Background Checks

[M14 Shooter]

I think your points are silly. I thought I already said that.

You have, as yet, presented anythig to show how it is unsound.

What you want is no different that requiring CNN to present a story to the FCC so the FCC can determine if the story slanders someone or is an act of libel, and then allow/disallow the broadcast of the story on that basis.

While I'm beginning to see your POV, its not something I can understand.

That's on you, not me.

I started a thread with a poll about it. I'm curious to see just how many people agree with you that we shouldn't make sure that the person buying a gun isn't a criminal or a crazy person.

Fallacy: Appeal tp poularity.

 

[ClosedCaption]

In my state there is no waiting period. I want a gun, i walk into a shop fill out a form, present my DL, and they run a background check. Then I walk out with a gun.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Without the background check how would we know if the person buying the firearm was legally allowed?

Please allow me to repeat myself:
You proceed from the false premise that a law can stop someone from breakling the law.

The law against criminal posession of a firearm is not desunged to, not ever intended to prevent criminals from getting guns -- it is there as a means to prosecute/punish them if they do.

You are again making up the false premise then applying it to Amy.

Laws aren't created for that purpose

 

[Spoonman]

I think your points are silly. I thought I already said that.

While I'm beginning to see your POV, its not something I can understand. I started a thread with a poll about it. I'm curious to see just how many people agree with you that we shouldn't make sure that the person buying a gun isn't a criminal or a crazy person.

if we are so sure background checks are going to work. are rally going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and only in the hands of responsible gun owners, why not recommend legislation requiring background checks but at the same time removing the limitations on what responsible gun owners who pass checks can own. I mean really, if a person is deemed responsible through a background check, what difference does it make that their gun has a pistol grip and a bayonet lug or a flash hider?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think your points are silly. I thought I already said that.

While I'm beginning to see your POV, its not something I can understand. I started a thread with a poll about it. I'm curious to see just how many people agree with you that we shouldn't make sure that the person buying a gun isn't a criminal or a crazy person.

if we are so sure background checks are going to work. are rally going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and only in the hands of responsible gun owners, why not recommend legislation requiring background checks but at the same time removing the limitations on what responsible gun owners who pass checks can own. I mean really, if a person is deemed responsible through a background check, what difference does it make that their gun has a pistol grip and a bayonet lug or a flash hider?

Or full-auto.

 

[AmyNation]

I think your points are silly. I thought I already said that.

While I'm beginning to see your POV, its not something I can understand. I started a thread with a poll about it. I'm curious to see just how many people agree with you that we shouldn't make sure that the person buying a gun isn't a criminal or a crazy person.

if we are so sure background checks are going to work. are rally going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and only in the hands of responsible gun owners, why not recommend legislation requiring background checks but at the same time removing the limitations on what responsible gun owners who pass checks can own. I mean really, if a person is deemed responsible through a background check, what difference does it make that their gun has a pistol grip and a bayonet lug or a flash hider?

I oppose laws that limit the type of gun a person may own.

 

[Spoonman]

I think your points are silly. I thought I already said that.

While I'm beginning to see your POV, its not something I can understand. I started a thread with a poll about it. I'm curious to see just how many people agree with you that we shouldn't make sure that the person buying a gun isn't a criminal or a crazy person.

if we are so sure background checks are going to work. are rally going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and only in the hands of responsible gun owners, why not recommend legislation requiring background checks but at the same time removing the limitations on what responsible gun owners who pass checks can own. I mean really, if a person is deemed responsible through a background check, what difference does it make that their gun has a pistol grip and a bayonet lug or a flash hider?

Or full-auto.

exactly, you can fire a semi auto almost as fast a a full auto. it really is a joke.

 

[The Rabbi]

We have plently of laws that restict substances and equipment that is deemed dangerous.

And how has that worked out?

Is there any city in the U.S. where cocaine is legal?
Is there any city in the U.S. where you cannot buy cocaine?

Prior to 1968 there was effectively no gun control. And there was much less crime.

 

[Spoonman]

I think your points are silly. I thought I already said that.

