r_2

“I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter. I see no contradiction between that support and insisting on background checks, so that people who’ve got no right to the Second Amendment because they’re dangerous criminals or they’re dangerously mentally ill or they’re terrorists, should be denied a firearm any way we can.” – Senator Pat Toomey in In Pennsylvania Senate race, unfamiliar battle lines on gun rights [via reuters.com]

bfg-long-logo-blue-jpg-220x39

70 Responses to Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: No Contradiction Between 2A Support and Background Checks

  1. “so that people who’ve got no right to the Second Amendment ”
    OK, so I don’t understand..
    Is the Constitution a document that sets limits on what it can or cannot do or is it a document which allows the government to say what rights we have as long as they say we are allowed to keep them??

    • The bill of rights are a limitation on federal government, not on the people.

      “Shall not be infringed” means the federal government can’t restrict our second amendment rights. And requiring back ground checks are an infringement of those rights.

      But, of course, the USSC has interpreted “reasonable” restrictions/violations of all of our rights, but especially the second amendment, are “constitutional”.

      Thomas Jefferson said it over two hundred years ago that the USSC would end up being a tyranny of ordinary people in black robes. He was right.

      • Thanks for the reply… That’s the way I’ve always looked at it.. That the Constitution was acknowledging our natural rights granted to us by the simple fact of being human and, like a contract, forbids the government from infringing on or putting limits on those rights… I believe the term is found in the Declaration of Independence, “inalienable”….

        • Yep. I guess us unedjumakated masses just don’t have the years of book learning to understand those finer points of what “shall not be infringed” and “inalienable” really means.

      • Yup. The supreme court has ruled that not being interstate commerce is sufficient for it to be regulated as interstate commerce, which is obvious lunacy.

        Still so many people present SC rulings as proof of constitutionality, when the actual wording of the constitution seems to so seldomly enter into the decisions.

  2. And one more thing that confuses me…
    If “they’re terrorists,…” Why in the hell are they allowed to walk free among the rest of us in the first place???

    • Exactly! If they’re dangerous criminals or dangerously mentally ill, then it’s people like YOU SENATOR, the protected political class and worthless looters that allowed these dangerous individuals back on the streets where they are a menace to us, the bill payers!

  3. Of course he does not see a problem. He is part of the government, so he does not see himself as part of the problem. It’s a common form of myopia.

    • I hope he doesn’t think this is helping him in the upcoming election. As many have said, you will never be able to out-democrat the democrats. The commie useful idiots in Philly and other urban areas won’t vote for him no matter what he does, but he certainly can piss off his base.

  4. “… people who’ve got no right to the Second Amendment because they’re dangerous criminals or they’re dangerously mentally ill or they’re [dangerous] terrorists, should be denied a firearm …” – Senator Pat Toomey

    And yet we allow such “dangerous” people free and easy access to steal or purchase firearms on the black market … as well as free and easy access to purchase or steal trucks, gasoline and matches, poison, chainsaws, etc.

    Until a person has actually demonstrated that they are dangerous and there is a warrant for their arrest (that warrant based on actual, reliable evidence), they are not “dangerous” and deserve to have ALL of their rights.

    As I have said countless times, the Second Amendment is just the “canary in the coal mine” of rights. In this case government cannot be troubled to actually collect evidence, indict, try, and convict someone for an actual crime. So they throw Fifth Amendment Due Process under the bus right along with the Second Amendment.

    • Thomas Jefferson explained this simply “no free man shall be denied arms” in other words if you are to dangerous to have guns you should be in jail or prison.

      • Close, but not exact.

        “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

        To a tyrannical government, which the Second Amendment was intended to allow the people to protect themselves from, a freedom fighter is a terrorist. That’s why the Second Amendment demands that the right to keep and bear arms “…shall not be infringed.” by the government.

    • Absolutely, 1,000,000 + thumbs up ! This guy’s just an incompetent globalist puppet!
      If low info voters finely figure out that these clowns aren’t worth a $#!t . That these morons couldn’t even manage a Burger King…They would be out of office, and instead cleaning up spooge at Seaworld…

    • So now you are calling for pulling people off the streets without a conviction? There are a lot of people who should not be in jail and nowhere near a gun unsupervised, try a 9 year old, or a person fresh out of prison for a violent crime. Personally I think someone should be on parole until they have their gun rights restored, but unfortunately that’s not how the system works. But you can’t keep people in jail until, they are not dangerous. That would let the government keep anyone they want in jail for as long as they want and that would suck way more than “universal background checks”

      • No he is not: he means the opposite, if you are not dangerous enough to be incarcerated, then you have RKBA. THAT is what he means.

