Some of you think I am crazy because I equate NIC's Checks with 4th and 5th Amendment

[BerettaGuy]

Bill de Blasio: Trump travel ban 'sends a horrible message' - CNNPolitics.com
Watch the Self Avowed Communist Mayor of NY City cry about Muslims but insert gun owners in its place.

If he were to be talking about Second Amendment Rights I would be agreeing with him.

Watch the clip an imagine that there had just been a mass shooting and the Democrats are dancing in the blood on the floor, plotting to enact a GUN BAN vs a Travel Ban.

YOU GO! TRUMP! MAKE THEM ALL SQUEEL LIKE A LITTLE FEMALE PIG.,

 

[GOPerfect]

I find it to be funny, not in a funny way, that these Liberal pieces of shit put such a higher priority on non-citizens than our own people.

Not just in reference to the 2A. Everything.

All citizens should take priority over non's.

 

[Darth]

I think that given the 2A, the NICS check is in fact a 4, maybe 5A, violation.

I oppose NICS checks.

 

[spat]

The only sort of "background check" that is acceptable is a publicly published list of prohibited persons, and a legal obligation for a seller to ensure the purchaser isn't on the list at the time of the sale.

Such a system would be both universal (applying to all transfers), and acceptable to nearly all gun owners (correct me if I'm wrong on that one).

The Constitution might technically permit something like NICS (assuming the way someone finds themself on the "no go" list is constitutional), however no one should trust the government to be any sort of gatekeeper that is in a position to record all the sales. I certainly don't trust the legal prohibition on them keeping a list to actually stop them, especially without actual criminal penalties for violating it.

 

[prambo]

The only sort of "background check" that is acceptable is a publicly published list of prohibited persons, and a legal obligation for a seller to ensure the purchaser isn't on the list at the time of the sale.

Such a system would be both universal (applying to all transfers), and acceptable to nearly all gun owners (correct me if I'm wrong on that one).

The Constitution might technically permit something like NICS (assuming the way someone finds themself on the "no go" list is constitutional), however no one should trust the government to be any sort of gatekeeper that is in a position to record all the sales. I certainly don't trust the legal prohibition on them keeping a list to actually stop them, especially without actual criminal penalties for violating it.

That's about as close as possible to acceptable as one could get.

The keeper of the list would have to be unimpeachable. And who adds names to the list?

 

[spat]

That's about as close as possible to acceptable as one could get.

The keeper of the list would have to be unimpeachable. And who adds names to the list?

The list contents would be proscribed by law, currently, those who are convicted felons, or involuntarily committed.

I don't care who keeps the list, as long as they follow the law as to who ends up on it. Being a public list there would be none of the shenanigans associated with the no fly list, and someone wrongly placed on it could sue for damages, not just to get off.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Isn't that what NICS is? They run your name through a database and see if you are a prohibited person?

 

[BerettaGuy]

AFTER YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.