View Poll Results: Read through the Justifications in the OP and choose:

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • I believe none. That is, criminals and the mentally incompetent have the same RKBA as anyone.

    19 79.17%
  • I agree with between 1 and 3 of the justifications stated in the OP.

    3 12.50%
  • I agree with between 4 and 6 of the justifications state in the OP.

    1 4.17%
  • I agree with between 7 and 9 of the justifications stated in the OP.

    0 0%
  • I agree with 10 or more of the justifications stated in the OP.

    1 4.17%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 115

Thread: Should We Require Background Checks for All Sales?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Should We Require Background Checks for All Sales?

    Between the recent SCOTUS decisions on 2A rights, the looming National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, and the good balance we have here in my state, and the excellent way it's carried out in my county, I'm curious as to what others feel about criminal background checks.

    For brevity, let's call it a BC (background check).

    Justifications:

    1. I believe that's a reasonable precaution to ensure a sale wasn't being made to someone who no longer had the right to keep and bear arms due to criminal activity or mental incapacity.

    2. I do not believe this should become a business. That is, businesses shouldn't charge more to conduct one for a private sale than it costs them to do one for their own sales, and should never charge more than it costs to conduct the BC itself.

    3. I do believe any business that sells firearms should be required to conduct a BC on request by a private buyer/seller pair as a means of affording access to the greater community.

    4. I believe all firearms sales, both public and private, should require a BC before being legally allowed to proceed.

    5. I do not believe a BC should be conducted for each and every firearm. That is, if you sell 10 firearms, that's 1 sale, which should require 1 BC.

    6. I believe if you make a subsequent sale to the same individual within a reasonably short period of time, say, 30 days, a second BC should not be required.

    7. I believe the BC should have no loopholes, to include family members, as crime stats show a significant number of firearms used in crimes belong to someone in the criminal's family, but not the criminal himself.

    8. I believe the BC should be required even for gifts, for the same reason as stated in item 7. You just don't know who in your family you can trust. Exception would be gifts to minors in the custody of their parents (joint or sole).

    9. I believe that if a BC is not done, and both the seller and buyer were qualified to own/possess a firearm, and the sale itself did not break any other laws, that it should be considered a minor offense (less than a misdemeanor) punishable by a fine of not more than half the value of your average retail handgun (about $250).

    10. I believe that if a BC is not done and the buyer would not have passed a BC, the seller would have committed a misdemeanor.

    11. I believe that if a buyer is not allowed to own/possess a firearm, the buyer would be subject to whatever rules are already in place concerning that offense.

    12. I do not believe any sale should be registered. The only record would be that individual X had a BC done on date/time and passed/failed.

    13. I believe that the seller should have the right to keep a summary copy of the BC, stating that individual X passed it on date/time, to be used in his defense should the need ever arise.

    Frankly, I like the idea, for a couple of reasons. No, it wouldn't stop illegally-owned guns on the streets. In fact, it wouldn't put much more than a dent in it, as most of those are stolen. It would, however, help drive the exchange of such guns deeper underground, which makes it more costly for illegal sales to be conducted and therefore less likely to be conducted. Thus, it gives teeth to law enforcement to hammer sales of firearms either by criminals or to criminals. Put simply, it empowers them to hammer criminals.

    It's nothing more than a minor inconvenience: When I purchased my current carry piece two years ago, my BC cost $15 and took less than 20 minutes to clear.

    With respect to the reciprocity issue, we shouldn't have to jump through hoops to exercise our RKBA. Instead of yet another piece of easily misinterpreted legislation like the National CCP Reciprocity bill, I would rather lower the boom on the criminals. If they're on probation, send them back. If they mentally deranged, get them help or institutionalize them.

    I would also rather lower the boom on anyone who aids these folks in obtaining a firearm. Honest, law-abiding citizens will steer clear of sales to criminals.

    Thus, I support the instant background checks, and would even (gasp!) go so far as to require the buyer or seller to pay the $15 fee at a gun store (who has the equipment) to do the check before a seller can legally sell the firearm.

    Finally, I believe that in closing the gun show loophole, it'd put a sock in the mouths of the Brady Bunch, at least on that issue.

    I think it's time for the poll...
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    Unfortunately, you poll, like many others posted for political issues make certain assumptions, which lean the poll in the direction that YOU want.

    I believe none. That is, criminals and the mentally incompetent have the same RKBA as anyone.
    Adding this little statement to this choice pretty much precludes any from choosing it.

    As such, I refuse to participate in your poll.