      • Don’t you think the SCOTUS would go for “commonsense imprisonment without due process”? What is the difference between that and “commonsense violation of 2A”?

        And someone might should tell the Senator that we already have background checks, for 30 years now, why does he continue pushing the fiction that we “need” them, they are there, and accomplish absolutely nothing so far as crime is concerned.

        • “commonsense imprisonment without due process”

          That is the definition of a concentration camp, or a gulag, or Japanese-American resettlement. We have seen that before in history and it is in every case the result of fascism and tyranny, the things the Second Amendment is intended to allow the people to resist by force of arms.

          Giving any government the authority to decide who is or is not allowed to keep and bear arms is the same as voting for tyranny, since that would be the undoubted end result.

          True, some individuals cannot be trusted with firearms, but in the long run they will be their own undoing. Governments that have a monopoly on firearms, however, have been the agents of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of deaths over the centuries. I will trust a local drug dealer or petty thief with a firearm, so long as honest citizens can also be armed, long before I will trust a government that wants to deny that same right to all of its citizens.

          “He who would give up an essential liberty for a little temporary safety will have neither liberty nor safety.” – Ben Franklin.

  5. It’s NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS who owns and possesses firearms…no exceptions.
    I would go one step further and automatically restore firearms rights to ALL felons, once their sentences are completed. Felons who are bent on criminal activity will get firearms anyway–no different than the present situation.

    • Been saying this for a long time, it is NOT the business of the state to know what anyone buys, private property is private property. If the .gub was truly interested in stemming crime, they would use their once illegal surveillance powers to weasel out who bought what, and where, and from who. The capability exists to use social media, geotagging and voice recording from cellphones, etc… various vectors exist that can put a serious crimp in criminals day to day lives, and yet, how is it used? To further the power of the state and little else. Pathetic how the world is.

      I agree with you, and thanks for postin’.

  6. What he’s really saying is; “There will be NO Insurrection….All Rebels will be disarmed….We’ll will choose who, why, when, and where someone might be armed ! It certainly won’t be the McDonalds worker down the street! Long live The New World Order…! One-World Global Governance! We will make the decision$! ”
    *******************************************
    I believe that was what he was trying to say…

  7. Yeah… Looks like the treason train continues. The fact that these clowns are still breathing is proof that the 2nd Amendmet isn’t working.

    • Pwrserge,

      The efficacy of the Second Amendment is not the problem. The problem lies with We the People who now allow politicians and bureaucrats to define what is right and wrong according to whatever emotion, whim, or personal agenda strikes their fancy.

      When a nation abandons God and corresponding timeless standards of right and wrong — and elevates emotion, whim, and personal agendas to supreme status — chaos and suffering is the inevitable future.

      • No uncommon_sense. You have it all wrong. Philosopher’s have determined that believing in a higher power is superstitious and archaic. They have determined that in an “age of reason”, there are no absolute right or wrong, that all beliefs are relative, and to believe ones own country is somehow superior to any other is bigotry of the worst sort.

        So out of this “age of reason”, has come “moral relativism”, “political correctness”, open borders, disintegrating families, and hundreds of millions murdered by those professing to believe in no god, both those in the womb, and those that have survived the womb; by those that believe the “ends justify the means”.

        Christ said that “I am the way, the truth and the light” and that those that hate the Christ and his followers do so because they hate the truth and they hate life.

        I see the world around me, I see the truth of the bible and what the Christ was and is teaching and the more I thank G-d that I had the willingness and the courage to become a christian.

        • I think that while we all can disagree massively on religion, I bet we can all agree that the dipshits in power in DC are most definitely *NOT* gods. But they seem to think they are, and that their ministry to us sinners must be obeyed or they will send their minions for us. People as stupid as Toomey should be removed from office, but he is not in my state, it is someone else’s responsibility.

        • LarryinTX,

          Amen brother! (Too much?)

          All fun aside, your comment is absolutely spot on. Well said.

    • Or drive a lorry (ask the folks in France about that one).
      The plain fact is if you are proven a danger or there is probable casue and reasonable suspicion, then you shoudl be arrested, charged, and tried to determine guilt.
      Until then, you should have all your rights.
      DUE PROCESS folks.
      It is in the Bill of Rights.
      This isn’t that hard if you truly care about liberty.

  8. So called “universal” background checks can not be enforced. There is no way for law enforcement to know when someone makes a private sale. There are already States that have these “universal” background check laws and they have no effect on crime what so ever. These types of laws are unconstitutional, and otherwise law abiding people like me will not comply. It is none of the government’s business what firearms I purchase, what firearms I own, or what firearms I sell to another law abiding citizen. There are already laws on the books prohibiting the ownership of firearms, or sales of firearms to prohibitied persons. No laws will stop the trade of firearms between criminals, so the only logical thing to do is make the penality harsher for those caught doing so. If a prohibited person is caught with a firearm, use manditory long term sentencing. Someone caught knowingly selling to or otherwise procuring a firearm for a prohibited person should also have manditory long term sentencing. The private sale of firearms between law abiding citizens is not the issue, and trying to force these types of sales through an FFL or police agency can not be enforced without a record of who owns what firearms in the first place which would require registration. That is the next logical step when these so called “universal” background checks fail to lower crime, and that is the next step towards tyrany.

    • The whole point of universal background checks is for them to fail to have an effect so that they can then come back and say they need registration of all firearms.

    • The whole point of “universal” background checks it not to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited people, it is to give law enforcement tools to prosicute straw sellers. That being said, I personally would like to know that I’m not selling a gun to a convected gang banger or someone out on bail.

      • “The whole point of ‘universal’ background checks it not to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited people, it is to give law enforcement tools to prosicute straw sellers political enemies.”

        There, fixed that for you.

      • I should be perfectly legal selling a firearm to anyone. The prohibited persons should face severe penalties for *purchasing* a firearm, if there is any penalty to anyone. As usual, we manage to construct laws so as to prosecute everyone except actual criminals, because actual criminals might *shoot* us.

        That includes my buying a gun specifically to sell it to someone who has asked me to buy it for him. The violation of the law is with the person who has previously been advised that his possession of a firearm is a crime. Why can we not prosecute *him*? Instead of *me*?

    • “There are already laws on the books prohibiting the ownership of firearms, or sales of firearms to prohibitied [sic] persons.”

      By what authority may the government designate anyone a “prohibited person”? I fail to see that power granted to the government anywhere in the Constitution and I do find that the Second Amendment specifically prohibits the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

      The question of background checks, much less universal background checks, will not be resolved until it is perfectly understood that the creation of categories of “prohibited persons” is unconstitutional and that the entire NICS system is therefore also an unconstitutional violation of our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected rights.

    • i agree completely and as an Australian i can tell you straight up that licensing, registration, background checks dont work. all they do is drive the illlicit market further underground and make said market much larger. if someone is not fit to own a firearm they should not be fit to be on the street period…. if you commit a serious crime with a firearm then it should be a long sentence not a slap on the wrist like they get here. in fact law abiding shooters here get a heavier sentence simply for not having their firearms “well enough secured”

  9. “…because they’re dangerous criminals or they’re dangerously mentally ill or they’re terrorists”

    But they aren’t really so dangerous that we have to do anything about them until they try and buy a gun from a dealer. Then, and only then, should we worry about how dangerous they are.

    • As a Benefactor member, I’ll say the NRA isn’t perfect (no organization is), but they are our biggest dog in this fight and I am not going to call them off even as I try to get them to heel for the better.

  10. And the RINO revolution continues apace. Mark Kirk makes Toomey look like George freakin” Washington. Or even worse he’s not better than Tammy “I worked for Obama” Duckworth. Sigh…I hope the Senate stays R.

  11. If someone has done something bad enough to justify the loss of their rights, they’re dangerous enough to be in jail / a mental institution. There’s no need for background checks as these dangerous people should already be off the streets.

  12. I think the left needs background checks because they keep paroling bad guys and don’t fund enough prison space.

    Keep the bad guys locked-up until they are reformed and have paid their debt to society and release them with full restoration of their rights. No background checks necessary.

    • We don’t need more prison space. We need to release those convicted of victimless crimes, namely drug possession or use, and if we still need space, executing the new convictees when there is no space for them. “Yeah, you’re sentenced to 30 days, but there’s no room.” BANG.

