Universal Background Checks: If you are opposed, why?

[GarfieldJL]

Dude, the government IS the people. Didn't you ever read the Constitution?

The Constitution was also written to prevent people from giving up their rights in a panic...

Who said it was arbitrary?

See, here's the difference, if you missed it: there is NO proper usage of a car that includes hitting a person with it. That is not the case with a gun, as hitting your intended target (which may or may not be a person) IS the proper usage.

Hitting deer with a car isn't exactly the proper usage of an automobile either... Shooting a deer for meat is a proper use of a firearm...

What part of: "shall not be infringed..." do you not understand.

Yup. And I have no problem with any gun that has no one touching the trigger. Problem is, people buy them and do that.

Most people that own firearms do not want to shoot anyone, if they get a gun for self-defense then they are praying they never will have to use it in such a manner.

Gun owners are not bloodthirsty maniacs, and firearms are not inheritly good or evil.

Whether or not I, personally, can tell the difference doesn't matter. I'm not writing the legislation.

Problem is the people writing the legislation have the same level of knowledge or lack thereof that you do...

And my personal knowledge about guns doesn't change the point, which is that it isn't an "essential liberty" to have unfettered and absolute access to any and all forms of weaponry. Your liberty and right to bear arms is intact even if certain types of weapons are banned or limited. Same logic for why you can't have a nuclear weapon.

A nuclear weapon would not be considered arms as covered under the 2nd Amendment...

Btw, as interesting as the picture of someone taking a canon to go hunting is, fact of the matter is that a canon is an artillery piece...

I don't, and further, I don't care.

Which is why you don't have any credibility on the subject. A civilian AR-15 is a semi-automatic, not an automatic weapon. The fact the internal components are incompatible, means that the civilian version cannot be turned into an automatic weapon...

Not really. The only difference would be time. A knife killer needs more time to kill the same number of victims as someone with an automatic weapon.

Actually it has more to do with proficiency with the weapon as well as some key differences. While yes an AR-15 (the civilian version is not an automatic weapon btw) could rack up a larger body count in a short timeframe, generally you have the issue of noise, additionally someone with no proficiency with an AR 15 could empty an entire clip/magazine/etc. and not hit anyone... From a practical standpoint, a person using a knife actually can rack up a larger body count than a person with a gun, because a knife doesn't leave forensic evidence all over the place for starters...

I did no such thing.

Actually you kinda did when you brought up the Newton Shooter, whom clearly had something more going on than Autism... People on the spectrum are more apt to be the victims of violent crimes than the one whom committed the crime.

Then take it up with your elected representatives. That's why you voted for them.

My elected Representatives (at least the ones I voted for) are not supporting this stupid piece of legislation...

Okay. And what about the guns in the hands of Americans who are murdering Americans with them?

Assuming it wasn't a case of self defense, isn't it already a crime to murder someone? Charge them with murder, just like you'd charge someone who stabbed someone to death with a knife...

Far as I can tell, all polls yield similar results, so it seems the idea is put forth pretty clearly in all cases.

Which tells us nothing as to what the people were actually asked...

Care to offer specifics on that?

The promises regarding Obamacare, the promise to bring people to justice concerning Benghazi...

And I would argue that arming first grade teachers is insane.

I wasn't aware that the Principal for instance was a 1st grade teacher... Also sometimes school officials are retired police officers, whom are supposed to have training as to how to use a firearm...

Neither will a lot of bystanders.

That explains why that person in that theatre in Colorado, that had a concealed firearm didn't gun down a bunch of people... In fact he didn't pull the trigger because he couldn't get a clear shot at the maniac going on a bloody rampage (and police were very lucky to later not be blown up by the bombs that nut had rigged to explode)...

People with conceal & carry permits don't go around thinking they can start acting like a gunslinger from an old western, rather than insulting them, maybe you should give them enough credit that they know how to handle a gun in a responsible fashion...

Again, if you're suggesting arming first grade teachers, I think you've watched too many Die Hard movies.

Uh none of the Die Hard movies had the main character teaching a class of 1st Graders... Are you by chance thinking of Kindergarden Cop?

