Don't feel lonley strikefire83. I was totally for background checks, but some pretty persuasive arguments were made against it.
Compromise is only good for those with the most power, or those who will do anything to get what they want.
It looks to me like there are only two ways to go:
I still have concerns though, about the bloods, crips, hells angels, and other groups and or gangs like them, being able to carry legally. It seems to me the LEO's would have a tough time of it, having 2 Officers in a patrol car against a whole gang of legally armed thugs. They also believe in all for one and one for all.
Compromise is only good for those with the most power, or those who will do anything to get what they want.
It looks to me like there are only two ways to go:
Or the 2nd as it is written.I'll support background checks on buying firearms when such checks are required for convicted arsonists to buy gas or matches, for convicted pedophiles to buy computers, or for politicians and fools to utter an opinion.
I still have concerns though, about the bloods, crips, hells angels, and other groups and or gangs like them, being able to carry legally. It seems to me the LEO's would have a tough time of it, having 2 Officers in a patrol car against a whole gang of legally armed thugs. They also believe in all for one and one for all.