Want a Federal biometrics database, requiring thumb-prints for guns?

[rambone]

There's a presidential candidate who would oblige you:

Newt Gingrich.

The fact that he could see nothing wrong with this should disturb everyone the to the core.

1997 was basically the twilight of his long career. He should have become pretty well versed in the constitution by this point. But his agenda isn't freedom, liberty, following the constitution, preserving our rights, or anything of the sort. Newt wants a Police State, and goes around fearmongering to scare you into accepting it. And this was was said pre-911!! Imagine the amount of freedoms he wants to take nowadays.

"I think we prefer to go to instant check on an immediate basis and try to accelerate implementing instant checks so that you could literally check by thumb print whether there was a convicted felon with dangerous behavior or dangerous mental behavior. Instant check is a much better system than the Brady process."

-- Newt Gingrich, June 27, 1997 (source)​

 

[Kirk Freeman]

We used to do fingerprints for handguns here in Indiana.

I submit fingerprints for every machine gun or suppressor I buy.

Didn't you submit fingerprints for your LTCH?

Are you in favoring of keeping the 4473 then?

If the records are not kept, wouldn't this be faster than a 4473?

 

[Mgderf]

Or maybe you'd prefer a 7-10 day waiting period?

Sounds like you might need to cool off a little.

 

[pudly]

Oh please. Fingerprints aren't really the point. It is about continuing to lead INGO in creating the most anti-Republican threads. After all, continuing the "Brady process" is perfectly okay, right?

 

[rambone]

There is no authority for this kind of thing, whatsoever. The Feds are explicitly banned from infringing on the RKBA.

I wholeheartedly oppose any form of gun (owner) registration -- especially at the Federal level.

Past infringements do not justify more infringements.

 

[rambone]

Oh please. Fingerprints aren't really the point. It is about continuing to lead INGO in creating the most anti-Republican threads. After all, continuing the "Brady process" is perfectly okay, right?

Actually its an anti-gun control thread. Newt is the one making a mockery of what it means to be a Republican. He needs to be exposed for the sake of the party and the sake of the Republic. There is still time to support a candidate who doesn't say the constitution is outdated.

 

[ocsdor]

I'm in favor of doing away with all records mentioned.

 

[mrjarrell]

Oh please. Fingerprints aren't really the point. It is about continuing to lead INGO in creating the most anti-Republican threads. After all, continuing the "Brady process" is perfectly okay, right?

This isn't about being anti republican. Rambone is a dedicated supporter of a republican candidate, how's that mesh with your narrative? It doesn't.

 

[mrjarrell]

We used to do fingerprints for handguns here in Indiana.

I submit fingerprints for every machine gun or suppressor I buy.

Didn't you submit fingerprints for your LTCH?

Are you in favoring of keeping the 4473 then?

If the records are not kept, wouldn't this be faster than a 4473?

In a sane and Constitutional world there would be no fingerprinting and no 4473 at all. Just like there used to be.

 

[pudly]

This isn't about being anti republican. Rambone is a dedicated supporter of a republican candidate, how's that mesh with your narrative? It doesn't.

Actually, there is no narrative, just basic arithmetic. Check the threads bashing Republican candidates started by various people and see if anyone comes close. Even you trail badly.

 

[viiiupndhead]

From what I see here he's in favor of using an existing felon fingerprint database to see if the purchaser of the firearm matches a fingerprint in that database. If that's the case then it would be painless and effective. I don't see that infringing on liberty any more than the call in process we go through now.

However, it would be very inconvenient and expensive for gun dealers to implement.

I had a Newt we named Gingrich once. My turtles ate him...

 

[J_Wales]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED....

BUZZ OFF

 

[Bill of Rights]

I do not favor a fingerprint system per purchase.
If there is an actual destruction of 4473 records and all similar, I would favor that over the current system.

Given my druthers, I would prefer neither, of course.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[mrjarrell]

Actually, there is no narrative, just basic arithmetic. Check the threads bashing Republican candidates started by various people and see if anyone comes close. Even you trail badly.

