A Call to Reason: Why Background Checks Don’t Work

Should the government infringe on rights granted in the constitution, for "public safety".

  • No. Personal safety is incumbent on the individual

  • No, but the public needs better education about gun safety and self defense

  • Yes, those deemed a danger to society- NO GUNS! Even at the expense of my rights.

  • Yes, I'm a fascist pig and I hate guns because I was programmed to in school.

  • Yes, people are too stupid to protect themselves


Results are only viewable after voting.
We have drunk driving laws to prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen.
:lol:
If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?
You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?
Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

What you said was so stupid that it shouldn't require a response. You made the case for getting rid of drunk driving laws.

You're an idiot.
He did no such thing You are the idiot here.

Then what is his point? Any sane person knows that deterrence isn't 100% effective.

btw, for context, he thinks there should be no background check laws for guns, whatsoever.
 
:lol:
If drunk driving laws prevent drunk driving crimes before they happen, why are there over a million arrests each year for DUI?
You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?
Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

What you said was so stupid that it shouldn't require a response. You made the case for getting rid of drunk driving laws.

You're an idiot.
He did no such thing You are the idiot here.

Then what is his point? Any sane person knows that deterrence isn't 100% effective.

btw, for context, he thinks there should be no background check laws for guns, whatsoever.
His point is that while laws might have some deterrent effect, the primary purpose is to punish wrongdoing after it happens. Is that too sublte for your limited understanding
I agree there should be no background checks for guns. I think there should be no more laws dealing with guns and gun ownership than there are for flat screen TV ownership.
 
You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?
Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

What you said was so stupid that it shouldn't require a response. You made the case for getting rid of drunk driving laws.

You're an idiot.
He did no such thing You are the idiot here.

Then what is his point? Any sane person knows that deterrence isn't 100% effective.

btw, for context, he thinks there should be no background check laws for guns, whatsoever.
His point is that while laws might have some deterrent effect, the primary purpose is to punish wrongdoing after it happens. Is that too sublte for your limited understanding
I agree there should be no background checks for guns. I think there should be no more laws dealing with guns and gun ownership than there are for flat screen TV ownership.

Then you're as stupid as he is.
 
Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

What you said was so stupid that it shouldn't require a response. You made the case for getting rid of drunk driving laws.

You're an idiot.
He did no such thing You are the idiot here.

Then what is his point? Any sane person knows that deterrence isn't 100% effective.

btw, for context, he thinks there should be no background check laws for guns, whatsoever.
His point is that while laws might have some deterrent effect, the primary purpose is to punish wrongdoing after it happens. Is that too sublte for your limited understanding
I agree there should be no background checks for guns. I think there should be no more laws dealing with guns and gun ownership than there are for flat screen TV ownership.

Then you're as stupid as he is.
Typical come back from you.
Your surrender on this topic is noted and accepted.
 
RIGHTS aren't granted in the Constitution as Rights are recognized as preexisting in the Constitution , Bill of Rights . Rights are pre existing and they are God given or what some people refer to as 'natural' Rights !!
I don't know if you are aware this but the Bill of Rights still has limitations. Take the 1st amendment for example. Defamation and child pornography are illegal. That means we can set limits on the 2nd.
Yes...because these things cause harm to others.
How does simple ownership/possession of a firearm cause harm to others?
Background checks are extremely important as are closing gun show loopholes.
The "gun show loophole" does not exist.
Virtually no one, especially democrats, want to ban the ownership of guns altogether.
Every anti-gun loon, virtually all of whom are Democrats, wants to restrict the right to arms as much as it can possibly be restricted, including the banning of rifles, shotguns and handguns.
Again I never said there was anything wrong with simply owning a gun. Democrats in office agree. You people just believe what you want to believe because it makes you feel validated about how you feel about the leftwing.
 
I thought I was pretty clear that bed wetters didn't need to contribute their insipid bullshit to this thread. I appreciated Kondor and Granpa MurkedU 's contributions, but libtards have nothing of value to contribute regarding rights they have contempt for.

They should be on other threads about pretend and phony rights like rump rangers getting married.

Someone might give a shit what they have to say there.


 
I thought I was pretty clear that bed wetters didn't need to contribute their insipid bullshit to this thread. I appreciated Kondor and Granpa MurkedU 's contributions, but libtards have nothing of value to contribute regarding rights they have contempt for.

They should be on other threads about pretend and phony rights like rump rangers getting married.

Someone might give a shit what they have to say there.


Who shit and made you a fake moderator, you fat pussy?
 
You're mentally retarded. NOW it's legalize drunk driving, eh?
Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

What you said was so stupid that it shouldn't require a response. You made the case for getting rid of drunk driving laws.

You're an idiot.
He did no such thing You are the idiot here.

Then what is his point? Any sane person knows that deterrence isn't 100% effective.

btw, for context, he thinks there should be no background check laws for guns, whatsoever.
His point is that while laws might have some deterrent effect, the primary purpose is to punish wrongdoing after it happens. Is that too sublte for your limited understanding
I agree there should be no background checks for guns. I think there should be no more laws dealing with guns and gun ownership than there are for flat screen TV ownership.

If there's no difference between a gun and a flat screen tv then defend your home with your tv.
 