There have to be better ideas than that.

Actually I was thinking of people in the Main Office having guns, not 1st grade teachers...

Uh, yeah, I know. My point is...he isn't.

He's the Mayor of Chicago.

As such, his opinion matters about as much as Tom Menino's does.

Except Obama follows the same strategy...

What, you never heard of sarcasm?

That sure didn't look like sarcasm...

Still got nothin' on the emotional blackmail used by anti-abortion advocates.

You're right, at least the pro-lifers are proposing things that would actually save the lives of children and are being intellectually honest...

So, basically, it's a zero sum game.

First you say pro-lifers are even worse about using emotional blackmail, then you're saying the two are the same... Uh aren't you kinda contradicting yourself again...

Let's not forget, the Bush Administration tried something similar too. So while I don't disagree that it was a bad idea, the Obama administration doesn't have a monopoly on bad ideas.

Maybe you should do your homework before making such claims... To claim Operation Wide Receiver was the same as Fast & Furious is downright laughable.

1. Wide Receiver had GPS tracking devices implanted in the guns, Fast & Furious did not.
2. The Mexican Government was well aware of Wide Receiver, but they were left completely in the dark regarding Fast & Furious
3. ATF agents were not ordered to halt their tracking of firearms carried by known smugglers in Wide Receiver, a stark difference from Fast & Furious.
4. When guns started disappearing in Wide Receiver, the program was immediately shut down so as not to endanger the general public. Fast & Furious on the other hand was continued even when thousands of guns had gone missing...

-- A2SG, and further, since it illustrates how bad an idea it is to have more guns out there, it doesn't exactly help your case....

Saying that making it easier for law abiding citizens to have guns is remotely equivalent to deliberately giving a couple thousand guns to drug cartels, is more than a little dishonest, don't you think...

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Which only proves that doing nothing won't help the situation, which is what I've been saying all along.

So, got any ideas?

-- A2SG, and please, do not say "more guns," because that clearly won't solve the problem....

Yes, I do. But first, clearly state what you want to accomplish.

 

[A2SG]

The Constitution was also written to prevent people from giving up their rights in a panic...

No one's giving up any rights. The right to bear arms, like all rights, isn't absolute.

Hitting deer with a car isn't exactly the proper usage of an automobile either... Shooting a deer for meat is a proper use of a firearm...

Exactly my point. When operated properly, a gun can kill; when operated properly, a car can't. That's why I contend that guns are more dangerous than cars, and their usage and availability needs to be regulated even more than cars are.

What part of: "shall not be infringed..." do you not understand.

What part of "well regulated" do you not understand?

Most people that own firearms do not want to shoot anyone, if they get a gun for self-defense then they are praying they never will have to use it in such a manner.

I hope that's true...but considering the language of some gun advocates, I wonder sometimes.

Gun owners are not bloodthirsty maniacs,

I agree the vast majority aren't.

and firearms are not inheritly good or evil.

Also true.

Problem is the people writing the legislation have the same level of knowledge or lack thereof that you do...

That's incorrect. No one with my level of knowledge (or lack thereof) about guns would allowed anywhere near the writing of gun legislation.

As with all things, the legislation will be written by whichever lobby spent the most on campaign contributions.

A nuclear weapon would not be considered arms as covered under the 2nd Amendment...

So why should an assault weapon be? Clearly, nobody in 1776 was thinking of them at the time. If you want to contend that only 18th Century weapons be allowed, I'd have no problem with that.

Btw, as interesting as the picture of someone taking a canon to go hunting is, fact of the matter is that a canon is an artillery piece...

Your point being....?

Which is why you don't have any credibility on the subject.

Considering I never spoke a word on the subject of specific weaponry, I never claimed to have any.

That doesn't negate what I have said, though.

Actually you kinda did when you brought up the Newton Shooter, whom clearly had something more going on than Autism...

I have no idea if he does or doesn't, and I certainly never said a word about it.

People on the spectrum are more apt to be the victims of violent crimes than the one whom committed the crime.

Your point being...?