While I'm beginning to see your POV, its not something I can understand. I started a thread with a poll about it. I'm curious to see just how many people agree with you that we shouldn't make sure that the person buying a gun isn't a criminal or a crazy person.

if we are so sure background checks are going to work. are rally going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and only in the hands of responsible gun owners, why not recommend legislation requiring background checks but at the same time removing the limitations on what responsible gun owners who pass checks can own. I mean really, if a person is deemed responsible through a background check, what difference does it make that their gun has a pistol grip and a bayonet lug or a flash hider?

I oppose laws that limit the type of gun a person may own.

most people do. and that is why they struggle so much passing background checks. either gun control is the responsibility of the state. and the fed has to back off, or states need to follow federal standards. which are much less than most states.

 

[M14 Shooter]

if we are so sure background checks are going to work. are rally going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and only in the hands of responsible gun owners, why not recommend legislation requiring background checks but at the same time removing the limitations on what responsible gun owners who pass checks can own. I mean really, if a person is deemed responsible through a background check, what difference does it make that their gun has a pistol grip and a bayonet lug or a flash hider?

Or full-auto.

exactly, you can fire a semi auto almost as fast a a full auto. it really is a joke.

They want the state to have a monopoly on force and understand that an armed citizenry gets in the way of that.

 

[WillowTree]

We need extensive background checks on extremist Muslims trying to enter this country.

 

[Spoonman]

Or full-auto.

exactly, you can fire a semi auto almost as fast a a full auto. it really is a joke.

They want the state to have a monopoly on force and understand that an armed citizenry gets in the way of that.

and the founding fathers new the potential for that existed which is exactly why they aded the 2nd amendment and worded it that the right shall not be infringe

 

[Spoonman]

We need extensive background checks on extremist Muslims trying to enter this country.

especially the ones who run for president

 

[ABikerSailor]

I disagree with your insistence. I find your premise silly.

And yet you present nothing to show it unsound.

Why don't we pass a law that will prevent murder? Because a law cannot prevent murder.
Why don't we pass a law that will prevent assault? Because a law cannot prevent assault.
Why don't we pass a law that will prevent rape? Because a law cannot prevent rape.
Why don't we pass a law that will prevent robbery? Because a law cannot prevent robbery.
Why donl't we pass a law that will prevent criminal posession of guns? Because a law cannot prevent criminal posession of guns.

What you want is no different that requiring CNN to present a story to the FCC so the FCC can determine if the story slanders someone or is an act of libel, and then allow/disallow the broadcast of the story on that basis.

Yanno................maybe if CNN and FOX were required to submit their stories to be fact checked, then they may not have done the full hour of bullshit reporting stating that the FBI had taken custody of a "brown man". Maybe they would have realized that the FBI had just released the photos to the public for identification.

And none of the two people were "brown men".

Additionally...................maybe if those Harvard professors who have been proven to be so horribly wrong about austerity had allowed their work to be checked before it got published, then the GOP who have cited that report wouldn't be shown to be bloviating gas bags.

And.....................fwiw....................I think that the 2 people shown on the cover of the NYT under the "bagmen" headline (who weren't even close to being the real bombers) should sue them for libel and defamation of character.

Like I said..................having someone check your facts isn't a bad thing. Matter of fact, it can keep you out of hot water like the examples mentioned above.

 

[jon_berzerk]

if we are so sure background checks are going to work. are rally going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and only in the hands of responsible gun owners, why not recommend legislation requiring background checks but at the same time removing the limitations on what responsible gun owners who pass checks can own. I mean really, if a person is deemed responsible through a background check, what difference does it make that their gun has a pistol grip and a bayonet lug or a flash hider?

I oppose laws that limit the type of gun a person may own.

most people do. and that is why they struggle so much passing background checks. either gun control is the responsibility of the state. and the fed has to back off, or states need to follow federal standards. which are much less than most states.

no one minds back ground checks

it is this universal background check used as a registration system

that is a no go

 

[buckeye45_73]

Nice job politicizing the murder of a brave police officer.

