He was commenting on this article: THOUSANDS of Washingtonians Pledge Civil Disobedience to New Anti-Gun Laws
He said: "I'm extremely pro-Second-Amendment. That being said, a background check - to me, at least - is common sense. Your local gun shops all do it, even vendors at gun shows. So why not between two persons? Background checks do nothing to record a firearm. It simply checks whether the individual has any outstanding warrants for arrest, or prior felonious convictions. This is what annoys me with my fellow 2nd-amendment-ers. Don't be so polarizing that you jeopardize a movement, when a law is passed that maay very well help it. e.g, closing the open door to violent criminals purchasing weapons."
So I responded with:
"Please let me tell you, firstly, why more background checks will not help prevent crime and secondly, why this (I-594) is NOT about background checks.
The authors of I-594 (and most anti-gun legislation for that matter) have already admitted that this will do little, if anything, to prevent crime. It will have to be coupled with draconian gun laws, which will severely limit the average citizen from owning and bearing a firearm.
By definition criminals break laws. Why would a criminal, who stole a gun, in order to sell it to another criminal, who will use it in a crime, submit to a background check? The answer: they wouldn't... AND DON'T.
The ONLY people these new background checks will affect are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. These are the people you didn't have to worry about in the first place. It adds more red tape in order to simply exercise a Constitutionally protected right. Forcing some citizens to just give up their pursuit of owning a firearm, because of the hassle. Causing other firearm owners, either inadvertently or intentionally, to become felons overnight with the stroke of a pen. Not because they harmed anyone, but because they did exactly what they have been doing for their ENTIRE LIVES. They were not a threat to ANYONE.
In order for the government to know if a firearm has been transferred, there WILL BE a mandatory GUN REGISTRATION. It is the only way they can properly enforce the law. As we all know, thanks to the prism of history, GUN REGISTRATION IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARD CONFISCATION. Confiscation might seem far away or even impossible, but it is only because patriots have fought this battle to stave it off this long.
Additionally, our National Instant Background Check System (NICS) is already severely overwhelmed. This is the check that is required to purchase a firearm through a licensed dealer. This over burdened program CANNOT withstand the additional background checks caused from person to person transfers and again, criminals will NOT submit to a background check, so the only people who would be bogging down the system are law abiding citizens.
It will take weeks, if not months, if not years for a background check to be approved by NICS. If the government can prevent people from being able to get their background checks, they have effectively banned firearms.
Lastly, I just want to touch on a point that you made: "It simply checks whether the individual has any outstanding warrants for arrest, or prior felonious convictions".
Upon the founding our nation, we did not have a law banning felons from possessing a firearm. That was created in the Progressive Era in the early 1900's. The real problem here is NOT felons owning firearms -- It's dangerous, violent felons being released onto our streets, while non-violent felons are filling our prisons. If a felon is a threat to society, they should not be released... PERIOD! If they are released, they should be given full rights as a citizen, since they have "paid their debt to society".
I am not trying to pick a fight with you, Travis, but people who call themselves Pro-Second Amendment and then call for restrictions to the right to keep and bear arms are part of the problem, not gun owners against draconian gun laws. I understand your logic perfectly and I respectfully disagree with you.
I will say that you might want to think long and hard about your title as "Pro-Second Amendment". It is hard for a person to be "pro" something, when they are calling for the exact opposite of what they supposedly support... "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Gun owners have compromised and compromised our rights away... and what do we have? Background checks, permits to conceal, permits to own, gun free zones, gun rights lost for non-violent crimes, trigger lock requirements, bureaucracy and we get vilified in the media.
What have the gun grabbing extremists compromised on? They have let us keep what guns we have... for now. Compromising gets us NO WHERE with these people.
I say, NO MORE COMPROMISING!"
So Mack Pack, what are your thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment