• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Universal Background Checks: If you are opposed, why?

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by wing2000, Jan 12, 2013.

  1. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

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

    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.

    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.

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

    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...

    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...

    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...

    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.

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

    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...

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

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

    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...

    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...

    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?

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

    Except Obama follows the same strategy...

    That sure didn't look like sarcasm...

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

    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...

    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...
    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...
  2. Jeffwhosoever

    Jeffwhosoever Faithful Servant Supporter

    United States
    Yes, I do. But first, clearly state what you want to accomplish.
  3. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

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

    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 "well regulated" do you not understand?

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

    I agree the vast majority aren't.

    Also true.

    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.

    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.

    Your point being....?

    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.

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

    Your point being...?

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

    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.

    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.

    And the Bush Administration said Iraq had WMDs.

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

    You didn't specify.

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

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

    What other ideas do you have?

    You're very literal, aren't you?

    Again, you didn't specify.

    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.

    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?

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

    Nope. I'm saying everyone does it.

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

    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.....
  4. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion
    Keeping the populace as safe from gun violence as possible.

    Especially kids.

    -- A2SG, sorry, but was that unclear?
  5. Blackguard_

    Blackguard_ Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

    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.

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

    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.

    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.
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2013
  6. Blackguard_

    Blackguard_ Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

    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.
  7. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion
    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?

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

    Thank you for your opinion.

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

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

    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.

    So, again, what do you suggest?

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

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion
    And that's a blatant mischaracterization.

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

    -- A2SG, especially me....
  9. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

    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.

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

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

    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...

    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.... :mmh:

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

    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...

    That you are giving a false equivalence...

    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...

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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...

    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.

    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.

    Yes, I am.

    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.

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

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

    Actually you kinda did.

    You were saying....

  10. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion
    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.

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

    That's the difference.

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

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

    I stand by what I said.

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

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

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

    Moving on...

    That particular equivalence was yours, not mine.

    I never even mentioned the things.

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

    Only if they agreed with you. Not everyone does.

    Might not be a bad idea to remember that.

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

    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.

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

    Not going to debate this with you, my friend.

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

    Moving on....

    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.

    Not my scenario.


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

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


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

    And I never asked.


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

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

    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.....
  11. mpok1519

    mpok1519 Veteran

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

    abysmul Board Game Hobbyist

    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

    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.
  13. wing2000

    wing2000 E pluribus unum Supporter

    United States
    So now we have our answer.

    Our Congress is financed and controlled by the NRA.
  14. wing2000

    wing2000 E pluribus unum Supporter

    United States
    NRA Lies.

  15. A2SG

    A2SG Gumby

    Other Religion
    In other news, the sun rose this morning.

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