  13. “because they’re dangerous criminals or they’re dangerously mentally ill or they’re terrorists, should be denied a firearm…”

    So wait, these “people” you have on this list are too dangerous to allow to own a firearm, but not dangerous enough to incarcerate or restrict in any other way? So only the addition of a firearm makes them dangerous? Sounds to me like some kind of band aid on the justice system and mental health system. If you could keep the dangerous and the mentals you can’t fix, locked up we wouldn’t need background checks. I’ll accept background checks once you give me a timetable for fixing the reason we need them.

  14. Background checks are a nuisance that we are forced to put up with, yes, I agree they are an infringement to the Second Amendment, for the Constitution doesn’t say, “Shall not be infringed unless under these specific circumstances”.

    They do serve a purpose and catch out the very low hanging fruit of recidivist criminal types, but the middle height doesn’t have legally owned guns because they stole and/or purchased such stolen guns from another criminal, and the high up fruit, the people who shoot themselves in suicide, well no background check is going to help to stop that.

    What you would need is rather simple, since algorithms are used by companies like FB to check the mood of their userbase, plus we have an illegally invasive security state that monitors all American web usage already, one would only need to create a “Foreground Check” algorithm that monitors the mental state of the purchaser and translates that info to a document . Let me say that though I am delineating this hypothetical system, I do NOT want such a thing to exist, but I believe that we either already have this, since the capability exists, or we will soon have such a thing.

    So Background checks, NICS, Foreground Checks, and real-time mental state profiling, plus you add in all the Federal and State nonsense disguised as law gun control.

    Background checks will never detail future intent, nor present intent, it just states facts about your past, nor whether a person is going to hurt themselves or others.

    My only hope for the 2nd Amendment to survive is if Trump wins, he can start peeling back some of this garbage gun control agenda and clear away the NFA, GCA, GOPA, et al.

    • “They do serve a purpose and catch out the very low hanging fruit of recidivist criminal types”

      Can you give me some examples? Because they do not do anything, if a prohibited person is denied a firearm at a dealer, he is still free to purchase one from the street. Because the law is not enforced against *criminals*, only against dealers.

      • As you say, a BG check serves only to offload people with bad lives to the street corner for their gun purchases; an avenue open to them beforehand. That our lame duck in chief did not actively pursue for two terms those offenders who transgressed with a stolen gun in their possession during the commission of their crimes and has been historically lax in prosecuting such cases is not the fault of anyone but him, the DOJ, the FBI, and other such sunny government bureaucracies .

        And as I stated, they serve a purpose, I didn’t claim that purpose was good, or even honest, they simply serve a purpose, and that purpose is thwarted by child-like thinking of gun hating Left wing politicians, and capitulating right wing politicians, and ohhh sooo concerned billionaires and mothers who demand things, among other so very concerned citizens, they do not work and infringe the rights of all US citizens, which I stated, because a politician thinks you can block a wave by holding your hand up. Their purpose is to make it more difficult to buy a gun in this country, while most of the time a BG check is a simple affair for the law abiding, it would be beyond enraging to have to go through similar measures to exercise any of our other rights, but, this is the world we live in, and when you have to wait for the BG check to come back clean it is a nuisance, and yes an infringement. But so is the constant surveillance, but our gun crowd ain’t too mobile about that.

        The gist of your statement is fantastically true, yes, criminals, or at the least people with bad records will be forced to the street for their gun needs, and BG checks can never, and will never stop that, but that will never stop a politician from claiming that it does. I don’t make law, I can only vote against them, and petition against them, it is the world we live in that half measures and empty gestures are the best we get from our representatives.

        That is the sum total of examples I can give you, as no law can deflect a bullet, or a bomb, nor keep a woman safe from a determined and opportunistic criminal, or a man from being shot, no background check can show intent, the purview of Hillary Clinton, per J. Comey, nothing can show future intent or action as that is the realm of fantasy. A realm shared by politicians, but there we are. I do not claim that they serve a good purpose only that they do serve a purpose, much like a spoon serves a purpose to a bowl of soup.

    • “So Background checks, NICS, Foreground Checks, and real-time mental state profiling, plus you add in all the Federal and State nonsense disguised as law gun control.”

      The exact definition of a police state!

      The instant such a condition exists in the United States is the instant that the purpose of the Second Amendment will be obvious – the need of the people to form militias to bear arms to throw off a tyrannical government.

