User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:49:31 AM EDT
[#1]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:50:06 AM EDT
[#2]
No.
Not one inch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:50:19 AM EDT
[#3]
shall not be infinged.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:50:24 AM EDT
[#4]
With gun owners like this who needs the libs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:50:33 AM EDT
[#5]
No. Tired of these fucking threads they pop up all the time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:50:39 AM EDT
[#6]
With UBCs, everything is de facto regulated. Why the fuck is this so hard for people to grasp?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:50:43 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. sigh |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:50:55 AM EDT
[#8]
OP stop being tarded and read the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't written with compromises in mind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:51:28 AM EDT
[#9]
No, that furthers the concept that the 2A is somehow a privilege and not a right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:51:36 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OP stop being tarded and read the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't written with compromises in mind. Yeah, but we're only losing more and more of it. Libs don't care what the 2nd amendment or any of the constitution says. They work hard, and they're winning. Eventually they will win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:52:59 AM EDT
[#11]
Im tempted, but I say no.
No more deals. Im done. Fuck them, fuck their family, fuck everyone they ever met. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:53:14 AM EDT
[#12]
Yes, definitely.
We WILL see an expansion of BCs, only a matter of time. We're not going to get anything for it, tho, because the not-one-inch folks won't let us deal from a position of strength. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:53:52 AM EDT
[#13]
Wow, everyone above me got in while I was typing. makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
Edit: except that guy. Fuck that guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:54:46 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, but we're only losing more and more of it. Libs don't care what the 2nd amendment or any of the constitution says. They work hard, and they're winning. Eventually they will win. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OP stop being tarded and read the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't written with compromises in mind. Yeah, but we're only losing more and more of it. Libs don't care what the 2nd amendment or any of the constitution says. They work hard, and they're winning. Eventually they will win. Give a inch, they take mile. Fook no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:54:54 AM EDT
[#15]
NO. I’d be okay with following the fucking Constitution. I know it’s a radical plan. Fuck those commies.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:55:24 AM EDT
[#16]
NO. Fuck 'em.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:55:38 AM EDT
[#17]
No not really.
And such an offer WILL NOT BE MADE! NFA items are just too scary for the antis to contemplate any relaxation on their restriction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:55:42 AM EDT
[#18]
I would be ok with UBC.. If ... I say if the entire NFA was repealed we get National Reciprocity. Definitely something I would trade but nothing else added on to that. I am willing to give an inch if I can take a mile from them. Dude the NFA would be non existent, I just can't say no to all the SBRs, Full Autos and Suppressors plus I could carry in New York City! If you are of the mind set that the .gov will come and confiscate everything then I have nothing for you...if your not on their "list" then your not doing it right
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:55:42 AM EDT
[#19]
No |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:56:01 AM EDT
[#20]
No more compromise. Shall not be infringed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:56:09 AM EDT
[#21]
NO.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:56:34 AM EDT
[#22]
Go piss up a rope.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:56:49 AM EDT
[#23]
Fuck yeah! I don't give a shit about background checks. Give me me MG's and easy suppressors!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:57:24 AM EDT
[#24]
Like I said. its a hypothetical question. I feel the Hugh's amendment should be repealed anyway along with the 1968 GCA, the 1934 NFA and 1938 NFA. I just don't understand how 85% of American's to include gun owners support universal background checks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:58:51 AM EDT
[#25]
Perhaps, but let us spend several decades coming up with restrictions on the 1st Amendment by the media. Ultimate goal is to end the liberal domination of the media and their outright lies, distortion of facts and bias. When we achieve that, there won't be any need for these checks since everyone will know that it would not stop an Oregon type attack.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:59:29 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like I said. its a hypothetical question. I feel the Hugh's amendment should be repealed anyway along with the 1968 GCA, the 1934 NFA and 1938 NFA. I just don't understand how 85% of American's to include gun owners support universal background checks. Propaganda, how does it work? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 12:59:54 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, definitely. We WILL see an expansion of BCs, only a matter of time. We're not going to get anything for it, tho, because the not-one-inch folks won't let us deal from a position of strength. You've been pushing expanded background checks in all of these threads. I really don't like you. Handing your enemies victory isn't strength. It's handing your enemies victory. Actual pro-gun people would support laws that stomped those useless faggots when they're down. Take silencers off the NFA. Get rid of the ridiculous barrel length requirements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:00:20 AM EDT
[#28]
Enough with these fucking compromise threads.
Fuck. To. The. No. It's time to add to swingfromlamposts.exe to the startup folder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:00:26 AM EDT
[#29]
1 for 1 trade with no shenanigans?
