CDZ Do You Support Gun Control?

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Requiring owners to perform background checks before selling their guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. it isn't.

I already responded to this.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

What could they offer that would make you say "okay I can live with universal background checks?" if the answer is nothing, then YOU are the problem, as much as liberals

So, in your book, gun owners should simply willing to give up their rights... for nothing?
Why should that make sense to us?

What right am I saying you should give up?

Apparently any right the liberals want, given that you argue that if gun owners are not willing to work wirth the liberals, they are part of the problem.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

I will ask again.

By asking for universal back ground checks, what right are you being asked to give up?

Answer or I'll move on.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

How about less murders? We have that to offer. You want to carry a CCW? We don't want to stop you. We want to regulate the flow of guns that we all know wind up in criminals hands. We can stop it.

1: No you cannot:
2: You do not understand the issue presented here.
You want gun owners to give up some of their rights; you have no rights to offer them in return.
Thus, compromise is not possible.

What right?

The right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Fuck you.

Does your mommy know you use words like this on her i-phone?

Go ahead and keep/bear arms as long as they are registered.

Did I say ANYTHING about stopping you from keeping or bearing arms? So then you are just rambling on and you aren't willing to have an honest conversation. Typical conservative right wing gun nut. It is why it is impossible to pass any meaningful legislation or have a meaningful conversation. You are an intellectually dishonest fool.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

A strict interpretation of the 2nd reveals that requiring background checks is no violation. But I'm sure you knew that.

Really?
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.

Besides -- I asked about FURTHER restrictions on our rights; we already have background checks.

no no, no you don't. reread what I said.

Requiring owners to perform background checks before selling their guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. it isn't.

Now you COULD argue that certain restrictions which may be pointed out in the course of a background check and prevent one from BUYING a firearm are violations, but that is already settled law.

We need to keep better track of guns as they go through the manufacturing, sales and resale process. If too many of a gun sellers guns end up on the black market, we need to be able to track who the problem is. Every time you buy a gun it needs to be registered with the cops. Not only do you the buyer need to register it, so does the seller.

There;'s no sound argument for universal gun registration.
Disagree?
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[sealybobo]

I already responded to this.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

What could they offer that would make you say "okay I can live with universal background checks?" if the answer is nothing, then YOU are the problem, as much as liberals

So, in your book, gun owners should simply willing to give up their rights... for nothing?
Why should that make sense to us?

What right am I saying you should give up?

Apparently any right the liberals want, given that you argue that if gun owners are not willing to work wirth the liberals, they are part of the problem.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

I will ask again.

By asking for universal back ground checks, what right are you being asked to give up?

Answer or I'll move on.

He can't be honest. The truth is he is paranoid and doesn't want the government to know about the arsenal he has amassed. Thinks they will take them away.

They won't. BUT, if one of those guns ends up in the hands of a criminal, he might have some explaining to do.

 

[sealybobo]

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

A strict interpretation of the 2nd reveals that requiring background checks is no violation. But I'm sure you knew that.

Really?
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.

Besides -- I asked about FURTHER restrictions on our rights; we already have background checks.

no no, no you don't. reread what I said.

Requiring owners to perform background checks before selling their guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. it isn't.

Now you COULD argue that certain restrictions which may be pointed out in the course of a background check and prevent one from BUYING a firearm are violations, but that is already settled law.

We need to keep better track of guns as they go through the manufacturing, sales and resale process. If too many of a gun sellers guns end up on the black market, we need to be able to track who the problem is. Every time you buy a gun it needs to be registered with the cops. Not only do you the buyer need to register it, so does the seller.

There;'s no sound argument for universal gun registration.
Disagree?
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Was that the conclusion you came up with M14 SHOOTER? Any chance you are a little bias M14 SHOOTER?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I already responded to this.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

What could they offer that would make you say "okay I can live with universal background checks?" if the answer is nothing, then YOU are the problem, as much as liberals

So, in your book, gun owners should simply willing to give up their rights... for nothing?
Why should that make sense to us?

What right am I saying you should give up?

Apparently any right the liberals want, given that you argue that if gun owners are not willing to work wirth the liberals, they are part of the problem.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

I will ask again.
By asking for universal back ground checks, what right are you being asked to give up?
Answer or I'll move on.

i will explain again:
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.
As such, background checks are an infringement on the right to arms.

I shall ask again:
If liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights, how can gun owners compromise with them?

 

[M14 Shooter]

A strict interpretation of the 2nd reveals that requiring background checks is no violation. But I'm sure you knew that.

Really?
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.

