“but I am not clear on what makes these background checks dangerous.”
Suppose you once had a prescription for an antidepressant, mood elevator, or something like ambien. With Obamacare, the records are all shared. Since you may be dangerous (why else take those drugs?) you could be denied RKBA.
Let’s say we allow this to pass and find that five yeears from now it’s commonsense and reasonable to deny RKBA to repeat traffic offenders or those who missed a loan payment. No law gets looser with age.
In NY there is a dad who lost his license and guns “until his son turns 18 and moves out” because the kid said something threatening. So with a really good background check system, you could be denied RKBA for some condition or status someone in your house (or neighborhood) has.
Besides, what gives government the right to do this? The Constitution is a document whose major purpose is to restrict what governments can do, and it’s time to recover some of the ground lost.
Free Republic is full of longterm moles, stealth happy horseshitters, and even DOJ paid “corrupt bastards” (Thanks Sarah Palin!) -
I recall a FR “Sidebar Poll” that asked FR members who they would pick for President -
18% picked Hillary Clinton -
When you post or read on FR you have no idea who is commenting and/or replying - or if they have the subhuman IQ of the alleged primate (Airball Opansy) occupying the Barack Hut now