If we want to make sure McAwful doesn't get elected to Senate, a'la Warner and Kaine, then the Republicans need to choose a candidate that isn't a right-winger wackjob. If they nominate someone like Messrs. Cuccinelli or Fimian again, then they will lose again. If, on the other hand, they nominate someone like Bolling or Sarvis, then they are very likely to win.

Therefore, my Republican brothers and sisters, please, get yourselves to the Primary Elections where those candidates get selected, and make your vote count. Since Virginia is an open-Primary state, I will also be voting in said Primaries.

I hope to see you both at Lobby Day and at the voting booth.

- T

The universal registration to limit crime is a retarded argument appealing to only shallow thinkers. Neither the pos potus nor the carbetbagging idiot in the governor's mansion will follow the Constitution when it comes to deporting criminal aliens with no U.S. rights, but they wet their pants at the idea of taking legal God loving citizens and perverrting the law to make us instant criminals. Make no mistake, all they want is UNIVERSAL REGISTRATION.

Time to ignore obamaz as he does the Constitution and organize a recall of Terry the terrible. Dump him in the dust with other failed pols. If the RNC would have spent some money in the last 2 elections we would be free of this jerk and Warner.

Write your newspaper, become a person the local TV wants to talk with for some free local news bites. The Dems do it well, we need to start.

Don't wait until we get californicated

What Could Obama Do?

Obama Considers Executive Action

Expanding Background Checks

4 Reasons for Universal Background Checks

Universal Background Checks-What does it mean?

It is not a coincidence this thread was started well before the latest push by the Communists in passing Universal Background Check (UBC) laws. The writing is and has been on the wall for sometime now. As far back as the '90s rhetoric was high on closing the then labeled "gunshow loophole" and it has only picked up since then with the rebranding of the loophole into expanded and UBC agenda's.

Virginia governor tightens gun control laws

McAwfuls Executive Order on Private Sales of Firearms

Gov McClintons Executive Order

The commies are on the move people, whether this latest push is successful or not I suspect this is the future a majority of Americans will come to know as reality before its all said and done. When you have this many Communists pushing for the same issue for decades its reasonable to assume they will not stop even when their current goal is realized.

Once they are able to safely say they have a good idea of where nearly every firearm in the country is and they've successfully limited who can purchase firearms the next phase will be a United Kingdom or Australia like direction. Perhaps even grander in scheme? Its tough to say what the future brings, but we can see what is being proposed now and look down the road at potential repurcussions from the current fallout.

Background checks are not the problem, just the beginning process of taking away our rights as a citizen of these United States of America. Look a ObamaCare - are you happy with that? They are also messing with Social Security, something I have been forced to pay into for 50 years. What happens when those modest background fees go to $150 - $200 or just gets all together cost prohibitive? The FBI can't keep up with their work load now so we know they will have to increase manpower which takes more money.

Don't just get on these boards and talk about it, GET OUT AND VOTE ON TUESDAY (11/3/15)!!!!!! It will take all of us if we want to continue living in a free society!

Can't get to the polls on Tuesday, go today, tomorrow or Saturday. I will be out of town next week so I went to the Prince William County Election office yesterday to cast my vote; it took all of 10 minutes. Vote or shutup!

Most of the "remedies" proffered by the verminous left are presented as "common sense", "modest" or similar. These adjectives are designed to lull the sheep into believing that the benevolent statists would NEVER think about pooping on your civil rights but are merely trying to "protect the children
Read the other day that Baltimore, a city within a state with very oppressive gun laws, has had about 800 shootings so far this year. Maryland has many "modest" and "common sense" gun laws designed to protect us. (time for peals of laughter). We see how well this is working. Those here who have stated that this is about control, not safety, are correct.
We need more legislators who reject leftist thought and ideals. The Democrat Party is the most dangerous group in the world that our country faces. We are not only morally justified to not only ignore laws that trample on our freedoms, we are, indeed, obligated to do this. This can also be accomplished through the jury nullification process should we be called to jury duty regarding a gun law violation. The Maryland laws against face to face transactions etc. were routinely violated. ( I believe I posted something in this thread previously regarding this but apparently I am mistaken.) All of this said, I am getting a little ahead of the issue. anyhow, emarc is correct. Vote 11-3. We owe it to our children.

Obama Plan Includes Closing the 'Gunshow Loophole'

Obama and Lynch Outline Gun Control Plan

President Obama's Executive Action on gun control mirrors the details of 'Universal Background Checks' (UBC) and is little more than taking the backdoor to implement the UBC model. As this thread has laid out, the opening up of medical records to be included in the background check process is a major part of the UBC model and its ultimate goal is to narrow the scope of how many Americans are able to purchase firearms legally.

