Ammo For Sale

« « Online shopping | Home | Life in the future » »

Not a gun ban


If you just wanted Background Checks, this is everything youve asked for. But if Background Checks are just a stalking horse for the universal firearms registration that you REALLY want, then this is the worst possible thing in the world.

I wouldn’t call it winning so much as strategy.

7 Responses to “Not a gun ban”

  1. Sean D Sorrentino Says:

    Thanks for the link!

  2. Ratus Says:

    “…wouldn’t call it winning so much as strategy.”

    It’s more like not losing/a draw.

  3. Carl "Bear" Bussjaeger Says:

    Sean, not so fast. You missed a very important point about smartphone apps:

    Even with zero knowledge of the specific app, the very technology makes it extremely dangerous.

  4. JTC Says:

    Everything Bear says at his link.

    Edited to add…fuck that and all schemes to take away the historical exemption on regulation of private transactions.

    Defend the National Public Armory (NPA)! It is the last frontier of freedom from defacto registration and confiscation, and that’s the ONLY reason the grabbers want to close that “loophole” (aka the SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED AND SETTLED RIGHT to conduct private sales outside of their purview.

    Nobody wants to sell a firearm to someone with evil intent and it hardly ever happens because evildoers can get all the weapons they want directly or indirectly from dumbasses that don’t lock their shit up. A simple signed receipt with descriptions of the merchandise and the parties suffices to prove due care and diligence and stays right there in your possession in the safe where the merchandise used to be.

    I am convinced that properly intelligent and skeptical 2A defenders understand all of this and that is why they bent DT’s ear and why he withdrew his support of so-called “universal background checks”. Maybe that’s naive but that trust is what has gotten us this far and it’s all we have. It’s up to US to be sure they maintain the courage of their and OUR convictions.

  5. Mike V Says:

    I’ve always thought opening NCIS to citizens was the answer. If it gives the seller the ability to save or print the clearance for their records, I think it’s a home run. As long as the records still disappear with 24 hours like they’re supposed to.

  6. Bill Twist Says:

    I don’t think expanded background checks are the answer.

    Any so-called “right” that requires government permission before it can be exercised is no longer a right, it’s a government-granted privilege.

    Requiring a background check before you can purchase/get/build/acquire a firearm brings it down from a right that every citizen can exercise to something that only approved citizens can do.

    Already, we’ve started down the road of restricting that right from people who would have traditionally retained it. The Lautenberg Amendment that prevents people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from owning a firearm is a perfect example.

    It’s the only misdemeanor conviction I’m aware of that will permanently revoke a right guaranteed in the US Constitution.

    Historically, only a felony conviction could do that. But I’m not even comfortable with banning gun ownership to people convicted of non-violent felonies: I’ve been asking the question for years, but no one has yet been able to adequately explain to me why someone like Martha Stewart is so dangerous to society that she should never be able to own a gun for the rest of her life.

    The problem with background checks being required for all permanent gun transfers (or nearly all of them) is that all you need to do to reduce the number of legal gun owners is simply add new restrictions on who can own a gun. Got a drunk driving conviction? Well, obviously we can’t trust you with a gun. Later on: Got a ticket for driving more than 20 mph over the limit? Well, obviously you’re not responsible enough to own a gun. Even later: Got a bunch of parking tickets? Well, if you can’t follow the rules for parking, why should we trust that you’ll follow the rules regarding ownership of a deadly weapon?

    That’s how it’s going to go, if we allow them to pass universal background checks.

  7. JTC Says:

    @Bill Twist, it’s not “the answer” or solution because there is no demonstrable problem with private transfers beyond some yahoos acting as unlicensed dealers actively buying and selling solely for profit WHICH IS ALREADY SPECIFICALLY ILLEGAL AND PROHIBITED UNDER EXISTING REGS! So is additional restriction on my rights somehow going to be different? And that is the reason for the recent addition of the weasel word “commercial” to seem as if it is aimed at those unlicensed dealers when in fact any advertisement or any sale to anyone outside your immediate circle of family and friends will be a serious and punishable offense

    At best UBC is just another case of responding to ignorant wailing to DO SOMETHING to quiet the natives and get some leftist electoral brownie points. But the truth is of course much darker and surreptitious…it is prelude to registration and confiscation by force and total control like what George Bailey addressed in It’s a Wonderful Life when the evil banker offers him personal comfort and largesse to sell out his independent Savings and Loan when George tells him “There’s this little bit of freedom from your evil grasp and it’s EATING you!”

    The Leftists know that private gun ownership and especially those which they can’t get their grubby hands on is their biggest obstacle to the destruction of the Free Republic and their complete control of the proles to enable their imagined Utopia. Seems like such a little right, right? And hey it even looks out for our own NON-EXISTENT concern for liability…NO! Don’t be fooled! Fight for this little right tooth and nail because it is a stepping stone to what they really want which is YOU DISARMED AND HELPLESS AGAINST THEIR TYRANNY!