Ammo For Sale

« « Number 3: Tennessee | Home | The language is the lie » »

Obama: You should have to go through a background check just to go to a gun show

Ok, then. How about background checks to vote, speak freely, or peaceably assemble?

23 Responses to “Obama: You should have to go through a background check just to go to a gun show”

  1. kahr40 Says:

    He’d probably OK with that too.

  2. Lazy Bike Commuter Says:

    …or be president?

  3. Brad Says:

    Of course. Gun-control has always really been about political power and not guns. So naturally our enemies feel the need to violate other constitutional rights aside from the 2nd Amendment. In this instance, the right to assembly protected by the 1st Amendment.

  4. Phelps Says:

    Says the guy who wouldn’t pass a secret clearance background check if he wasn’t elected to the post.

  5. Chris Says:

    Says the president that would have to lie on the 4473 to buy a gun.

  6. bob Smith Says:

    How about about a background check and proof of citizenship before you can run for President of the United States.

  7. AJ187 Says:

    Not fan of freedom of assembly either huh?

  8. Mr Evilwrench Says:

    Yeah, 2000 people trying to get into the Indy 1500 would hit NICS when it’s running 2 hours. A fun time would be had by all.

  9. Rob Says:

    That is a background check to peacefully assemble.

  10. Mu Says:

    Oddly enough I wouldn’t mind an easy way to do background checks that’s universal and practical. Get a gun buyer’s card once, with usual background check. Then allow the card to be verified online/phone whatever by anyone, just type in your number and it comes back “accepted/denied”. No other information transmitted either way. Make it the responsibility of the system to keep track of people’s eligibility.

  11. Robb Allen Says:

    Mu, there’s a much simpler system – If a person is known to be dangerous enough to not be allowed to hold / purchase / coonfinger a gun, rather than waiting on trying to catch that person using a cash register, simply lock them up.

    If they’re too dangerous to own a gun, they’re too dangerous to be on the street.

    It truly is that easy.

  12. wizardpc Says:

    He also doesn’t want his daughters “punished with a baby”

  13. TigerStripe Says:

    I am of the same mind as Robb. If you can’t be trusted you should either not be breathing or able to get out in public.

    I am a concealed carry license holder in Texas and thereby I can ship the background check process but I don’t like it that having such a license gives me a more equal portion of 2A rights.

    TS

  14. IllTemperedCur Says:

    How about a background check to be able to walk onto school grounds or a college campus? After all, we’re primarily talking about protecting children in schools, yes?

    I wonder how many college professors would be able to pass the NICS check?

  15. mikee Says:

    This is a fun game, adding government permissions before one can exercise enumerated rights.

    How about a background check before going into a religious house of worship? Of course, universal registration of your religious preference would be required, and perhaps a special permit would be required to go from being a Southern Baptist to visiting a Methodist service.

  16. Ron W Says:

    Things to remember:

    Our government, particularly the Federal Government operates by “delegated powers” for which they have NONE re: the people’s RKBA.

    They,the President, Congress other officials and agents are OUR EMPLOYEES and since when do the employees tell the employers what to do??If anyone needs the background checks it is those who we HIRE to administrate our government. And as Chris and bob smith have said, it si the one they call the President who may fail what he wants to impose on free citizens.

  17. chris Says:

    I think this is an April Fool’s Day joke.

  18. Brad Says:

    Chris

    Ah, if only that were true. The link goes back to a transcript at politico.com, posted days before April, and politico.com rarely strays from the liberal/democratic party line when it comes to content. IOW they would never willingly produce content harmful to the holy cause of their new Sun-King-Savior.

    Not an April fools joke, though Obama is a fool.

  19. Paul Says:

    ‘background checks to vote’… hell I’d be happy if you just had to show ID to vote.

    And I’d be even more happy if you had to show you had brains to vote (cause so many don’t.) But if they did that no Democrats, and alot of Republicans, would never be elected.

  20. Mu Says:

    So you want ID to vote but not for gun sales, guess you do value some rights higher than others.

  21. Mike Says:

    Sigh…

    We already have these things.

    You need a permit to peaceably assemble. And Lord help you if run afoul of the political views of those doing the permitting. (This much, at least, Occupy WallStreet got right — they didn’t ask for anyone’s permission).

    The Left is working overtime to get your freedom of speech regulated. The day is not far off when you WILL need a permit to blog.

    As for the religious thing — if you want the tax-free status, the IRS will determine whether or not you are a “bona fide” religion. Stray from their regulations, and they will tax you into penury. Be prepared: refusing to officiate gay weddings WILL be used as a litmus test for tax protection.

    (I don’t have a view either way on same-sex marriage, but I DO know it will be used as a hammer to further constrain freedom of religion. Count on it.)

  22. Divemedic Says:

    @Mu: The difference is that the voter ID is used to restrict each person to one vote, which is the essence of voting.

  23. wasntme Says:

    Obama wants you to undergo a background check to just get in a gun show but he, without a doubt, does not support even showing an ID to cast a ballot in a United States presidential election. Why is that?

    Isn’t it just common sense to prove your a US citizen to vote in a US election? Maybe we should call obama’s pals, the UN, to oversee the next election.