The PO(TU)S IN D.C. is a lying socialist tool. He always wanted universal registration, now he will force his hand.
The American people are too stupid to know that the Executive branch enforces laws and does not write laws.
Here is a cut and paste from the white house. If you trade 2 Guns a year you are now a dealer. Write your Congressmen and hold on, this is going to be a damn mess.


A person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms regardless of the location in which firearm transactions are conducted. For example, a person can be engaged in the business of dealing in firearms even if the person only conducts firearm transactions at gun shows or through the Internet. Those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms who utilize the Internet or other technologies must obtain a license, just as a dealer whose business is run out of a traditional brick-and-mortar store.
Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement. But it is important to note that even a few transactions, when combined with other evidence, can be sufficient to establish that a person is “engaged in the business.” For example, courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold or when only one or two transactions took place, when other factors also were present.
There are criminal penalties for failing to comply with these requirements. A person who willfully engages in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license is subject to criminal prosecution and can be sentenced up to five years in prison and fined up to $250,000. Dealers are also subject to penalties for failing to conduct background checks before completing a sale.

Fearmonger much? I'm Jewish, so I have more of a historical foundation for fearing gun registration than most (Holocaust, in case your history is weak). BUT, that's not what this legislation is about. And insomnia is not a major mental health issue. If you all try to stay away from reductio ad absurdum, we (gun owners and enthusiasts) will sound less crazy.

When I buy a gun, I go through a background check, and I'm glad it happens, and a little surprised it only takes a few minutes. How thorough can it be in that short time?

Hypothetically speaking, if when you wanted to sell your guns to someone else, it had to be done through an FFL with a brief background check, would that really be such a huge price to pay for increased safety? Think about it - the higher the threshold for getting guns, the LESS CHANCE YOU'LL BE SHOT by some wacko.

No one is taking your guns, asking you to register your guns (unless you're a dealer), or telling you that you can't buy more.

Take a deep breath.

str870 is not thinking ahead and believes the new EO is about our safety. He also believes touching base with the feds for firearms transactions is not in anyway leading to registration or record keeping. He also believes the wackos will be thwarted by laws. In the Holocaust we should have required them to fill out paperwork before dropping the liberator pistols.
I understand the angst over this issue but how a thinking individual can argue the EO's and this pres is interested in anything other than the gubmint dynamics that contributed to the holocaust is beyond my ability to understand.
T

twidpa, not all the wackos will be thwarted by laws, obviously. Tighter procurement thresholds, and looser restrictions on where we can carry should go hand in hand. Fewer people should be able to get guns, but those of us who can legally and responsibly have guns should be able to have them more of the time, in more places (schools, at least colleges, for example).

And you're right, that the legislators mostly want support from their constituents. But that doesn't mean that the measures won't do some good. Conversely, the "from my cold, dead hands" crowd also just want support from their constituents. It's not about safety there either, on the other side of the coin.

Is it pure coincidence that all the countries that have higher thresholds for getting guns, and lower limits on how many and what guns you can own, have SIGNIFICANTLY lower gun violence incidence? Anyone here understand statistics? I know, I know, math and science aren't God's ways, but...

I guess they like the broad brush theory with federal power to legislate when in actuality it should be the State that does so. The last several times I bought a firearm at a gun show from a licensed dealer I had to submit to a background check.

Now I know that most of us here already know this, but for the love of God someone please go smack the ever living poop out of the staff in the WH and show them the Constitution.

Countries have tight gun control like France right? As long as the measures do some good? This "good" will be only statistical right? No way to measure how many wackos will be thwarted by their inability to get a shotgun at a gunshow parking lot before they attack a gun free zone.
I am not in the "fewer people should have guns" crowd. Statistically, if there are more good people than wackos, arming everyone would work itself out.
You are saying there should be a class of folks who can have guns. I assume you are in that class? What about me? Am I and my son in that class? Are the folks who want to control access to guns (by your words this is you) in that class? The "from my cold, dead hands" would not be in your class? It seems you and the gun control folks want to be in the gun control/ ownership class while the folks who want to preserve the right to own firearms are not invited in this gun ownership class. The argument that only special folks who pass the gubmint test can own firearms does not make sense.
T
part of "the people"

So you've not read this thread I take it? Because we've already seen firearm confiscation as a result of insomnia related treatment. Do you know what the term precedent means? If they're willing to confiscate firearms over insomnia related issues, where does the slippery slope end? Because we have seen a long list of second amendment infringements, one after another, and this latest executive action justs adds to the list. And it won't stop there, just like it didnt stop with the 1989 assault weapons ban or the 1994 ban either.

Shall not be infringed has been followed by endless infringement. Maybe you should read up on the Constitution and how this exact same kind of tyranny specifically lead to the exact freedoms our Constitutional rights grant all Americans? We have a system of checks and balances in this country for a reason and what you're advocating is the actions of one man who has excluded the other branches of government from the decision making process.

Mental health is a key point of the Universal Background Check model and with precedent already established on what these Communists consider reason to add to the armed prohibitive lists we should all be absolutely concerned on the direction not only gun control in the United States is taking but other social and cultural issues as well.



It has been said that those willing to sacrifice freedom for safety will get neither and lose both. You're attempting to confuse private sales with crime. Criminality equals crime, not private firearm sales. We have an administration that has looked to capitalize on the murder of Americans by the very same radical Muslim extremists they are importing into this country by implementing more gun-control which is specifically aimed at disarming more Americans.

Not even getting into the Constitutionality of the subject we're talking about pure insanity. The solution to violence against Americans is to further disarm those very same Americans? I would laugh if it wasnt for the fact its an absolutely serious topic. One which I do not feel you're particularly fit to discuss considering the message you're espousing. You've clearly not thought your response through.

Nice post and one that strikes at the heart of this latest executive order. By attempting to influence how firearm transactions are conducted on a national basis we're getting into the debate over states rights. Just like the Supreme Courts ruling on gay marriage, the implementation of Obamacare, immigration etc. We fought a Civil War over the issues of states rights versus federal over reach and its my opinion these issues won't stop here. We have already seen numerous secessionists movements pick up momentum in this country due to an out of control government and with precedent already set on how that has played out in the past we're as divided of a nation as we've ever been.

US Signs UN Arms Treaty

UN Arms Treaty: National Gun Registration

NRA: Universal Background Checks A Step Towards Registration

Success of Universal Background Checks Depends on Registration

The 2nd Amendment Constitutional argument is both tired (200+ years old) and wrong. Laws are interpreted, always. Always have been. Some judges are wrong, some are right. With 330 million people in the country, there is going to be a fair amount of flexibility and subjectivity. If insomnia results in your gun being taken, you appeal.

I will say this: lue-jones, the moment you bring the word "Muslim" into the conversation, you immediately discount the radicals and murderers who are not, and force a larger rift between people who are in actuality, on the same side. Look at the demographics of shootings, and mass shootings specifically. Individual murders are pretty well scattered, though poverty and crime are well correlated. Mass murders in the US are seldom perpetrated by Muslims, blacks, women, or [generally anyone other than white men].

I'm ducking out, so you can address any "str870s doesn't know jack" statements to each other. 1 vs. the world is silly in an argument, for no other reason than I don't have time. You have all the fodder you need or want for all the "Ha-RUMPH" action you want.

Enjoy!

[quote=str870s]The 2nd Amendment Constitutional argument is both tired (200+ years old) and wrong.
THERE YOU HAVE IT. We should make this person fill out a background check to post here.....

T

I believe str870s is a troll disguised as a gun owner, and as the saying goes "Don't feed the troll".

str870s - i will give your stats have some bases. I dont agree but they have some logic. If you take the tools used by evil away another tool will be used.
While those places you mention do not have as much firearm related crimes they do have violent crime still. The US has large numbers of homicides with knives, feet and hands, clubs and other assorted tools.

So all those places did was change to tool for violent criminals and disarmed civilians from the tools they can use to protect them selves. it didn't stop violent crime.

Keep in mind the larges genocide of my time happened with clubs, knives and machetes in rowanda. 800,000 people hacked up and bludgeoned.

my point is violent and evil people dont need a specific tool to do evil. But good people should have the right tools to protect them selves from others and tyranny as the founders of this great country wrote out in the same document that give us all the right to debate and converse about this.

By stating that the constitution needs to be reinterpreted then you are stating that the idea of freedom, life and liberty needs to be reinterpreted.
and on that point I strongly disagree.

Warren V. D.C proved the police and state run agencies are not constitutionally bound to protect my life, freedom and liberty. So I need my constitutional rights granted to me to have and enjoy inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Oh an you have the right to disagree. Just my 2 cent.