Look man, my cousin is on the force in Denver, so dont give me that crap. The left politicies everything, even funerals....it's rediculous

so that mayor cave so you can be a republican again?........lol

 

[buckeye45_73]

I disagree with your insistence. I find your premise silly. We card those who want to buy beer in an effort to prevent kids from purchasing beer from a licensed seller. We background check those who want to buy guns an in effort to prevent criminals from purchasing guns from a licensed seller.

Without a background check, criminals would know they could walk into any shop and freely buy a gun. Of course they would take advantage of that ability.

but they dont, want to know why? because purchased guns can be traced....through serial numbers....maybe a few dumb ones would do it...but most understand that and that's why they steal them.....or buy them on the black market

 

[bigrebnc1775]

NRA supported background checks for decades until they didn't

They still support backgrounds checks. Have they made a call for removing the background checks laws we already have?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I disagree with your insistence. I find your premise silly.

And yet you present nothing to show it unsound.

Why don't we pass a law that will prevent murder? Because a law cannot prevent murder.
Why don't we pass a law that will prevent assault? Because a law cannot prevent assault.
Why don't we pass a law that will prevent rape? Because a law cannot prevent rape.
Why don't we pass a law that will prevent robbery? Because a law cannot prevent robbery.
Why donl't we pass a law that will prevent criminal posession of guns? Because a law cannot prevent criminal posession of guns.

What you want is no different that requiring CNN to present a story to the FCC so the FCC can determine if the story slanders someone or is an act of libel, and then allow/disallow the broadcast of the story on that basis.

Like I said..................having someone check your facts isn't a bad thing. Matter of fact, it can keep you out of hot water like the examples mentioned above.

Glad to hear that you support prior restraint.

 

[FA_Q2]

I disagree with your insistence. I find your premise silly.

And yet you present nothing to show it unsound.

Why don't we pass a law that will prevent murder? Because a law cannot prevent murder.
Why don't we pass a law that will prevent assault? Because a law cannot prevent assault.
Why don't we pass a law that will prevent rape? Because a law cannot prevent rape.
Why don't we pass a law that will prevent robbery? Because a law cannot prevent robbery.
Why donl't we pass a law that will prevent criminal posession of guns? Because a law cannot prevent criminal posession of guns.

What you want is no different that requiring CNN to present a story to the FCC so the FCC can determine if the story slanders someone or is an act of libel, and then allow/disallow the broadcast of the story on that basis.

Yanno................maybe if CNN and FOX were required to submit their stories to be fact checked, then they may not have done the full hour of bullshit reporting stating that the FBI had taken custody of a "brown man". Maybe they would have realized that the FBI had just released the photos to the public for identification.

And none of the two people were "brown men".

Additionally...................maybe if those Harvard professors who have been proven to be so horribly wrong about austerity had allowed their work to be checked before it got published, then the GOP who have cited that report wouldn't be shown to be bloviating gas bags.

And.....................fwiw....................I think that the 2 people shown on the cover of the NYT under the "bagmen" headline (who weren't even close to being the real bombers) should sue them for libel and defamation of character.

Like I said..................having someone check your facts isn't a bad thing. Matter of fact, it can keep you out of hot water like the examples mentioned above.

You can’t be serious! Are you crazy?

Do you have any idea exactly how destructive this would be to freedom of the press? If you suddenly gave the government the ability to ‘approve’ news and be the arbiter of what is and is not ‘fact’ you would suddenly find that freedom did not exist at all. Do you really think that, if the government approved news, we would not have found WMD’s in Iraq? Do you honestly trust that the government would not have prevented any stories making that claim from appearing? Do you think that Iraq would have been considered a failure or a complete success?

There are pitfalls (and lawsuits to help curb those pitfalls) but that is the price you pay if you want even a modicum of freedom in the system. If the government controlled the media, there would be even less truth than there is now in the media as well. I don’t think that there is a single government that controls their media in that manner that functions well.

 

[AmyNation]

I oppose laws that limit the type of gun a person may own.

most people do. and that is why they struggle so much passing background checks. either gun control is the responsibility of the state. and the fed has to back off, or states need to follow federal standards. which are much less than most states.

no one minds back ground checks

it is this universal background check used as a registration system

that is a no go

Did i imagine all the posters who are opposed to background checks in this thread?