My elected Representatives (at least the ones I voted for) are not supporting this stupid piece of legislation...

So your voice will be heard when they vote against it.

Okay. And what about the guns in the hands of Americans who are murdering Americans with them?

Assuming it wasn't a case of self defense, isn't it already a crime to murder someone? Charge them with murder, just like you'd charge someone who stabbed someone to death with a knife...

Of course.

But the point here is that we, as a society, have to do something to try and prevent tragedies like this BEFORE they happen, or at least curtail them as best we can. Personally, I think universal background checks and limiting the availability of certain types of weaponry is a step toward that goal.

Which tells us nothing as to what the people were actually asked...

Maybe not, but it does seem to indicate that, however the questions were asked, the results came out close to the same in every case.

The promises regarding Obamacare, the promise to bring people to justice concerning Benghazi...

And the Bush Administration said Iraq had WMDs.

Sorry, but the Obama administration doesn't have a monopoly on rhetoric not matching with reality.

I wasn't aware that the Principal for instance was a 1st grade teacher...

You didn't specify.

Also sometimes school officials are retired police officers, whom are supposed to have training as to how to use a firearm...

As I've said elsewhere, having a cop on detail is one thing, but arming teachers is something else entirely.

That explains why that person in that theatre in Colorado, that had a concealed firearm didn't gun down a bunch of people... In fact he didn't pull the trigger because he couldn't get a clear shot at the maniac going on a bloody rampage (and police were very lucky to later not be blown up by the bombs that nut had rigged to explode)...

People with conceal & carry permits don't go around thinking they can start acting like a gunslinger from an old western, rather than insulting them, maybe you should give them enough credit that they know how to handle a gun in a responsible fashion...

And you've just proven my case, more guns isn't a magic solution.

What other ideas do you have?

Uh none of the Die Hard movies had the main character teaching a class of 1st Graders... Are you by chance thinking of Kindergarden Cop?

You're very literal, aren't you?

Actually I was thinking of people in the Main Office having guns, not 1st grade teachers...

Again, you didn't specify.

Except Obama follows the same strategy...

Kinda depends on your perspective. Someone else could say that he listened to the will of the people and acted accordingly, like an elected representative should.

That sure didn't look like sarcasm...

You didn't sense the exaggeration in what I said? You seriously thought I was contending that emotions have never before prompted political action until December 2012?

You're right, at least the pro-lifers are proposing things that would actually save the lives of children and are being intellectually honest...

Don't look now, but your bias is showing.

So, basically, it's a zero sum game.

First you say pro-lifers are even worse about using emotional blackmail, then you're saying the two are the same... Uh aren't you kinda contradicting yourself again...

Nope. I'm saying everyone does it.

Maybe you should do your homework before making such claims... To claim Operation Wide Receiver was the same as Fast & Furious is downright laughable.

Then please note that I didn't make the claim.

Saying that making it easier for law abiding citizens to have guns is remotely equivalent to deliberately giving a couple thousand guns to drug cartels, is more than a little dishonest, don't you think...

Considering I didn't say that, whatever dishonesty you see isn't mine.

-- A2SG, think you need to be better at seeing what claims I made and which ones I didn't make before you criticize me on them.....

 

[A2SG]

Yes, I do. But first, clearly state what you want to accomplish.

Keeping the populace as safe from gun violence as possible.

Especially kids.

-- A2SG, sorry, but was that unclear?

 

[Blackguard_]

What part of "well regulated" do you not understand?

The MILITIA is supposed to be well regulated, not the right to keep and bear arms.

Come back when you propose a law requiring all able bodied males to show up to church with a firearm or target practice or something.

Come on, this "a well regulated militia means we can ban the neutered version of bog standard military shoulder/side arms, even though gun ownership not being tied to militia service was the point of the second amendment" stuff is just stupid and/or dishonest.

So why should an assault weapon be?

Because it's what would have been categorized at the time as an "arm", as opposed to a bomb which would be "ordnance".

If you want to contend that only 18th Century weapons be allowed, I'd have no problem with that.