    While I certainly do NOT want criminals and the mentally incompetent to have weapons, the simple fact is that a background check will NOT prevent it!! Criminals and the mentally adjudicated will STILL be able to procure weapons.

    All the background check does is to make it MORE difficult for a LAC to obtain a weapon to defend themselves from those who don't care to follow the law.

  3. #3
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    3,440 posts for the Brady Bunch troll to reveal himself.

    That is epic.



    Bravo!
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 09-26-2011 at 05:49 PM. Reason: Set shields to "ignore"!
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    Unfortunately, you poll, like many others posted for political issues make certain assumptions, which lean the poll in the direction that YOU want.

    Adding this little statement to this choice pretty much precludes any from choosing it.

    As such, I refuse to participate in your poll.

    While I certainly do NOT want criminals and the mentally incompetent to have weapons, the simple fact is that a background check will NOT prevent it!! Criminals and the mentally adjudicated will STILL be able to procure weapons.

    All the background check does is to make it MORE difficult for a LAC to obtain a weapon to defend themselves from those who don't care to follow the law.
    Agreed. The check precludes criminals from buying from a FFL. But they can go to any major city and buy a gun in no time at all. And, buying it in the second way means total anonymity too. The obvious downside is that the gun purchased is illegal in about 1000 ways, but since these people are criminals, by definition they don't care.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    3,440 posts for the Brady Bunch troll to reveal himself.

    That is epic.
    That's just rude, not to mention against the rules. Any pea-brained with two working fingers can search through my posts on "Brady Bunch" and see they're no friends of mine.

    That you'd jump to such an erroneous conclusion and make such a grossly derogatory comment without lifting a single finger is beyond belief. From here on out, you leave me no room but to relegate the entirety of your opinions as both personal and unresearched i.e. "unqualified."

    Nice going, ace - I've never seen anyone shoot off both their mouth and their foot with one salvo. Did that require a lot of practice?

    Getting back to the OP...
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    I believe the OP enjoys government control.

    I believe the OP misses the point of the OC forum.

    I believe I would fight all 13 points vigorously.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 09-26-2011 at 06:06 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    That's just rude...
    What is rude is you plagiarizing directly from the Brady Bunch playbook and not providing credit or a link.

    8. I believe the BC should be required even for gifts, for the same reason as stated in item 7. You just don't know who in your family you can trust.

    7. I believe the BC should have no loopholes, to include family members, as crime stats show a significant number of firearms used in crimes belong to someone in the criminal's family, but not the criminal himself.
    There are no loopholes. Just Brady Bunch members claiming there are loopholes.

    All trolls get put on "Ignore".

    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 09-26-2011 at 06:09 PM.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    Adding this little statement to this choice pretty much precludes any from choosing it.
    The only logical conclusion is that one or the other must be true:

    1. You believe the elimination of all background checks would have no effect on either criminals or mentally incompetent from obtaining firearms. The stats disagree with this. Here in Colorado, 5% of folks applying for BC turn up ineligible. I can only assume most criminals are smarter than this and don't bother trying to pass a BC in the first place.

    2. You really do agree with the first statement but don't want to appear as if you support it.

    As such, I refuse to participate in your poll.
    I'm inclined to believe you're not participating because it's an open poll and you don't want anyone to know how you voted...

    While I certainly do NOT want criminals and the mentally incompetent to have weapons...
    Then why would you have any objection to choosing any of the other four responses?

    ...the simple fact is that a background check will NOT prevent it!! Criminals and the mentally adjudicated will STILL be able to procure weapons.
    Did you even read the OP? I stated precisely the same thing, along with the fact that preventing procurement isn't the goal of a backgroundcheck. Since I agree with you on this point, why don't you re-read the OP and see if you can tell me what the actual goal of a background check really is?

    All the background check does is to make it MORE difficult for a LAC to obtain a weapon to defend themselves from those who don't care to follow the law.
    No it doesn't. Background checks are already in place, and if by "more difficult" you're referring to a $15 charge and a 20 minute wait, well, then, you may have a point. In my book, however, it did not make it more difficult, not one bit, for me to purchase a firearm to defend myself.

    I mentioned this point in the OP as well.

    Is anyone reading the OP? How can you make any sort of informed response to something you haven't read?

    YOU CAN'T. You can, however, knee-jerk react to an issue and plaster the pages with hoofarrah while indicating to everyone else that you didn't read anything before knee-jerk reacting and spouting hoofarrah. Was that your goal? Or was intelligent debate your goal? If the latter, you may wish to consider informing yourself with what's actually written so you can actually make an informed response.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I believe the OP enjoys government control.

