for the government to confiscate all the guns in a country this size. China did it, and the USSR also - both bigger than the United States. Do I need to point out the difference between those countries and the US? Ask yourself: Is the United States heading toward a Marxist/Socialist system? Absolutely, positively not.

Saying that it's the first step to confiscation is ridiculous. This is akin to saying that there can be no limit to any constitutional rights. This isn't the case, and never has been. Are anti-libel laws the first step to the abolition of free speech? Are city permits the first step to taking way the right to peaceably assemble? Of course not. Also, the law in question didn't create a mechanism for the government to "know about" where all the guns were. It provided for criminal background checks for most (not all) gun sales. If the goverment wanted to know who legally owned guns, they could check the state permits. I suppose those are unconsitutional as well? If you think that its ridiculous, then you really need to re-examine history. Have the existing gun regulations proven to be the first steps to confiscation? Nope. FYI: * In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. This doesn't include the 30 million 'Uncle Joe' starved to death in the Ukraine. * In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, leaving a populace unable to defend itself against the Gestapo and SS. Hundreds of thousands died as a result. * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. The total dead are said to be 2-3 million * Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1-2 million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million at a bare minimum. * Gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results: Australia-wide, homicides went up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults went up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies went up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns. It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too. http://uofe.org/gun_confiscation.html How do any of those compare with the US, in terms of a political for doing so? Keeping in mind that it would take a Constitutional Amendment to achieve such thing.

How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution? It gives them the ability to log all gun users after a time and makes it very easy to confiscate all of them at some time......... which has happened so many times in history, we don't want to give them the opportunity to do it again....... To the point, we don't trust the government with that information, and it's none of their business. You conspiracy theorist people really need to knock it off. It wouldn't be possible for the government to confiscate all the guns in a country this size. China did it, and the USSR also - both bigger than the United States. Do I need to point out the difference between those countries and the US? Those differences are rapidly shrinking. Capitalism was alive and well, last I checked.

If there is ever any evidence that it's being considered, I'll join in the Tea Pary protests.

How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution? It gives them the ability to log all gun users after a time and makes it very easy to confiscate all of them at some time......... which has happened so many times in history, we don't want to give them the opportunity to do it again....... To the point, we don't trust the government with that information, and it's none of their business. You conspiracy theorist people really need to knock it off. It wouldn't be possible for the government to confiscate all the guns in a country this size. China did it, and the USSR also - both bigger than the United States. Do I need to point out the difference between those countries and the US?

Saying that it's the first step to confiscation is ridiculous. This is akin to saying that there can be no limit to any constitutional rights. This isn't the case, and never has been. Are anti-libel laws the first step to the abolition of free speech? Are city permits the first step to taking way the right to peaceably assemble? Of course not. Also, the law in question didn't create a mechanism for the government to "know about" where all the guns were. It provided for criminal background checks for most (not all) gun sales. If the goverment wanted to know who legally owned guns, they could check the state permits. I suppose those are unconsitutional as well? Not all states require permits. While the federal government guarantees the right to bear arms, which no state can violate, it is up to the individual states to require permits or not, to exercise that right, and some state do not require permits of any kind. The question then becomes, if the feds were to require a criminal background check, how long are those records kept? That is how long the feds would be able to know who legally owned guns. Person-to-person transfers were to be excluded under the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, which would have made tracking impossible.

Saying that it's the first step to confiscation is ridiculous. This is akin to saying that there can be no limit to any constitutional rights. This isn't the case, and never has been. Are anti-libel laws the first step to the abolition of free speech? Are city permits the first step to taking way the right to peaceably assemble? Of course not. Also, the law in question didn't create a mechanism for the government to "know about" where all the guns were. It provided for criminal background checks for most (not all) gun sales. If the goverment wanted to know who legally owned guns, they could check the state permits. I suppose those are unconsitutional as well? If you think that its ridiculous, then you really need to re-examine history. Have the existing gun regulations proven to be the first steps to confiscation? Nope.

I think the President DID show anger and consternation about both the Sandy Hook and Boston atrocities. He also suffered a stinging defeat with his own party not supporting the proposed gun laws. The people don't want tighter restrictions and the Congress doesn't want to suffer the consequences of passing them. IMO, it's DOA... Actually, a majority of congress did support the Manchin-Toomey amendment, but it fell short of the 60 votes needed. I beg to differ, R.S.; if a majority had supported it, it would have been sent on to the House. Of course, it would have died there anyway. The vote was 54-46: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/17/manchin-toomey-gun-amendment-fails/ But I agree, it was DOA in the House.

How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution? It gives them the ability to log all gun users after a time and makes it very easy to confiscate all of them at some time......... which has happened so many times in history, we don't want to give them the opportunity to do it again....... To the point, we don't trust the government with that information, and it's none of their business. You conspiracy theorist people really need to knock it off. It wouldn't be possible for the government to confiscate all the guns in a country this size. Not to mention dealing with the political backlash of even considering such a notion.

I think the President DID show anger and consternation about both the Sandy Hook and Boston atrocities. He also suffered a stinging defeat with his own party not supporting the proposed gun laws. The people don't want tighter restrictions and the Congress doesn't want to suffer the consequences of passing them. IMO, it's DOA... Actually, a majority of congress did support the Manchin-Toomey amendment, but it fell short of the 60 votes needed.

Saying that it's the first step to confiscation is ridiculous. This is akin to saying that there can be no limit to any constitutional rights. This isn't the case, and never has been. Are anti-libel laws the first step to the abolition of free speech? Are city permits the first step to taking way the right to peaceably assemble? Of course not. Also, the law in question didn't create a mechanism for the government to "know about" where all the guns were. It provided for criminal background checks for most (not all) gun sales. If the goverment wanted to know who legally owned guns, they could check the state permits. I suppose those are unconsitutional as well?

How exactly does expanding criminal background checks for firearm purchases destroy the Constitution?

Very well said.