I somehow doubt you'd want to ban modern high capacity automatic assault presses though.

"the pen is mightier than the sword" isn't it? "The Communist Manifesto has killed more people than my gun" So the press is more dangerous than guns and should be even more heavily regulated.

I think you should need a background check to post on the internet or have a website.

Personally, I think universal background checks and limiting the availability of certain types of weaponry is a step toward that goal.

Which is ridiculous, because these things are typically well planned out. These are not people who just snap and grab a gun and go to town. They will jump through your hoops and even in that Gun Control Utopia of the UK there was a spree shooter a few years ago who killed a dozen people with a .22 and a double barreled shotgun.

 

[Blackguard_]

Yes, I do. But first, clearly state what you want to accomplish.

Not a good question. As he showed, anti-gun people are verily narrowly focused on gun crime. They don't much care about people stabbed or beaten to death, or that to lower gun crime you have to drastically limit the arms available to law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

 

[A2SG]

The MILITIA is supposed to be well regulated, not the right to keep and bear arms.

And since the right to bear arms is based on the idea that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, shouldn't everyone who bears those arms be part of one?

If we regard a militia as all gun owners (as some have contended), then who regulates them?

Come back when you propose a law requiring all able bodied males to show up to church with a firearm or target practice or something.

Why would I ever want to do something like that??

Come on, this "a well regulated militia means we can ban the neutered version of bog standard military shoulder arms, even though gun ownership not being tied to militia service was the point of the second amendment" stuff is just stupid and/or dishonest.

Thank you for your opinion.

Because it's what would have been categorized at the time as an "arm", as opposed to a bomb which would be "ordnance".

If we're only going by what was considered "arms" in the 18th Century, then anything beyond a musket is right out.

I somehow doubt you'd want to ban modern high capacity automatic assault presses though.

Once again, I can't speak to specific types of weaponry.

"the pen is mightier than the sword" isn't it? So the press is more dangerous than guns and should be even more heavily regulated.

And it is regulated. Ever hear of libel?

As to the degree of regulation, well....no newspaper in history has ever directly killed 20 first graders, so metaphors aside, guns are more dangerous than newspapers.

Which is ridiculous, because these things are typically well planned out. These are not people who just snap and grab a gun and go to town. They will jump through your hoops and even in that Gun Control Utopia of the UK there was a mass shooter who killed a dozen people with a .22 and a double barreled shotgun.

So, again, what do you suggest?

-- A2SG, beyond "more guns!", cuz that's about all I ever hear......

 

[A2SG]

Not a good question. As he showed, anti-gun people are verily narrowly focused on gun crime. They don't much care about people stabbed or beaten to death, or that to lower gun crime you have to drastically limit the arms available to law-abiding citizens to defend themselves.

And that's a blatant mischaracterization.

From now on, please try to refrain from trying to speak for other people, mmmkay?

-- A2SG, especially me....

 

[GarfieldJL]

No one's giving up any rights. The right to bear arms, like all rights, isn't absolute.

The Right to Bear Arms is the keystone amendment, which means one has to be very careful about anything that potentially limits the 2nd Amendment.

Exactly my point. When operated properly, a gun can kill; when operated properly, a car can't. That's why I contend that guns are more dangerous than cars, and their usage and availability needs to be regulated even more than cars are.

Actually it still can, the operator of an automobile (barring defects in the car) is determining how they are using the car.

What part of "well regulated" do you not understand?

Setting things up for confiscation, is not "well regulate" it is depriving people of their 2nd Amendment rights...

I hope that's true...but considering the language of some gun advocates, I wonder sometimes.

Maybe you should start checking things out for yourself and not listen to talking heads at MSNBC, I remember some leftist claiming Glenn Beck was calling for people to go shoot liberals in the head... Well I tracked down the actual segment where Glenn Beck supposedly said that, and that wasn't what he was saying at all, he was talking about the people that liberals have been associating with over in the middle east when they had no clue about who they were supporting in the "Arab Spring" was incredibly stupid at best...

That's incorrect. No one with my level of knowledge (or lack thereof) about guns would allowed anywhere near the writing of gun legislation.

WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette has been the lead sponsor on a federal ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines in two Congresses, saying it’s one of her top priorities.
But Tuesday at a Denver Post forum on the gun control debate, the senior congresswoman from Denver appeared to not understand how guns work.
Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said:
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”
What she didn’t appear to understand is that a magazine can be reloaded with more bullets. According to the Shooter’s Log, only early on were magazines for AR-15s designed to be disposable, but the military changed that and now magazines are used several times. In handguns, a magazine is designed to be reused hundreds of times.

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

You were saying....

As with all things, the legislation will be written by whichever lobby spent the most on campaign contributions.

Which is another good reason why any legislation needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb...

So why should an assault weapon be? Clearly, nobody in 1776 was thinking of them at the time. If you want to contend that only 18th Century weapons be allowed, I'd have no problem with that.

Problem is that just about every firearm could be classified as an assault weapon based on the definition that the Democrats are using...

The civilian AR-15 like most popular handguns, rifles, etc. is a semi-automatic weapon. So this "assault weapons" ban is essentially targetting the most common firearms that people own, it is not targetting things like Machine guns, which are already illegal for a civilian to own if it was made after a certain date...

Your point being....?

That you are giving a false equivalence...

Considering I never spoke a word on the subject of specific weaponry, I never claimed to have any.

You brought up things like gatling guns, well the original version of a gatling gun, was mounted like a canon, so it would be classified as an artillery piece...

I have no idea if he does or doesn't, and I certainly never said a word about it.

Supposedly he did, however his behavior was completely outside the norms for someone with Autism, and a lot of people on the spectrum are scared that people will think they are homicidal maniacs when they aren't.

So your voice will be heard when they vote against it.

If people were serious about their oaths of office the vote would be unanimous against this piece of legislation.

But the point here is that we, as a society, have to do something to try and prevent tragedies like this BEFORE they happen, or at least curtail them as best we can. Personally, I think universal background checks and limiting the availability of certain types of weaponry is a step toward that goal.

Which cannot be done without every gun in the country being registered which endangers our 2nd Amendment rights and violates the 4th Amendment.

Furthermore, this legislation would not have prevented what happened nor was it intended as such, this is the same piece of legislation that Democrats have been trying to ram through for decades.

Maybe not, but it does seem to indicate that, however the questions were asked, the results came out close to the same in every case.

Yeah and a significant number of people in 2008 thought Sarah Palin was Obama's running-mate...

And the Bush Administration said Iraq had WMDs.

Sorry, but the Obama administration doesn't have a monopoly on rhetoric not matching with reality.

Bush was going off the intelligence reports that the CIA gave him.

Bad intell =/= rhetoric

Also for the record, the reason countries like France didn't want us going into Iraq, was because it would upset their profitting off of the oil for food scam, where they were selling military equipment to Saddam...

As I've said elsewhere, having a cop on detail is one thing, but arming teachers is something else entirely.

Having the gun in the classroom where a child could readily access it is stupid, but children generally aren't given free reign in the main office... Children generally aren't as educated about guns as they were a century ago, children of a hundred years ago understood that guns were not toys.

And you've just proven my case, more guns isn't a magic solution.

Actually I just disproved your wild west scenario of people with a conceal carry permit shooting with complete disregard of innocent bystanders...

Most people didn't have their gun on them, and it was either locked up in their car or at home.

You're very literal, aren't you?

Yes, I am.

Kinda depends on your perspective. Someone else could say that he listened to the will of the people and acted accordingly, like an elected representative should.

If someone is violating their oath of office left and right, then quite frankly the idea that they are listening to the will of the people is rather stupid.

You didn't sense the exaggeration in what I said? You seriously thought I was contending that emotions have never before prompted political action until December 2012?

Actually it is hard to tell, because often people seem to have an incredibly short memory.

Don't look now, but your bias is showing.

And I'm proud of the fact that I'm pro-life.

Then please note that I didn't make the claim.

Actually you kinda did.

Let's not forget, the Bush Administration tried something similar too. So while I don't disagree that it was a bad idea, the Obama administration doesn't have a monopoly on bad ideas.

