Expanded Background Checks

[druryj]

Just think about the ridiculously difficult task of confiscation: Logistically, it would be impossible. It would have to be a coordinated, timed thing, where we all got the knock on the door at the same time. Then there's that little issue of many who would just say "NO" to any attempt seize our firearms. It would be a very real and ugly situation when the anti's discover the real reason for the 2A.

Imagine this: "Knock knock." "Who's there?" "Uh, Hi. I'm from the ______ and I'm here to take your guns away, so give 'em up". "LOL. Get off my lawn. Slam".

No; confiscation simply can't and won't happen, but they could make it so hard to get ammo or supplies for reloading that eventually, guns would become irrelevant. After all, an unloaded gun is no more dangerous than a hammer. We must VOTE. A non-vote is as bad as a liberal vote! Do NOT be complacent, get out and VOTE.

 

[SMS]

Stolen from another forum so don’t credit me but I agree completely:

So purely amongst ourselves, here's the deal I'd push for if we had REASONABLE people who can act like HUMAN ****ING BEINGS rather than a troop of baboons on the other side of the table...



I think a key here is to make a serious offer of “bi-partisan” legislation, knowing full well the left will never accept it. They have no intentions of compromising because they have an ulterior agenda. So we do this and when they refuse, we get to say they want to undermine the 2nd and 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments more than they want to solve this issue.

We have to put them on the defensive or we’re going to lose. Now is the time to do it because they’re here in Oklahoma for a couple more weeks. Call, write and email their offices NOW. I fully believe Langford will cave and vote for anti-gun legislation this time. I fully believe one or several of our representatives would too if H.R. 8 doesn’t pass the Senate and they have to do a “compromise” bill.

I’ve never been more concerned than I am right now. This is our 1994 right here, right now.

That's pretty reasonable. Therefore it won't happen LOL.

 

[nofearfactor]

And how do you screen out 'crazy' anyways when a lot of these people never had any confirmed mental illness until the day they twisted. We all get crazy every and then about something. Makes no sense,

 

[SMS]

And how do you screen out 'crazy' anyways when a lot of these people never had any confirmed mental illness until the day they twisted. We all get crazy every and then about something. Makes no sense,

The objective is to create some barriers and layers to minimize the chance of the holes in the swiss cheese from lining up. Just like you lock your car/house doors and we put fences around stuff. Yes, those can be defeated but you still work to make it harder and eliminate some of the risk.

Demonstrated, verifiable, and documented criminal, threatening, or violent behavior should be a preclusion from owning a firearm providing that the system has proper due process and safeguards in place to protect people from false allegations.

The Dayton shooter worked up a kill and rape list in his junior year of high school. Unless he was evaluated, treated, and deemed to no longer be a threat to society, he should never have been allowed to legally purchase a firearm. Yes, he could've bought one illegally or used a bomb, but that doesn't mean you don't lock some doors or put up some fences.

 

[raeken45]

Just think about the ridiculously difficult task of confiscation: Logistically, it would be impossible. It would have to be a coordinated, timed thing, where we all got the knock on the door at the same time. Then there's that little issue of many who would just say "NO" to any attempt seize our firearms. It would be a very real and ugly situation when the anti's discover the real reason for the 2A.

Imagine this: "Knock knock." "Who's there?" "Uh, Hi. I'm from the ______ and I'm here to take your guns away, so give 'em up". "LOL. Get off my lawn. Slam".

No; confiscation simply can't and won't happen, but they could make it so hard to get ammo or supplies for reloading that eventually, guns would become irrelevant. After all, an unloaded gun is no more dangerous than a hammer. We must VOTE. A non-vote is as bad as a liberal vote! Do NOT be complacent, get out and VOTE.

Confiscation would be easy to pull off. You tell them to kick rocks, they arrest you at work the next day for non-compliance while they are tearing your house apart. They track your cell phone and arrest you dropping your kid off at school. They freeze your bank accounts so you don't eat until you turn them in. They seize your house because it contains illegal property. They have been doing this for years with drugs and drug money, they just have to change public opinion to make guns as bad as drugs, and they're getting closer. Nobody gets up in arms when a drug dealer is killed in a raid, it would be the same with holdout gun owners.
This is why I totally agree that the only way to keep our rights is to vote, educate, and stay active.

 

[druryj]

There simply isn't enough of THEM to take all our guns away from all of US at once.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

When the confiscation begins, where will they find enough people willing to kill or be killed in the attempt to disarm law abiding citizens? It'll be Lexington and Concord all over again but with a new twist. It'll be a new game we haven't played yet: Cowboys and Tyrants.

Woody

 

[druryj]

This is all speculation, and we will never really know how it would play out. I'm going to stand by my assertion that total confiscation will never happen simply due to the logistical impossibility. There are simply too many guns and too many of us. Oh they can pass a toothless law that says from henceforth guns are banned, but actually rounding them all up? Ha!

(PS: never keep all your eggs in one basket)

 

[Aries]

It won't happen like that. It will be "assault weapons"... then it will be "Saturday night specials"... then it will be "sniper rifles"... then rinse and repeat until they're all gone. It's intentionally a gradual process, because when step 1 doesn't work, that opens the door to step 2. That's why when anti-gun legislation is passed, you ALWAYS hear, "this won't solve the problem, but it's a step in the right direction."

 

[druryj]

Aww, we aren't getting anywhere arguing among ourselves. Let's direct our arguments to these people:
https://www.okshooters.com/threads/how-to-contact-your-federal-and-state-legislators.239163/