The supreme court ruled that rights from the constitution can be reasonably regulated. I don't understand how background checks don't work, and your quote doesn't very well explain it. If someone has a reasonable criminal history, they probably shouldn't fucking have guns.

The entire point of owning a firearm is to protect yourself from criminals. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. A criminal history background check ensures that criminals won't legally acquire guns.


If someone has a criminal history, especially a violent one, they know where to buy guns illegally and will have one. I doubt that gang members went through background checks and they are responsible for most shootings. Background checks only affect those who walk into a store to legally purchase a gun. Common sense tells you that criminals really aren't that into following laws.
 
driving on public streets is said to be a Privledge while Arms and the second amendment is a RIGHT 'Carabineer' !!

Don't expect a government-loving lib to know the difference. They think everything comes from government.
 
check out Feinstein Billy , she'd confiscate them all if she could !! He11 , read some of the posters in this thread and other gun threads on this board . Those posters probably have no power to confiscate but they support the likes of Feinstein , Chucky Schumer , other dems , some rino republicans etc , etc !! Yeah Billy , disarming of the English happened as regards handguns . The only ones with handguns in England now are the queen , elites , rich and connected and the CRIMINALS !! Dems and lefties see England as the model for the USA !!
 
What you said was so stupid that it shouldn't require a response. You made the case for getting rid of drunk driving laws.

You're an idiot.
He did no such thing You are the idiot here.

Then what is his point? Any sane person knows that deterrence isn't 100% effective.

btw, for context, he thinks there should be no background check laws for guns, whatsoever.
His point is that while laws might have some deterrent effect, the primary purpose is to punish wrongdoing after it happens. Is that too sublte for your limited understanding
I agree there should be no background checks for guns. I think there should be no more laws dealing with guns and gun ownership than there are for flat screen TV ownership.

Then you're as stupid as he is.
Typical come back from you.
Your surrender on this topic is noted and accepted.

Someone who can't tell the difference between a gun and a tv is retarded. That is you.
 
The most notorious school shooting in U.S. history happened a couple of years ago in Va. Tech Blacksburg. The shooter was able to pass the background check because the (mostly democrat) do-gooders decided that the privacy issue trumped public safety so that the background check did not include court ordered (or any other) psychiatric information even though the law mandated it. The shooter was so well known as a nut case that professors were afraid to be alone with him and yet when a coed accused him of stalking, the University pulled some strings with the local P.D. and he was not arrested because that would have embarrassed the school. The obviously dangerous student who should have been arrested for stalking was instead ordered to attend psychiatric counseling and in the mean time was able to purchase a semi-automatic firearm because the caring democrat party did not want court ordered psychiatric counseling to be a stigma. I understand the glitch has been fixed.
 
Thank you for illustrating that we both know you have no effective response to what I said.

What you said was so stupid that it shouldn't require a response. You made the case for getting rid of drunk driving laws.

You're an idiot.
He did no such thing You are the idiot here.

Then what is his point? Any sane person knows that deterrence isn't 100% effective.

btw, for context, he thinks there should be no background check laws for guns, whatsoever.
His point is that while laws might have some deterrent effect, the primary purpose is to punish wrongdoing after it happens. Is that too sublte for your limited understanding
I agree there should be no background checks for guns. I think there should be no more laws dealing with guns and gun ownership than there are for flat screen TV ownership.

If there's no difference between a gun and a flat screen tv then defend your home with your tv.
Who said there was no difference? Again when you are losing you put words in people's m ouths and then call out your strawman.
Your defeat on this topic is noted and accepted.
 
The supreme court ruled that rights from the constitution can be reasonably regulated. I don't understand how background checks don't work, and your quote doesn't very well explain it. If someone has a reasonable criminal history, they probably shouldn't fucking have guns.

The entire point of owning a firearm is to protect yourself from criminals. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. A criminal history background check ensures that criminals won't legally acquire guns.

Please read the entire article.

Twice or three times if you can't understand it because it's written at a 12th grade level. Ask questions of need be.

As it has been pointed out, BG checks have failed to prevent violent felons from acquiring guns. If they want one, they will strangle a weaker police officer to obtain one if they have to.

I also have enough respect for people who have served their time and am willing to give them a chance to protect themselves from their peers. They shouldn't be free if they're a threat to the public. If they violate that trust, a law isn't going to stop them, nor will the threat of more prison time.


 
RIGHTS aren't granted in the Constitution as Rights are recognized as preexisting in the Constitution , Bill of Rights . Rights are pre existing and they are God given or what some people refer to as 'natural' Rights !!
I don't know if you are aware this but the Bill of Rights still has limitations. Take the 1st amendment for example. Defamation and child pornography are illegal. That means we can set limits on the 2nd.
Yes...because these things cause harm to others.
How does simple ownership/possession of a firearm cause harm to others?
Background checks are extremely important as are closing gun show loopholes.
The "gun show loophole" does not exist.
Virtually no one, especially democrats, want to ban the ownership of guns altogether.
Every anti-gun loon, virtually all of whom are Democrats, wants to restrict the right to arms as much as it can possibly be restricted, including the banning of rifles, shotguns and handguns.
Again I never said there was anything wrong with simply owning a gun. Democrats in office agree.
None of this in any way negates anything I said.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top