Hell yes |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:00:26 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like I said. its a hypothetical question. I feel the Hugh's amendment should be repealed anyway along with the 1968 GCA, the 1934 NFA and 1938 NFA. I just don't understand how 85% of American's to include gun owners support universal background checks. Because they dont. The stats are rigged. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:00:27 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuck yeah! I don't give a shit about background checks. Give me me MG's and easy suppressors! Except that with Universal background checks, everything you purchase will be expected to be in your possession. You can't play the "I sold it face to face" card. If you buy a gun, the day comes (like it did in NYC when they sent out the letter demanding certain models of firearms be forfeited) when you have to turn it in, and you don't, you have a warrant out for your arrest. Because, with UBC's, either you have every gun you have ever purchased, or there is a paper trail of you selling it, or a police report of it being lost/stolen. End of story. Like I have said in previous threads, UBC's, in a practical sense, would mean that every gun you own is the equivalent of what an NFA firearm is today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:02:08 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 1 for 1 trade with no shenanigans? Hell yes If you think that's a 1 to 1 trade, you shouldn't be voting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:02:11 AM EDT
[#33]
I wonder how far off we are to deregulating suppressors? Its amazing how many democrats have supported measures to make them easier to access. How many democrats are pro suppressor
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:02:25 AM EDT
[#34]
If NFA items only required a NICS check, the MG registry was opened, and I could legally carry concealed in every state and territory of the United States, then maybe.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:02:54 AM EDT
[#35]
Hell NO! ...and never going to happen!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:04:21 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, but we're only losing more and more of it. Libs don't care what the 2nd amendment or any of the constitution says. They work hard, and they're winning. Eventually they will win. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OP stop being tarded and read the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't written with compromises in mind. Yeah, but we're only losing more and more of it. Libs don't care what the 2nd amendment or any of the constitution says. They work hard, and they're winning. Eventually they will win. The fatalist accepts defeat in the face of victory... Anyone have that expanding map of shall issue ccw states? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:05:55 AM EDT
[#37]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:06:21 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except that with Universal background checks, everything you purchase will be expected to be in your possession. You can't play the "I sold it face to face" card. If you buy a gun, the day comes (like it did in NYC when they sent out the letter demanding certain models of firearms be forfeited) when you have to turn it in, and you don't, you have a warrant out for your arrest. Because, with UBC's, either you have every gun you have ever purchased, or there is a paper trail of you selling it, or a police report of it being lost/stolen. End of story. Like I have said in previous threads, UBC's, in a practical sense, would mean that every gun you own is the equivalent of what an NFA firearm is today. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fuck yeah! I don't give a shit about background checks. Give me me MG's and easy suppressors! Except that with Universal background checks, everything you purchase will be expected to be in your possession. You can't play the "I sold it face to face" card. If you buy a gun, the day comes (like it did in NYC when they sent out the letter demanding certain models of firearms be forfeited) when you have to turn it in, and you don't, you have a warrant out for your arrest. Because, with UBC's, either you have every gun you have ever purchased, or there is a paper trail of you selling it, or a police report of it being lost/stolen. End of story. Like I have said in previous threads, UBC's, in a practical sense, would mean that every gun you own is the equivalent of what an NFA firearm is today. The 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act already prevents the formation of a registry BTW. "No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:07:19 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If NFA items only required a NICS check, the MG registry was opened, and I could legally carry concealed in every state and territory of the United States, then maybe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:08:14 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder how far off we are to deregulating suppressors? Its amazing how many democrats have supported measures to make them easier to access. How many democrats are pro suppressor It could happen. Suppressor regulation in a lot of Europe and New Zealand is practically non-existent compared to the US. You've got all these nimby faggots trying to shut down ranges because weah loud. Hand them a compromise. Range stays open, suppressors are no longer regulated. Of course we've got the modern Republican party running things and Boner will probably be speaker 'til he dies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:08:25 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, definitely. We WILL see an expansion of BCs, only a matter of time. We're not going to get anything for it, tho, because the not-one-inch folks won't let us deal from a position of strength. "Come on. Just put it in your mouth. Just a little. Suck on the tip." 
Yeah, the gun grabbers are winning hand over fist. That's why most of the country has shall-issue CCW, there haven't been new federal gun laws in decades, sneaky backdoor shit like scrapping military brass gets called out and shot down before it ever reaches committee, NFA ownership is at an all time high, multiple states have passed legislation affirming the RKBA (some even in defiance of federal law), women and young people are pouring into the shooting sports... Yeah, we'd better start surrendering RFN 
Not to mention any concession gun owners make will immediately be pointed to by the antis as admission that even we believe there should be more gun regulation, as they vociferously campaign for the next round of restrictions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:09:32 AM EDT
[#42]
You guys saying no are living in a fantasy land. Poll 100 people at random across the country. What percent support UBCs vs what percent support legal MGs?
Some of us actually want to be able to get MGs one day, and short of a miracle in the courts, the only way that it will happen is as a rider on a gun bill. If we get it it will be a huge step forward and a huge victory for us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:09:51 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you think that's a 1 to 1 trade, you shouldn't be voting. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
1 for 1 trade with no shenanigans? Hell yes If you think that's a 1 to 1 trade, you shouldn't be voting. It's actually a pretty big trade. The Title II status of suppressors and MG's are for all intents and purpose an outright ban. A trade of repealing ALL of the NFA in its entirety in compromise with "universal" background checks would be a pretty big victory, especially if there was a family and friend exemption. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:09:52 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act already prevents the formation of a registry BTW. "No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck yeah! I don't give a shit about background checks. Give me me MG's and easy suppressors! Except that with Universal background checks, everything you purchase will be expected to be in your possession. You can't play the "I sold it face to face" card. If you buy a gun, the day comes (like it did in NYC when they sent out the letter demanding certain models of firearms be forfeited) when you have to turn it in, and you don't, you have a warrant out for your arrest. Because, with UBC's, either you have every gun you have ever purchased, or there is a paper trail of you selling it, or a police report of it being lost/stolen. End of story. Like I have said in previous threads, UBC's, in a practical sense, would mean that every gun you own is the equivalent of what an NFA firearm is today. The 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act already prevents the formation of a registry BTW. "No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation." Except that, what you are describing (a mandatory paper trail of every firearm transaction) can, and would, be used as backdoor registration. But you are right, I am just wearing my tinfoil too tight. They respect the 2nd amendment, and all of the rights of the citizens. And nobody in charge has ever felt that the Supreme Court "got it wrong" and was more than willing than to do whatever they could in their power to circumvent it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:10:25 AM EDT
[#45]
No.
UBC won't do shit to stop those willing and wanting to harm others. It's a red herring. Confiscation for the purpose of removing the one thing standing in their way of imposing their vision of utopia on those who will not comply is the ultimate goal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:10:41 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryThis is all about getting the cake back. I am against UBC's on their own, but if they give us something we really care about then we finally moving in the right direction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:10:54 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Here is a hypothetical question. Just suppose it were possible to have done as an amendment to a bill and have it pass would you be ok with universal back ground checks being instated at a federal level if at the same time they deregulated suppressors and repealed the Hugh's amendment to the Firearms Owner's Protection act of 1986 banning the production of new made machineguns for civilian ownership? I wouldn't be too upset if those amendments were put on to such a bill as a "poison pill" the way the Hugh's amendment was put on the FOPA. Either it wouldn't pass or we would get some cool benefits out of an otherwise crappy deal IMO. What do you guys think? Here is a slightly different perspective. We start with the premise we all know, UBC will have no impact on criminal misuse of firearms, and also no impact on 'spree killers' (Terrorists) [FYI, these 'mass killings' seem to me to be non-political terrorism. They have similar hallmarks to me, they are not people who 'snap' they are people who plan to cause terror] So it will not impact these events. If it is allowed to be implemented, next time a newsworthy firearms death occurs they note how the UBC failed. Why? answer is because it is not a tough enough test. So it will be made tougher, fewer people will be eligible. Now this is just an administrative change not a legislative change so it's easy to implement with out publicity. From there, rinse and repeat for ever newsworthy shooting, each time increasing requirements and reducing the number of eligible people. It is no longer legislation to implement, so there is no political process to interrupt, it is just bureaucratic incrementalism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:11:29 AM EDT
[#48]
This thread is very telling, in all the wrong reasons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:11:49 AM EDT
[#49]
Would you fuck a supermodel if she got to chop your dick off afterwards?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2015 1:11:59 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except that with Universal background checks, everything you purchase will be expected to be in your possession. You can't play the "I sold it face to face" card. If you buy a gun, the day comes (like it did in NYC when they sent out the letter demanding certain models of firearms be forfeited) when you have to turn it in, and you don't, you have a warrant out for your arrest. Because, with UBC's, either you have every gun you have ever purchased, or there is a paper trail of you selling it, or a police report of it being lost/stolen. End of story. Like I have said in previous threads, UBC's, in a practical sense, would mean that every gun you own is the equivalent of what an NFA firearm is today. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fuck yeah! I don't give a shit about background checks. Give me me MG's and easy suppressors! Except that with Universal background checks, everything you purchase will be expected to be in your possession. You can't play the "I sold it face to face" card. If you buy a gun, the day comes (like it did in NYC when they sent out the letter demanding certain models of firearms be forfeited) when you have to turn it in, and you don't, you have a warrant out for your arrest. Because, with UBC's, either you have every gun you have ever purchased, or there is a paper trail of you selling it, or a police report of it being lost/stolen. End of story. Like I have said in previous threads, UBC's, in a practical sense, would mean that every gun you own is the equivalent of what an NFA firearm is today. They can take my guns from my cold dead hands, let them try. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