    I believe the OP misses the point of the OC forum.

    I believe I would fight all 13 points vigorously.
    I believe you, too, haven't read a single one of them.

    Is there anyone out there who can make an informed response? If so, please do. Please reference the actual justifications and why you believe each one may be in error.

    Thanks.
    Last edited by since9; 09-26-2011 at 06:14 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHamlet View Post
    All trolls get put on "Ignore".
    Folks who resort to logical fallacy by falsely labeling others instead of responding appropriately get put on ignore.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Here I go. First off, I will say that I do not believe background checks are necessary for any reason for any sale. But if we have to have them, as we currently do, then I would go with what I have below. Until we are really a free country we should at least work on making sure out rights arrn't further eroded. Since9, can you cite examples of where a privately sold firearm between two law-abiding citizens was used in a crime?

    1) Agree

    2) Agree to a point. If background checks are going to be required then they should be provided instantly and free of charge.

    3. Disagree- Private sales between law abiding citizens should not be regulated.

    4. Disagree- Same reason as #4

    5. Agree

    6. Agree- Would expand to a longer time period, say 3-6 months

    7. Disagree- I highly doubt that those who get firearms from other family members buy them. They are either stolen or given as gifts. Of you don't know that your family member is a felon or has been declared mentally incompetent you have bigger problems going on.

    8. Disagree- Same reason as #7

    9. Disagree

    10. Disagree- Private sellers already have to have no knowledge of anything that would prohibit the buyer from owning a firearm before selling. It is up to the seller to be careful who they are selling to. If the seller makes an honest mistake why penalize them? Punish the criminal who shouldn't have been trying to biy the gun in the first place.

    11. Agree

    12. Agree

    13. Agree- So long as the record does not reflect whether or not the person actually purchased a firearm


    As for the Brady Bunch comment that was a low blow and uncalled for. It came across as a stupid thing to say. Since9 is a carry advocate, read his posts as a whole, it is pretty clear. If you wish to refute his arguments, be a big boy and do as I did above.
    Last edited by thebigsd; 09-26-2011 at 06:25 PM.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  12. #12
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post

    As for the Brady Bunch comment that was a low blow and uncalled for. It came across as a stupid thing to say. Since9 is a carry advocate, read his posts as a whole, it is pretty clear. If you wish to refute his arguments, be a big boy and do as I did above.
    He parrots the Brady bunch stance to the letter.

    I guess we have a different meaning of the word "advocate".

    I'll refute the OP when facts are cited. Oh, wait. No I won't. He is on ignore. And there is no refuting trolls. That's why they are trolls.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    Here I go. First off, I will say that I do not believe background checks are necessary for any reason for any sale. But if we have to have them, as we currently do, then I would go with what I have below. Until we are really a free country we should at least work on making sure out rights arrn't further eroded. Since9, can you cite examples of where a privately sold firearm between two law-abiding citizens was used in a crime?
    Can't see the logic... We should have more government control BECAUSE we are not really a free country... and how does this get us closer to being a free country??

    Couldn't you have just left things here?

    "First off, I will say that I do not believe background checks are necessary for any reason for any sale." I AGREE

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I believe you, too, haven't read a single one of them.

    Is there anyone out there who can make an informed response? If so, please do. Please reference the actual justifications and why you believe each one may be in error.

    Thanks.
    Read every one of them... They're a great idea if you're a government trying to control the masses. Did you get that? There is NO JUSTIFICATION for infringements on the protection the 2A affords us if we want to keep a free republic.

    Proper background check in a free Republic...

    1) Not in the physical custody of ANY agent of the fed/state/local government.

    If you can't own a firearm then you shouldn't be on the street... unless of course you're for criminals and mentally ill people walking around free..
    Last edited by georg jetson; 09-26-2011 at 07:02 PM.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Can't see the logic... We should have more government control BECAUSE we are not really a free country... and how does this get us closer to being a free country??

    Couldn't you have just left things here?

    "First off, I will say that I do not believe background checks are necessary for any reason for any sale." I AGREE
    Yea, I could have and probably should have...lol. I guess the point I was trying to make was that we don't need anymore restrictions then we already have. I agree with what you're saying.
    Last edited by thebigsd; 09-26-2011 at 06:48 PM.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by donny View Post
    Yes. Any handgun purchase done anywhere should require a background check. I've always advocated for that and will continue to do so.
    Why?
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  17. #17
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Maybe it's like the Manchurian Candidate and the Brady Bunch has activated all their sleeper agents at once.