2nd Ammendment tired and wrong? Well str870s you Sir are an idiot whom I also believe is a troll. Go now Shillary is calling.

Mostly white men huh? San Bernandino, Chattanoga and Fort Hood come to mind. Go have a circle fest with your buddies there at UVA.

Don't forget to vote for Sanders while your at it.

I decided to pop back in for a minute.

twidpa, and Ogre, you misinterpret my statement. The Constitution is not wrong, the argument most gun fanatics use based on their interpretation of the Constitution is what's wrong. And it's tired.

masterlunatic, you actually sound like an intelligent person attempting to make cogent arguments. No one is challenging people's right to own guns. Obama (or whatever nicknames you all want to apply) is attempting to make sure that the people who get guns are responsible. It's that simple. The NRA's "do nothing" approach, or worse, their "arm every good guy" approach, is bull. You should have to demonstrate competency to be able to get a gun. I've seen gun owners with CCPs that couldn't hit a freakin' barn if it was 20 feet away, and people like those who shot the victim of a carjacking, and the woman who shot at a shoplifter's vehicle at Home Depot are examples of why we need a higher bar.

Ogre, I will vote for Sanders in the primaries, and hopefully in the general election as well. Are you familiar with his stance on guns? He's one of only two sane, intelligent, and compassionate (yes, it's important) candidates at the podium.

BTW, whatever your opinion of (S)Hillary, mine's probably worse.

Pretty bold to out yourself as knowing little about the Constitution and economics all in one sentence.

This is from Cornell Law - not known for being a very right leaning school..
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

The Second Amendment has most recently been interpreted to grant the right of gun ownership to individuals for purposes that include self-defense. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"At first it was thought to apply only to the Federal government, but through the mechanism of the Fourteenth Amendment, it has been applied to the states as well". <-- from the site above.

It states individuals and "Shall not be infringed". not individuals that get 8 hours sleep, have 8 hours training, can pass an SAT exam with over 1100, can read, write, have no tickets, and understand how pulsars change under observation or when light or sound is introduced or any other infringement.

I as an Individual do not want your ideals Infringing on my Rights as a U.S citizen.

Further more if the same logic of a few bad people doing horrible things with any device, or idea is applied to free speech, immigration, social programs or any other situation on this planet. Than the rights of man no longer exist.

What we are facing is a version of McCarthyism against anyone associated with firearms, shooting sports or hunting.

masterlunatic, thank you again (sincerely) for engaging in balanced debate, rather than offering another of the usual bee ess responses on this board.

I'm going to state and start with one assumption, and folks here may disagree: ASSUMPTION - commission of certain crimes should in fact remove your right to own firearms. (Examples: violent crimes, gun-related crimes, etc.)

Closing the gun show loophole will prevent some people who shouldn't own firearms from buying them easily through "private" sales. You folks on this forum are probably not worried about a background check. Requiring a background check for a gun purchase just makes sense. Transfers between family members, friends, different story. The guy at the gun show doesn't know me from Adam. Therefore, he doesn't have reason to think I can't own a gun. BUT, he also doesn't have reason to think that I can. Loophole.

The regulatory language suggests that if a person doesn't have reason to believe that a purchaser can't own a gun, then it's okay. That's an EXTREMELY low standard. As I said before, in the 5 years between renewing a CCP, a lot can happen, and a lot of violent crimes can be committed. Let me sincerely commend everyone on here who requires "good guy papers" including a CCP or a voter registration card, because you are (sort of) running a rudimentary background check.

And masterlunatic, you have a valid point about the criteria for an individual right to own a gun, but those criteria you list include one that I believe SHOULD be necessary. The training piece is key. A LOT of firearms accidents occur because people don't know how to properly use, care for, and control their guns. No toddler should ever shoot someone, period. No one should shoot themselves or a friend cleaning while their guns. I realize these things don't relate to background checks, but it's all part of the general lack of *respect* Americans have for guns. Americans LOVE guns, but don't fully respect guns.

And I AM a gun owner, for all you folks who think I'm some "troll" who has nothing better to do than get the hair on the back of your neck standing up. I'm trying to have a discussion, so maybe WE as gun owners can come to a reasonable and workable middle ground where fewer "$#!+ happens" incidents occur, and we still get to have and enjoy the use of our guns. We obviously disagree on a lot of points, but I would hope that we all do agree on things like "our kids shouldn't be shot at school" and what not. I'm not against guns, I'm against stupid, malevolent people, as my signature suggests. I do think we should reduce the number of stupid, malevolent people who get guns.