Considering I didn't say that, whatever dishonesty you see isn't mine.

Let's not forget, the Bush Administration tried something similar too. So while I don't disagree that it was a bad idea, the Obama administration doesn't have a monopoly on bad ideas.

You were saying....

-- A2SG, think you need to be better at seeing what claims I made and which ones I didn't make before you criticize me on them.....

Let's not forget, the Bush Administration tried something similar too. So while I don't disagree that it was a bad idea, the Obama administration doesn't have a monopoly on bad ideas.

Riighhttt....

 

[A2SG]

The Right to Bear Arms is the keystone amendment, which means one has to be very careful about anything that potentially limits the 2nd Amendment.

I'm not sure what you mean by "keystone amendment", but the fact is, we can limit what kinds of weaponry are legally allowed without infringing the right to bear arms. Just like we can limit what you are legally allowed to say without infringing the right to free speech.

Actually it still can, the operator of an automobile (barring defects in the car) is determining how they are using the car.

But a car, when used properly, doesn't kill. A gun, when used properly, can.

That's the difference.

Setting things up for confiscation, is not "well regulate" it is depriving people of their 2nd Amendment rights...

No one is confiscating all of your guns. Don't listen to the paranoia.

Maybe you should start checking things out for yourself and not listen to talking heads at MSNBC....

I'll ignore this rant, since it has nothing to do with me or anything I've said.

That's incorrect. No one with my level of knowledge (or lack thereof) about guns would allowed anywhere near the writing of gun legislation.

Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette has been the lead sponsor....

Rep. Diana DeGette appears not to understand how guns work

You were saying....

I stand by what I said.

By the way....you do know that sponsoring a bill isn't the same as writing it, right?

Which is another good reason why any legislation needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb...

So contact your elected representatives and make sure they do so.

Problem is that just about every firearm could be classified as an assault weapon based on the definition that the Democrats are using...

So, again, speak to your elected representatives about changing that definition or defining it better.

The civilian AR-15 like...

Moving on...

Btw, as interesting as the picture of someone taking a canon to go hunting is, fact of the matter is that a canon is an artillery piece...

Your point being....?

That you are giving a false equivalence...

That particular equivalence was yours, not mine.

You brought up things like gatling guns, well the original version of a gatling gun, was mounted like a canon, so it would be classified as an artillery piece...

I never even mentioned the things.

Supposedly he did, however his behavior was completely outside the norms for someone with Autism, and a lot of people on the spectrum are scared that people will think they are homicidal maniacs when they aren't.

Once again, I never said a word about that, so I can't comment.

If people were serious about their oaths of office the vote would be unanimous against this piece of legislation.

Only if they agreed with you. Not everyone does.

Might not be a bad idea to remember that.

Which cannot be done without every gun in the country being registered which endangers our 2nd Amendment rights and violates the 4th Amendment.

Registering every gun in the country (which, let's note, is not being proposed) does not violate either amendment.

Furthermore, this legislation would not have prevented what happened nor was it intended as such, this is the same piece of legislation that Democrats have been trying to ram through for decades.

No one is saying that any piece of legislation can prevent every possible crime. What the proposed laws are trying to do, on the other hand, is take reasonable steps to prevent as many as we can.

And there is nothing unreasonable about universal background checks or limits on the availability of certain types of dangerous weaponry.

Yeah and a significant number of people in 2008 thought Sarah Palin was Obama's running-mate...

How are you defining "significant" here? Because the number of people that deluded isn't anywhere near 90%.

Bush was going off the intelligence reports that the CIA gave him.

Bad intell =/= rhetoric

Not going to debate this with you, my friend.

But the fact is, reality didn't match the rhetoric.

Also for the record.....

Moving on....

Having the gun in the classroom where a child could readily access it is stupid, but children generally aren't given free reign in the main office... Children generally aren't as educated about guns as they were a century ago, children of a hundred years ago understood that guns were not toys.

Yes, there's a difference between life in the 18th Century and life in the 21st.