      • In my opinion that Rubicon has already been crossed some time ago. The problem now is that it comes down to whether any of the citizenry is willing to put their lives in harms way, to decide whether a life with decreasing freedom is the life we want or dare to possibly go against the very power of the state to change it to what we feel it should be.
        I go round and round on this very issue.

        To fight for change in our time is the only avenue left to the citizenry of America, it pits us against the law enforcement system of every state, the National Guard when things get really bad, and the Army when things get worse.

        How many of us can truly stand up to that, how many can openly organize against a surveillance state that Hitler and Stalin would cream their shorts over. It would end before beginning, the all seeing eye would swoop down and gobble up all the Patriots before anyone could fart. I am saying we are ALREADY in a police state RIGHT NOW. NOW. For all the media naysayers against the Malheur Preserve “takeover”, to my mind it was like a negligent discharge, a bad one in which a single bad move results in death and media obfuscation. Was it wrong, right, does it matter anymore? The state already fears segments of the citizenry, and works actively to discredit any voice that screams for freedom from tyranny. That fear only increases the size and lethality of the state.

        We are hopelessly connected to a digital world that quantifies, and records all of our communication, even this diatribe right now is being flagged for specific keywords. There is nowhere to turn to, no great uprising, no organizing which won’t immediately be put down by state, local, and federal law enforcement. The very power of the state hangs in the balance, a balance that will be maintained at ALL COSTS.

        Even if Trump wins, what can we expect for 4 years, 8, if not Democratic intransigence, then more sit-in grandstanding. And what about when his term ends? I hope for the best but prepare as I am able for the worst.

    • True, because only citizens can vote, so there must be a means to prove citizenship.

      The right to keep and bear arms, on the other hand, applies to everyone.

      • The Founders were a bit sketchy on whether the Bill of Rights applied just to the citizens or also foreign nationals in the Colonies. They all have inalienable and natural rights, but whose rights is the Bill of Rights enumerating and reserving for the Federal government given it has jurisdiction of some foreigners here but not all?

  15. Except…..that background checks only apply to non-criminals. Criminals buy stolen guns, steal them themselves, buy them or are given them by friends and family. All of which is already illegal, by the way. Background checks are just a scam to make private sales of firearms illegal. That won’t affect criminals, either, but it make more expensive and inconvenient your lawful purchases of firearms.

    Eventually, they’ll constrict legal sales so much as to choke off supply altogether, which is the point. Then armed criminals run wild, while you’re helpless to do anything about it, except reply further on the government to save you.

  16. There’s a lot that Toomey doesn’t understand. Let’s hope we can add “how I could have lost this election” to the ever-growing list.

  17. POS. Where’s Twoomey breaking his ass to demand proof of citizenship for voting??????
    GOVERNMENT IS WE THE PEOPLE, IF YOU DON’T HAVE SOVEREIGNTY IN WE THE PEOPLE, THEN YOU DON’T HAVE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOVERNMENT (and I’m kicking your ass out of MY country).
    If you can chuck all that, it don’t make a F who has guns because you’ve lost the authority to govern you stupid mf.
    If you have to sell gun control to get elected where you are THEN YOU ARE ALL F’D in the head.

  18. People who say “I support the Second Amendment but….” DO NOT support the Second Amendment.

    NOWHERE in that Amendment does it list ANY circumstance where a persons right is allowed to be
    infringed in any way.

    People say that felons etc. should not be allowed to own firearms. In a rational world ANYONE who is too
    dangerous to be allowed to own weapons is too dangerous to be allowed to walk the streets. They belong
    in prison if they are dangerous criminals. If they have paid their debt than their obligation is fulfilled and
    THEY RETAIN ALL OF THEIR RIGHTS.

    When you start setting aside certain groups who can have their rights eliminated you have set the precedent
    to keep adding to that list till NOBODY has any rights. We started with felons….now that list includes veterans
    with PTSD and people with physician prescribed marijuana cards. What’s next? Once you set a precedent
    then a right ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege…..to be granted or withheld on the whim of some
    douchebag sitting behind a .gov desk.

  19. The “supreme court” (I use that term loosely), renders OPINIONS–nothing more. As most “supreme court” OPINIONS rendered in the last two-hundred years are clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL, I see no reason for any person to heed them. The CONSTITUTION trumps ALL invalid “supreme court” OPINIONS.
    Enough said…

  20. So Senator, how about IDs and background checks for voting? You can’t just let anyone vote you know.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *