Poll: Gun Legislation

[youtube:atnihjm4][/youtube:atnihjm4]

frogger wrote: OK....LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN SLOWLY.

I A M N O T I N F A V OR O F A N Y " U N I V E R S A L" BA C K G R O U N D C H E CK "I N G E N E R A L" T H A T W O U L D I N C L U D E A D A T A B A S E O F A N Y K I N D.

Ths Sc. I suspect that most saw it as you did and you are correct in the message that was meant to be conveyed.

How in the world would any background check not utilize a database? How would it be effective if the background check did not include any information regarding the background of the individual on whom the background was being checked? What is objectionable about a database containing the relevant information on the criminal status of the individual, the mental health of the individual, whether there are any restraining orders against that individual, etc.? How do you propose doing a background check on an individual without such databases?

If on the other hand, you were referencing, as Grady was, that you were basing your opposition against the proposed legislation on the mistaken belief that the legislation would set up a registry database tracking the ownership of firearms to particular individuals, then that is a different story, and you are relying upon false information to do so. Or if the legislation does in your opinion set up a gun registry, then please provide me with the source of your information in that regard.

Or you can continue to throw your whiny temper tantrums that make no sense, refuse to provide the requested information on why you object to the proposed legislation.

frogger wrote: OK....LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN SLOWLY.

I A M N O T I N F A V OR O F A N Y " U N I V E R S A L" BA C K G R O U N D C H E CK "I N G E N E R A L" T H A T W O U L D I N C L U D E A D A T A B A S E O F A N Y K I N D.

Ths Sc. I suspect that most saw it as you did and you are correct in the message that was meant to be conveyed.

Gee, I'm glad you're not...Since that isn't in the law...

T H E R E . . . A R E _ W E _ S T R A I G H T ?

(Which is EXACTLY what I said before he went off on his pity-party tirade...)

FredHayek wrote: Slippery slope? And when the current batch of bills doesn't prevent another outlier shooting, what new rules will they want to add?

For example, less than three people in the last five years in Hawaii have been killed by any kind of rifle, but now they want to confiscate all the assault rifles on the islands that had been registered.

After background checks are allowed, it will be simple to also include the make and serial number f the firearm being transfered.

Dog,
What you don't have in your databanks are the history of gun confiscation we have been brought up on, Germany, China, the USSR, and the UK.
Think the Jews would have been so easy to round up if they had weapons? And you can say, this isn't Nazi Germany, but nations can change quickly. The Wiemar republic was pretty tolerant.

One of the suggestions after WWII, was to permit the Jewish people to live in America where they would be safe, but they feared being a minority that could be oppressed again. They wanted their own homeland.

There is nothing in the proposed legislation regarding "confiscation of weapons" or even tracking of weapons. The background checks do not disclose any firearm, merely the identity of the individual on whom the background check is performed. And per law, any records relating to that request for background check is destroyed within 30 days. All of this other crap is mere deflection.

I do not believe the foundation of the United States is so weak that Nazi Germany will be revisited upon the citizens of this great nation. I believe that our Constitution provides more than sufficient protection from that occurring. That conservatives have to resort to such imaginary as the Holocaust and Nazi Germany to obscure that they have no factual basis for their objections to this legislation is really pathetic.

Can anyone articulate a legitimate basis for objecting to universal background checks without resorting to the Holocaust and imaginary gun registries?

Actually the rule that they are supposed to destroy the info in 30 days has been ignored in many states.

frogger wrote: I would "articulate" my reasons for opposing "gun registries" but why bother.
As has been stated SEVERAL times, my opinion does not pertain to the current CO statute being discussed but as a general opposition to a registry overall.
How many more times do you want me to say that STDS?

Then, per the topic of this thread, why do you oppose the current legislation? That has been repeatedly asked, and you continue to whine about gun registries, which are in no way relevant to the proposed legislation.

Once again, why do you oppose or support the proposed legislation? That is the purpose of this thread, not off topic whining about gun registries or why I am not more polite to continued lies and misinformation.

If you desire to discuss gun registries, then feel free to start your own thread, rather than deflecting this thread off topic.

FredHayek wrote: Actually the rule that they are supposed to destroy the info in 30 days has been ignored in many states.

This thread is about the current proposed legislation, not undocumented, unverified suppositions about what occurs to information in other states.

Law Abiding citizens have no criminal BACKGROUND.
Just simply purchasing a weapon for personal protection should not place a law abiding citizen on a database.

STDS....Can you say "amendment"
Do you have a problem with any of us stating that we wwould oppose an amendment to include a registry. Geeeez.

I do oppose this legislation as I don't believe that this state has any right to infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights.
I am curious......have you read the actual text of this legislation? Are you aware of any changes made to it through the process of making it law?
Did you watch the video above.

I work many long hours and much of that is at night in some dangerous parts of town.
On 2 different occasions in the last 90 days I have been thankful for a measure of personal protection afforded me by a CCW. Would you have preferred that I have a console full of rocks?

<!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" www.285bound.com/285forum/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=25697 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=29&t=25697<!-- l -->

FredHayek wrote: Actually the rule that they are supposed to destroy the info in 30 days has been ignored in many states.

I can tell you this.....if you are pulled over in say Park County and you hold a CCW, that deputy knows it. (Per scanner)

frogger wrote: Law Abiding citizens have no criminal BACKGROUND.
Just simply purchasing a weapon for personal protection should not place a law abiding citizen on a database.

STDS....Can you say "amendment"
Do you have a problem with any of us stating that we wwould oppose an amendment to include a registry. Geeeez.

I do oppose this legislation as I don't believe that this state has any right to infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights.
I am curious......have you read the actual text of this legislation? Are you aware of any changes made to it through the process of making it law?
Did you watch the video above.

I work many long hours and much of that is at night in some dangerous parts of town.
On 2 different occasions in the last 90 days I have been thankful for a measure of personal protection afforded me by a CCW. Would you have preferred that I have a console full of rocks?

Again, where in the proposed legislation, either cited bill, that places a law abiding citizen in a database. They DO NOT. Again, where in the proposed legislation, either cited bill, that places an "amendment" that would place a law abiding citizen in a database based on their purchase of a firearm.

I suggest that you educate yourself on the proposed legislation. I have read the legislation carefully before commenting on it, something I suspect has not been done by yourself, Grady or the others who oppose it. I have not bothered to watch a cartoon video on the legislative process, as I have actively been a part of it. Currently, there are no proposed amendments in the legislation, and it is unlikely that any will be offered to it, as it has passed through committee and proceeding to the floor. Should a floor amendment be offered instituting gun registries, then I will take that under consideration. Presently, there is nothing in this proposed legislation that would institute a gun registry, and, IMO, it is extremely unlikely that any amendment will be considered to do so, and even more unlikely that one would be added.

Since CCWs are not being considered in the proposed legislation, a discussion of such would be off topic and irrelevant, other than as an attempt to deflect from the issues being discussed in this thread. However, I would offer the comment that rocks in your console would be better than rocks in your head. Bada Bing! I do hope that you reported such instances where you felt the need for the use of a firearm for self-protection to the appropriate LE authorities.

So let me see if I can state your position. You oppose the legislation regarding universal background checks because you fear that an amendment to the legislation (even though no amendment has been proposed or discussed) might institute a gun registry? Is that a fair statement?