I say let's concentrate on the 21st now.

Actually I just disproved your wild west scenario of people with a conceal carry permit shooting with complete disregard of innocent bystanders...

Not my scenario.

Most people didn't have their gun on them, and it was either locked up in their car or at home.

Good.

You're very literal, aren't you?

Yes, I am.

Then I may as well warn you, I use metaphors like Carter has little liver pills.

If someone is violating their oath of office left and right, then quite frankly the idea that they are listening to the will of the people is rather stupid.

Nothing about calling for responsible gun legislation is a violation of President Obama's oath of office.

You didn't sense the exaggeration in what I said? You seriously thought I was contending that emotions have never before prompted political action until December 2012?

Actually it is hard to tell, because often people seem to have an incredibly short memory.

Seriously?

Man, you need to be able to recognize sarcasm and hyperbole, or you won't survive the internet!

And I'm proud of the fact that I'm pro-life.

And I never asked.

Then please note that I didn't make the claim.

Actually you kinda did.

Nope.

Believe me, I'm very careful about what I say.

But feel free to go back and check again, if you like.

You were saying....

I stand by what I said.

What's your problem with it?

-- A2SG, methinks you misunderstood something there, but you'll have to tell me where your problem is before I can explain it to you.....

 

[mpok1519]

So once the background checks are completed and the gun sales are complete, what stops the new gun owner from becoming "unstable" in the future?

The background checks aren't designed to stop the new gun owner from becoming unstable in the future.

 

[abysmul]

Our founders fought their own government, a terrible and bloody war, to gain their independence.

IMHO: it was thought necessary to amend the Constitution so that future generations would be able to keep any future oppressive government at bay, or if need be, overthrown.

The government "registering" and tracking gun owners gives too much data and power unto the federal government. It should be none of their business.

On top of that the system is faulty.

Case in point:

Tennis Maynard: Man suspected of killing West Virginia sheriff was able to buy a gun after release from mental hospital because his data wasn't entered into federal database | Mail Online

Investigators say the dealer followed federal guidelines and ran a background check on him, but found nothing questionable.

Maynard passed the background check because data regarding his medical history hadn't yet been entered into a federal database that exists to keep the mentally unstable from getting guns.
'It appears the local dealer did what was legally required under the law,' Mingo County Prosecutor Michael Sparks said. 'The breakdown happened somewhere else. There was a delay in the reporting of the necessary information. Really, an inexcusable delay.'

Look at how many times the security at airports has been breached (just in people doing it on purpose to PROVE it can be done). Look at how much fraud and abuse of the federal entitlement and welfare and disability type programs there is. The fed doesn't do much of anything very well or very efficiently.

On top of that look at the number of federal, state, and local gun control laws already on the books. Look at how strict the laws are in places like Chicago, and how much gun violence they have on a daily basis. There's no convincing evidence that more laws will fix any problem.

Look at the number of gun related crimes compared to the number of gun control laws charted over our nation's history and I bet you see the crime go up right along with the number of gun laws.

 

[wing2000]

So now we have our answer.

Our Congress is financed and controlled by the NRA.

 

[wing2000]

NRA Lies.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., a pro-gun senator with an “A”-rating from the National Rifle Association, on Wednesday accused the most powerful gun lobby in America of lying about the background checks bill he recently introduced to the Senate.

The senator was speaking out against the claim the NRA made in a letter that the measure he brokered with Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., will “criminalize the private transfer of firearms.”

“That is a lie,” Manchin told his colleagues as he continues to fight to get the 60 votes needed to get the bill out of the Senate. “That is simply a lie, and anybody who can read knows that is not factual.”

Manchin: NRA Lied About Background Checks Bill

Excerpt from the NRA Letter:

From the NRA letter: S. 649, the “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”, introduced on March 21, contains a number of provisions that would unfairly infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners. This legislation would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honest citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. The NRA is unequivocally opposed to S. 649.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/n...nited-states-senate-on-background-checks.aspx

 

[A2SG]

NRA Lies.

In other news, the sun rose this morning.

-- A2SG, and now Chuck with the sports....