No more guns for people on watchlists?

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by bcj1755, Jun 23, 2009.


    So a New Jersey Democrat, suprise suprise:rolleyes:, wants to stop people on the gov't watchlist from buying guns.

    No, but it is the way things will be done in Obama's workers' paradise Socialist States of America. Even if someone is suspected of a crime, they still have civil rights in this country. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? I notice that most of the people in this country that buy the majority of privately owned firearms are conservatives. And conservatives are now considered "potential right-wing terrorists" by the feds. So Lautenberg's attempt to "close the loophole in the name of public safety" is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to prevent non-Kool-Aid drinkers from buying guns.:rolleyes:
  2. GMFWoodchuck

    GMFWoodchuck New Member

    Oct 9, 2008
    Binghamton, NY
    It's just gonna be another big joke like the Brady Bill where 40,000 people were ""denied" the right to buy a gun when in actuallity when all was said and done you can count the people who were denied on your fingers. The system is just a political joke designed to make it look like criminals buy guns in stores also marginalizing the rest of us gunowners into that same group. The reality is that people need to hear that the 40,000 people who were denied were on "watchlists" as well. However, these people were arrested without convictions (otherwise known as innocent), people arrested on ridiculous grounds (should people arrested for laying down and peacefully protesting the Vietnam really be denied the right to own firearms?), and traffic violations and so on. The vast majority simply had to go to the local courthouse and get the proper paperwork and then buy the gun. The vast majority being on the order of 39993 of them. Of course, not one case was filed against the few who were legitimately denied as it's against the law for a registered violent felon to buy a firearm.

    Yes, you may be on a watch list that trips the intial denial. But, as it will (for now) work you will simply need to file even more pointless paperwork. Keep in mind. The watchlists are huge and vast. If you have ever been suspected of any crime (not just arrested, charged, or even convicted) you will trip the system and be denied the first time around. It could be for doing a burnout in front of a cop in your car. Or being part of a Tea Party. That is how Bill Clinton was able to phony up the 40,000 people being denied. Virtually all were allowed to buy a gun anyway. But it does show why the system does not work for society. It does not protect us, and costs money. It does work for the government, as it records what guns you have so the ATFE will know who has the guns and what procedures to take when they decide to raid your house when these guns are declared illegal.

    No matter what any bureacrat says, the information is 100% not being deleted. You are a permanent record in their system. I bought a Savage 12fv last fall, and despite what the FBI and ATFE says about the information being supposedly deleted after a short time, I fully expect a visit from them when "sniper rifles" are declared outlawed and illegal. And so should you. They will work for their paychecks on that day as they will take my guns only from my dead hands. But, just so everyone knows, they will have to come to me as I will never start anything. I will always reserve my rights as a human being. Not just as a citizen of the United States protected by the Constitution.

  3. Trouble 45-70

    Trouble 45-70 New Member

    Lautenberg D. N.J. author of the Lautenberg bill which denies ownership of firearms if you have had a domestic disturbance with wife or kids and the cops are called. Cost a lot of Cops and Military their jobs. There does not even have to be a conviction. We can see where this going. Pro gun, pro life, no tax increases, oppose big govt. etc. no guns. the only people left with guns are progressive Democrats and most of them don't want them untill they figure out they can now increase their power by owning guns when their opponents arn't allowed to have any.
  4. 45nut

    45nut Well-Known Member

    Jul 19, 2006
    Dallas, TX
    Well, we knew this was their agenda so how is this all that surprising? Still, I hope it isn't any LEO's that I know when they come for them.
  5. To expand on the point, if the right to bear arms can be infringed by simply having the police at your door step, and without due process, will this translate over to other rights? How soon will the political class start sending the police to the homes of those who would vote against them?
  6. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    At the top of the terror watch list should be Obama and idiots like Lautenberg and the rest of his liberal cohorts who would dismantle the constitution.
  7. OBrien

    OBrien New Member

    May 6, 2009
    Bangor Maine
    I agree 100% but the sad part is that more of us here on on those lists that shouldn't than the people in Washington who should be.
  8. Southern Boy

    Southern Boy New Member

    Jun 8, 2009
    Did'nt the fBI just come out with a list that included Pro-lifers, #rd. party bumper sticker owners, and returning from war hero consevatives? I tend to purchase my firearms from my local ads in our newspapers. Still, I would like to continue to have the option to buy from a dealer when i want to. I've gotta be on some of those list by now.
  9. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Feb 17, 2005
    South Carolina
    Why do people keep electing idiots like this? Oh, that's right... the dang Unions, who encourage their membership to vote for anyone with a D to the right of their name. When are people going to start thinking for themselves? :confused: :eek:

    They act like criminals are really buying firearms at gun shows and through private transactions. A coworker was griping about anyone being able to buy a gun at a gun show. I said, so why do you think gun shows are bad? He said, "well, anyone can go to the show and buy a gun because of the loop hole." I explained that there is no 'gun show loop hole'. The myth exists because private transactions do not require paperwork or background checks in many states. He says, "but anyone doesn't need to be able to buy firearms." I had this analogy to offer. If you buy a used Glock from me at a gun show I'm going to want the market rate for that gun, up to $450 used. If you buy a gun from an illegal street dealer you're going to pay a stolen property rate of $50-100. Something clicked and he said, "so that's the same thing as buying a stolen car versus a normal used car..." I said, "yes, and does a criminal care if the car or gun is stolen?..." :)

    He didn't really understand when I told him how most purchases at gun shows are through licensed dealers and your background is checked just like if you walked into a big box store.

    I think he actually learned something. The problem is that the modern media doesn't allow for this type of explanation to reach most people. The people therefore believe whatever they're told.

    It's amazing some of us remember how to put our pants on from day to day as society is continually dumbed down... :(
  10. Millwright

    Millwright Well-Known Member

    Jun 30, 2005
    You're catching on people !!

    First label your enemies, then bend every effort to prosecute them.....The validitiy of the label isn't important. Nor is the truth..... >MW
  11. SaddleSarge

    SaddleSarge New Member

    Aug 24, 2008

    That just kind'a violates the 6th Amendment. But who gives a damn about the constitution anymore?:(

    There was a day when it would be considered a "lynching" to be declared guilty without the benefit of a trial with the accused unable to face the accuser.

    Edit: It wouldn't be so bad if they were "prosecuted." Right now, I'd just call it, "persecuted.";)
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2009
  12. dge479

    dge479 New Member

    Oct 6, 2004
    Haskell NJ
    We have been trying to get rid of this jerk for years. We need term limits
  13. SaddleSarge

    SaddleSarge New Member

    Aug 24, 2008
    We need is intelligent voters. :( I believe you need to pass a class in 8th grade U.S. history to be able to get a, "voters license." My opinion is that term limits merely circumvents the inability of the voting public to make rational choices.
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2009
  14. Isn't "intelligent voter" becoming an oxymoron these days, Sarge? Judging from the students I commonly get in my history and philosophy courses, I am forced to surmise that nothing of fundamental value is being taught them in the public schools anymore. Most of them cannot compose a coherent, grammatically correct English sentence, nor do they possess the reading skills necessary to sort out BS and propaganda from intelligent analysis. As for the "license" part, I do agree that there should be criteria for exercising the franchise, though I also think we must be very careful with what those criteria should rightfully be. Among the basic skills I see as necessary would be the ability to read and understand simple English, a demonstrated fundamental knowledge of American history and the Constitutional process, along with proven residence and citizenship.
  15. SaddleSarge

    SaddleSarge New Member

    Aug 24, 2008
    Yup, dopey me. You're on spot on the rest.

    The immigrants (legal ones) learn more American History in their citizenship classes than those who go through the public system.:rolleyes:
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Had My Required Yearly Physical, Yep Guns Were On The Questioner, No More Jul 29, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum More Republicans in Congress own guns Feb 5, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Gal Buying More Guns ...... Feb 25, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum More Guns ( STILL ) Equal Less Crime .... Oct 2, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum More Proof - More Guns, Less Crime Apr 12, 2005