Tell your legislaturds NO 'background checks'

Post all political posts here.

Moderators: AmBraCol, Hobie

Forum rules
The rules are simple...
- no advocation of violence to anyone
- no cursing

Violation of the rules will result in deletion of the topic.
Post Reply
User avatar
AJMD429
Posting leader...
Posts: 29751
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Hoosierland
Contact:

Tell your legislaturds NO 'background checks'

Post by AJMD429 »

.
It is EASY - go to https://www.gunowners.org/ then scroll down to see "Resources" on the left menu, select that, then "Legislator Lookup". You enter your address, then you'll see a checklist of your state and federal legislators and other elected officials. Click the ones you want to send your letter to, and type it in the next page. Click once and the letter goes out. I get responses from the legislators (and the legislaturds sommetimes), so I know the letters get through.

Here's what I wrote mine:

Please keep in mind as the federal legislatures decide how much to 'compromise' to appease those who want gun control versus doing something practical or effective, that there is NO data to support 'background checks' as doing ANYTHING constructive - they do NOT reduce mass shootings and have little to no effect on violent crime in general.

They only serve to do two things - one illegitimate and one dangerous:

1. they allow politicians to appear 'caring' and virtue-signal by out-machoing the NRA, appeasing uninformed voters in the process.

2. they allow creation of a gun registry, which can never be un-done, and serves to facilitate gun confiscation later on. This is the final barrier to genocide, and although the U.S. hasn't experienced genocide, that is in part due to the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights - the founding authors were not concerned with 'legitimate sporting use', but were concerned with citizens being potentially abused by not only foreign enemies, but by their own government should it go rouge, as they had witnessed. The concept is NOT new, and genocide is NOT rare - worldwide, an average of over 7,000 citizens are killed PER DAY by their own governments (see R.J. Rummel's work on democide), and the connection to 'background checks' and consequent 'gun registration' is clear (see Zelman and Stevens 'Death by Gun Control' on that topic).

Therefore, to 'compromise' on 'background checks' is NOT acceptable, as there is NO benefit, and horrific potential harm. So the term 'compromise' doesn't even apply; the only 'compromise' is the willingness of some politicians to put the very stability of our society at risk, for an illusion of improving the safety of our streets.

You may have to EXPLAIN this concept to your detractors, and to your constituents, but that is part of your job. Explain why you make a GOOD decision - don't make excuses for why you make a bad one.

Thanks.


As one of my 'American Indian' (aka 'Native American') friends points out, one could argue there was a genocide, of the whites against the American Indians, although I think it was more of a 'war' than a 'genocide'.

The other technicality I didn't go into in the letter is that it IS possible to do 'background checks' without creation of a 'gun registry', by requiring the citizen purchasers and sellers to record and keep the transaction information themselves, that would serve to prove the purchaser was an 'approved buyer' at the time of the transaction. The prudent citizen would keep that information just like they would keep receipts of any other major transaction. Failure wouldn't be a crime though, and the government would only be able to seek that information if and when a crime actually occurred and a warrant issued. Obviously that is all to complicated for the sound-byte world of the politician. There are also some other algorithms involving encryption that have been proposed, although I don't trust software developers not to include back doors when it comes to stuff like that.
Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
"first do no harm" - gun control LAWS lead to far more deaths than 'easy access' ever could.


Want REAL change? . . . . . "Boortz/Nugent in 2012 . . . ! "
Post Reply