Well, when we have to consider that there is only one democratic candidate to bash and Rambone's done quite a bit of bashing on him in the past, too, I could see where a partisan voter might feel he is "bashing" republicans, but he isn't. He's only pointing out the bad sides of some of the gop primary candidates. If there were democratic candidate running, no doubt he'd have something to say about them. To date he's posted on Cain, Perry, Gingrinch, Romney and Bachmann. Haven't seen anything about Huntsman (who's going up in the NH polls), Johnson or Santorum (who's a nobody, unworthy of anyone's attention). Rambone obviously isn't an anti-republican or he'd never consider voting for Paul. I admire the tenacity of anyone going after the bad apples in the gop or dem parties. Cain sucks. Gingrinch is a nightmare waiting to happen and Romney...well, he's pretty much a dem in many regards, but he's a machine man and the gop's pick for president. It's not an anti-republican thing. It's an anti-mega suck candidate thing. Shoot, I have no intention of voting for Paul, but I understand the fascination some folks have with him. He comes close to being a good candidate and he's certainly better than the current primary leaders. But, support of Paul and going after the opposition doesn't make one an anti-republican.

 

[trillobite]

Calling someone "basher" does not negate the stated issue. Just as calling someone "heretic" does not negate the problems in the priesthood.

Oppression is still oppression, no matter the flag being waved.

 

[MadBomber]

Actually, there is no narrative, just basic arithmetic. Check the threads bashing Republican candidates started by various people and see if anyone comes close. Even you trail badly.

Seems to me that if the Republican party hadn't chose to run a steaming pile of hacks and anti-constitutionalists (with one notable exception) then the mathematic ratio of threads perceived as Republican bashing would be next to nothing. With President Obama's performance so far, the GOP should be a lock for the Presidency in 2012. Instead, the Republicans have nearly assured his re-election.

Regarding the gun control argument, it's simple: The Right of the People To Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed. Any deviation from that argument is worthy of bashing. No prints, no 4473, no LTCH, no Class III.

 

[buckstopshere]

Oh please. Fingerprints aren't really the point. It is about continuing to lead INGO in creating the most anti-Republican threads. After all, continuing the "Brady process" is perfectly okay, right?

You say "anti-republican" like it's a bad thing. I'm not sure how anyone who loves this country and freedom could possible support either party. The more the lesser of two evils is defended, the easier it is to maintain the evil.

The country is heading for the cliff. Obama may have the car on cruise control at 80mph heading in a straight 90*angle whereas someone like Romney or Gingrich may slow it down to 65mph and a 70* angle but they're still driving us off the cliff.

The parties are equal opportunity failures for the American people and both deserve bashing on a continuous basis. Besides, whoever controls the money (and debt) controls the nation. According to the constitution, that responsibility is supposed to lie in the congress but of course it doesn't. The federal reserve and the global banking class bought and paid for this country so whichever party has "control" of the fed is totally irrelevant.

Instead of wasting my time defending or supporting liars and cheats, I'm focusing on doing my part to fix the country by taking care of my responsibilities so as not to burden someone else. Getting out of debt and becoming more self sufficient are great starting points. Just think if everyone would do this!

As for the Spirit of the OP, I agree that any piece of legislation that creates a barrier to exercise ANY of my God given rights is wrong.

 

[LEaSH]

buckstopshere, I owe you a rep for that. I'm out at the moment.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You say "anti-republican" like it's a bad thing. I'm not sure how anyone who loves this country and freedom could possible support either party. The more the lesser of two evils is defended, the easier it is to maintain the evil.

The country is heading for the cliff. Obama may have the car on cruise control at 80mph heading in a straight 90*angle whereas someone like Romney or Gingrich may slow it down to 65mph and a 70* angle but they're still driving us off the cliff.

The parties are equal opportunity failures for the American people and both deserve bashing on a continuous basis. Besides, whoever controls the money (and debt) controls the nation. According to the constitution, that responsibility is supposed to lie in the congress but of course it doesn't. The federal reserve and the global banking class bought and paid for this country so whichever party has "control" of the fed is totally irrelevant.

Instead of wasting my time defending or supporting liars and cheats, I'm focusing on doing my part to fix the country by taking care of my responsibilities so as not to burden someone else. Getting out of debt and becoming more self sufficient are great starting points. Just think if everyone would do this!

As for the Spirit of the OP, I agree that any piece of legislation that creates a barrier to exercise ANY of my God given rights is wrong.

Anti-republican is a bad thing. Anti-Republican is not. The former refers to being against someone who favors the republic, while the latter is against the specific political party.

Personally, I'd rather see the whole mess scrapped and start over with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Of course, for that to work, we would have to have a people that respected individual liberty above all else, and I don't think we've seen that in over two centuries.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[NYFelon]

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

How does requiring a citizen to jump through hoops in order to exercise a right guaranteed him by the founding document of this nation not qualify as an infringement? From where does the federal government derive the power to institute a system of control of a basic human right that again, is guaranteed to be free and unfettered by regulation?