    Gods forbid we have the ability to transact private business without government interference.
    Last edited by HandyHamlet; 09-26-2011 at 08:28 PM.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  18. #18
    Regular Member Large Caliber Kick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Mooresville, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    Unfortunately, you poll, like many others posted for political issues make certain assumptions, which lean the poll in the direction that YOU want.



    Adding this little statement to this choice pretty much precludes any from choosing it.

    As such, I refuse to participate in your poll.

    While I certainly do NOT want criminals and the mentally incompetent to have weapons, the simple fact is that a background check will NOT prevent it!! Criminals and the mentally adjudicated will STILL be able to procure weapons.

    All the background check does is to make it MORE difficult for a LAC to obtain a weapon to defend themselves from those who don't care to follow the law.
    What he said.

  19. #19
    Regular Member r.j.s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    15
    I don't think there needs to be BCs for private sales, and it's not about the cost. My time is much more valuable, and if I'm selling a firearm to someone else, I don't really want to take the time to find a FFL willing to do the transfer/BC and then go through the whole process with them. Why do I have to waste my time while the person gets a BC? I did that when I bought the firearm from a FFL for my own BC, I'm not going to wait for someone else.

  20. #20
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by donny View Post
    Yes. Any handgun purchase done anywhere should require a background check. I've always advocated for that and will continue to do so.
    "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
    Last edited by oak1971; 09-26-2011 at 08:56 PM.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  21. #21
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    25% percent of you should be ashamed of yourselves. You know who you are.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    343
    Here in Colorado, 5% of folks applying for BC turn up ineligible.
    And then what? If they really want a weapon they go around the corner. It prevented NOTHING.

    I'm inclined to believe you're not participating because it's an open poll and you don't want anyone to know how you voted...
    How do I vote? None of the above.

    Please explain to me, if background checks do not prevent criminals and the mentally adjudicated from getting weapons then what DOES it do? What exactly is the benefit of going through ANY rigamarole of a BC, whether it's cost or time?

    Do I pay the $15 just so I know I'm a good guy?

    Just so you know I DID read your post...

    No, it wouldn't stop illegally-owned guns on the streets. In fact, it wouldn't put much more than a dent in it, as most of those are stolen
    Again my Question, "Then what IS the benefit?"

    It would, however, help drive the exchange of such guns deeper underground, which makes it more costly for illegal sales to be conducted and therefore less likely to be conducted. Thus, it gives teeth to law enforcement to hammer sales of firearms either by criminals or to criminals. Put simply, it empowers them to hammer criminals.
    And of course you have statistics to PROVE this statement, or is it just your opinion?

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Has anyone here ever heard of extremism? Are you aware our Founding Fathers were NOT extremists? Are you aware those who swear to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic (oath of office for all military, LE, and all principle government officials) are NOT extremists?

    Are you aware choosing the first answer is extremist, and to the extreme, at that?

    Hmm...
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by xd shooter View Post
    And then what? If they really want a weapon they go around the corner. It prevented NOTHING.
    This is the fifth time I've read this sort of comment and this is the fifth time I've wanted to say "no kidding." You are not reading the OP or the replies, people. You're assuming, leaping to errant conclusions, and outright slandering, groundlessly, I might add. You're not responding to the posts, failing to consider the options, and not formulating any salient response. In addition more than two dozen logical fallacies have been committed.

    xd shooter and others, I've already responded to this twice, the first time pre-sponded actually, in my OP, yet you continue to ignore my initial post and subsequent responses without addressing them directly. Instead of actually reading the same, which involves more than skimming - you actually have to think about it and respond appropriately, you're merely reacting, and very emotionally, at that. If this were a pscyh test, you'd all have failed, and that really ticks me off after spending thousands of hours defending (most of) the people on this forum as rational, intelligent, thinking and non-knee-jerk-reacting human beings.

    What's next? Would you like me to start tearing down people's arguments using a logical taxonomy? I could, and it would pass full muster of those who understand logical discourse. However, among those who have responded thus far, I think I'd be ******* in the wind, as you've yet to show any appreciation for logical discourse to date. Instead, I suspect I'll leave this thread to die or dribble of as neverending cesspool algae and you'll be dancing around one another like painted football-player wannabees in row 47, hairy-back-slapping one another silly.

    Only thing is, this isn't a football game, and "majority rules" do not win. The only winner is common sense, and as we all "know," common sense isn't very common.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    I have modified number one a bit and will call it option 6.

    option 6.) "I believe none. That is, I do not trust the government to pick and choose who can buy/carry/own a gun and who can't."
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •