Would you add a group? Subtract one? Abolish the National Instant Criminal Background Check System altogether? Personally I'd be okay with some of these if I also trusted our criminal justice system.

1. Convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a year or more
2. Fugitives from justice
3. A user of or addicted to a controlled substance
4. Adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental health institution
5. Illegal aliens
6. Aliens admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa
7. Discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
8. Renounced their citizenship to the U.S.
9. Subject to a court order that restrains their interactions with an intimate partner or child
10. Convicted of domestic violence

You can read more about this in Molly's latest article Gun Background Checks: How the State Came To Decide Who Can and Cannot Buy a Firearm.

Anybody who votes Democrat.

First off, just because someone SAYS that someone is a danger doesn't make it so. No one should be added to any list of those having their firearms seized without due process. Secondly, you should be able to legally get your name off the list. Last but, not least, they should have to CLEARLY let someone know that their name is on the list and WHY it is on the list. The current system is ridiculous, unconstitutional and is not consistent with a free country.

Limiting a person's right to keep and bear arms is a very serious thing and should not be taken lightly. For me there are very few circumstances in which a person should have this right limited. In reference to your list the first one seems to me to not be a good standard as the crime in question can be entirely unrelated to a person exercising their right to keep and bear arms improperly. If you are going to limit it based off a criminal conviction that conviction must be directly related to a misuse of their right. For example someone commits armed robbery with a firearm, that is obviously a situation in which they misused their right and can have it limited assuming they are duly convicted. If we contrast this with Reckless Driving, which in the state of Massachusetts carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, you could have your right limited for something not even involving the use of it.

Quote from: Centinel on November 08, 2020, 07:32:03 PM
Limiting a person's right to keep and bear arms is a very serious thing and should not be taken lightly. For me there are very few circumstances in which a person should have this right limited. In reference to your list the first one seems to me to not be a good standard as the crime in question can be entirely unrelated to a person exercising their right to keep and bear arms improperly. If you are going to limit it based off a criminal conviction that conviction must be directly related to a misuse of their right. For example someone commits armed robbery with a firearm, that is obviously a situation in which they misused their right and can have it limited assuming they are duly convicted. If we contrast this with Reckless Driving, which in the state of Massachusetts carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, you could have your right limited for something not even involving the use of it.

What these liberals forget is that it is just as painful, just as devastating and just as disruptive to be stabbed, blown up, hit with an automobile, hit with a blunt object, punched, kicked or murdered in some other way as to be shot with a firearm. Death is death, regardless of how that death was perpetuated. If someone is a violent lunatic, they will find someway to carry out their insanity on the innocent.

Quote from: RV on December 06, 2020, 06:49:11 PM
What these liberals forget is that it is just as painful, just as devastating and just as disruptive to be stabbed, blown up, hit with an automobile, hit with a blunt object, punched, kicked or murdered in some other way as to be shot with a firearm. Death is death, regardless of how that death was perpetuated. If someone is a violent lunatic, they will find someway to carry out their insanity on the innocent.

After seeing the massive nationwide fraud in the elections, I have to wonder how many people were added to the list simply because some liberal Dem wanted to deny their rights? I don't know that I can trust ANYTHING the government says from now on!

Quote from: ammodotcom on October 22, 2020, 05:31:36 PM
Would you add a group? Subtract one? Abolish the National Instant Criminal Background Check System altogether? Personally I'd be okay with some of these if I also trusted our criminal justice system.

1. Convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a year or more
2. Fugitives from justice
3. A user of or addicted to a controlled substance
4. Adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental health institution
5. Illegal aliens
6. Aliens admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa
7. Discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
8. Renounced their citizenship to the U.S.
9. Subject to a court order that restrains their interactions with an intimate partner or child
10. Convicted of domestic violence

You can read more about this in Molly's latest article Gun Background Checks: How the State Came To Decide Who Can and Cannot Buy a Firearm.

To even broach the subject goes against the very principles of our Republic. An armed society is a polite society.
ERVERYONE should be armed, felon or otherwise, no one should ever advocate for govt control. This is just fuckin stupid!

Quote from: Solar on December 16, 2020, 06:32:26 AM
To even broach the subject goes against the very principles of our Republic. An armed society is a polite society.
ERVERYONE should be armed, felon or otherwise, no one should ever advocate for govt control. This is just fuckin stupid!

Any "selected" prohibitions by a government evolve into "general" prohibitions. That is why the purpose of our Constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT not citizens.

Quote from: supsalemgr on December 16, 2020, 09:10:29 AM
Any "selected" prohibitions by a government evolve into "general" prohibitions. That is why the purpose of our Constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT not citizens.

Exactly!!! I just read it for the first time... Check out this defeatist bull shit! "Whether you like them or not, background checks are here to stay for gun owners and gun purchasers"

The fact that this subject was even broached in the first place raises red flags over ammo.com.
I will be having a discussion with Taxed over this, I think it's time to part ways.

Quote from: ammodotcom on October 22, 2020, 05:31:36 PM
Would you add a group? Subtract one? Abolish the National Instant Criminal Background Check System altogether? Personally I'd be okay with some of these if I also trusted our criminal justice system.

1. Convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a year or more
2. Fugitives from justice
3. A user of or addicted to a controlled substance
4. Adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental health institution
5. Illegal aliens
6. Aliens admitted to the U.S. under a nonimmigrant visa
7. Discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
8. Renounced their citizenship to the U.S.
9. Subject to a court order that restrains their interactions with an intimate partner or child
10. Convicted of domestic violence

You can read more about this in Molly's latest article Gun Background Checks: How the State Came To Decide Who Can and Cannot Buy a Firearm.

I would take the list, then sit it on my bathroom counter.  After I finish my business, I would take the list and use it to wipe.  Then I would pull up my pants.

Anyone who advocates for restricting purchasing firearms should do the world a favor and eat their gun.

Quote from: taxed on December 16, 2020, 01:15:54 PM
I would take the list, then sit it on my bathroom counter.  After I finish my business, I would take the list and use it to wipe.  Then I would pull up my pants.

Anyone who advocates for restricting purchasing firearms should do the world a favor and eat their gun.

I generally never read their posts for various reasons, but after reading this one, I think we need to rethink our relationship with them.

Quote from: RV on December 06, 2020, 06:49:11 PM
What these liberals forget is that it is just as painful, just as devastating and just as disruptive to be stabbed, blown up, hit with an automobile, hit with a blunt object, punched, kicked or murdered in some other way as to be shot with a firearm. Death is death, regardless of how that death was perpetuated. If someone is a violent lunatic, they will find someway to carry out their insanity on the innocent.

Well said.
Yep, I have been shot, and I have been stabbed, and I have been beaten and left for dead.  Being Shot provided the least trauma.

Quote from: Solar on December 16, 2020, 06:32:26 AM
To even broach the subject goes against the very principles of our Republic. An armed society is a polite society.
ERVERYONE should be armed, felon or otherwise, no one should ever advocate for govt control. This is just fuckin stupid!

Stupid beyond belief.

Quote from: Dayton3 on December 22, 2020, 11:08:24 AM
Stupid beyond belief.

I take it you aren't smart enough to debate, that's why these 2 and 3 word replies?

Quote from: Solar on December 22, 2020, 11:47:17 AM
I take it you aren't smart enough to debate, that's why these 2 and 3 word replies?

I'll be glad to debate you if you will refrain from name calling and insults.