Posted on 08/29/2016 8:53:53 AM PDT by rktman
"When it comes to gun control and the Second Amendment, Democrats and Republicans are deeply divided except for a few safety measures such as background checks on gun sales,” huffingtonpost.com reports, analyzing a Pew Research report released Friday. (Click here to read.) Pew examines the pew-pew views of Trump and Clinton supporters. The results aren’t surprising, but they are revealing.
Both candidates’ supporters favor “background checks for private and gun show sales” by a wide margin. Here are three reasons why the supposedly pro-gun Trump voters’ support for “universal background checks” (UBC’s) is irrelevant.
(Excerpt) Read more at thetruthaboutguns.com ...
Only a fool believes that another law will prevent criminals from buying guns.
This is supposed to be a Constitutional republic, supposedly in which the rights of individuals are not subject to being voted out on a whim by a tyrannical majority, even if they just "wanna feel safe".
The 2nd Amendment says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If I have to get a government background check to use my buddy's shotgun, AR, or Glock, that's an infringement. If I have to get a background check to buy a gun, that's an infringement by the government on my rights.
It is not the government's place to say who should or should not own a gun, unless that person is a convicted felon. If government wants to provide a list or a database of convicted felons where people can check a potential buyer if they want, that's fine. But the SECOND the government is in charge of denying you a gun sale, that's an infringement. See the difference?
Exactly. Intergalactic universal background check laws are not followed by... wait for it... criminals.
That is the 'camel's nose under the tent'. It allows government to get involved with its licensing and background checks. Once involved, they never go away.
See my tagline.
One of the reasons I don’t like a “permitting” process to carry. You need approval for something that is supposed to be guaranteed to not be infringed? Seems like infringing to me.
There’s nothing about UBCs in the Constitution.
I should register with a dictator.
Note to said dictator: F__k You!!!!!!!!!!
Nothing about obtaining a permit to carry either.
You know what they can do with their damned permits?
Reason number 1: Because it's de facto Universal Gun Registration. Taking both the Second and Fourth Amendments into consideration, such measures are inherently un-American, and indeed unconstitutional.
There don't need to be many more reasons than that.
George Washington, the father of our country, was involved after the War. He helped draft the Constitution during the Summer of 1787. In the words of historian John Fiske, Washington "lent his character and experience toward securing the adoption of such a federal constitution as should make anything like a dictatorship forever unnecessary and impossible".
It is in that spirit I speak when I say that any Law which would so directly enable potential Tyranny of that magnitude in the United States is Tyrannical, and, almost by definition, unconstitutional.
Vote Trump!
If liberals can have whole cities and states ignore immigration law for years without consequence, liberals have established the precedence for conservative states to opt out of new federal gun laws. In fact, for conservatives, the refusal to implement new stricter gun laws is stronger because their freedom from those restrictive laws is more closely tied to the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.