Besides -- I asked about FURTHER restrictions on our rights; we already have background checks.

no no, no you don't. reread what I said.

Requiring owners to perform background checks before selling their guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. it isn't.

Now you COULD argue that certain restrictions which may be pointed out in the course of a background check and prevent one from BUYING a firearm are violations, but that is already settled law.

We need to keep better track of guns as they go through the manufacturing, sales and resale process. If too many of a gun sellers guns end up on the black market, we need to be able to track who the problem is. Every time you buy a gun it needs to be registered with the cops. Not only do you the buyer need to register it, so does the seller.

There;'s no sound argument for universal gun registration.
Disagree?
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Was that the conclusion you came up with M14 SHOOTER? Any chance you are a little bias M14 SHOOTER?

I'm sorry... I don't see your sound argument for universal gun registration.
Care to try again?

 

[sealybobo]

LULZ you don't know much about forensic science if you don't think a gun can be traced to you once they have a name.

Fingerprints, if any, prove that I handled it.
Does that prove I sold it? That I ever owned it?

But, that is all fluff anyway. You, and others, outright refusal to budge on this, is going to lead to more of the same, liberals doing whatever they want without any input from conservatives.

So... conservatives should compromise?
Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights.

Yes, BOTH sides should compromise, that is after all what our country was founded on . Not this bullshit "if you don't like this country GTFO" nonsense.

Why? Liberals have nothing to offer us in return for us allowing them to further restrict our rights
Absent that, compromise is not possible.

How about less murders? We have that to offer. You want to carry a CCW? We don't want to stop you. We want to regulate the flow of guns that we all know wind up in criminals hands. We can stop it.

You want gun owners to give up some of their rights
Thus, compromise is not possible.

First you said this, then you said the right to keep and bare arms is the right we want you to give up. Is that what you heard me say? Well I didn't say that. So you are just hearing what you want to hear. In fact you aren't even listening and you certainly do not have an open mind. Please don't reply to me again you dumb fuck.

 

[sealybobo]

Really?
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.

Besides -- I asked about FURTHER restrictions on our rights; we already have background checks.

no no, no you don't. reread what I said.

Requiring owners to perform background checks before selling their guns is NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment. it isn't.

Now you COULD argue that certain restrictions which may be pointed out in the course of a background check and prevent one from BUYING a firearm are violations, but that is already settled law.

We need to keep better track of guns as they go through the manufacturing, sales and resale process. If too many of a gun sellers guns end up on the black market, we need to be able to track who the problem is. Every time you buy a gun it needs to be registered with the cops. Not only do you the buyer need to register it, so does the seller.

There;'s no sound argument for universal gun registration.
Disagree?
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Was that the conclusion you came up with M14 SHOOTER? Any chance you are a little bias M14 SHOOTER?

I'm sorry... I don't see your sound argument for universal gun registration.
Care to try again?

No I do not care to try again with you. You aren't even reading the words we type so just go eat the barrel of your gun and pull the trigger ******.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What could they offer that would make you say "okay I can live with universal background checks?" if the answer is nothing, then YOU are the problem, as much as liberals

So, in your book, gun owners should simply willing to give up their rights... for nothing?
Why should that make sense to us?

What right am I saying you should give up?

Apparently any right the liberals want, given that you argue that if gun owners are not willing to work wirth the liberals, they are part of the problem.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

I will ask again.
By asking for universal back ground checks, what right are you being asked to give up?
Answer or I'll move on.

i will explain again:
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.
As such, background checks are an infringement on the right to arms.

I shall ask again:
If liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights, how can gun owners compromise with them?

You've already lost that fight stupid. If you had a RIGHT not to undergo a background check, then gun stores wouldnj't be required to perform them. DUH

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, in your book, gun owners should simply willing to give up their rights... for nothing?
Why should that make sense to us?

What right am I saying you should give up?

Apparently any right the liberals want, given that you argue that if gun owners are not willing to work wirth the liberals, they are part of the problem.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

I will ask again.
By asking for universal back ground checks, what right are you being asked to give up?
Answer or I'll move on.

i will explain again:
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.
As such, background checks are an infringement on the right to arms.
I shall ask again:
If liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights, how can gun owners compromise with them?

You've already lost that fight stupid

I have? When? Did the SCotuUS rule on the issue? No?

I shall ask again:
If liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights, how can gun owners compromise with them?
Please try to not avoid the question this time.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Knock it off. This is the CDZ.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

What right am I saying you should give up?

Apparently any right the liberals want, given that you argue that if gun owners are not willing to work wirth the liberals, they are part of the problem.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

I will ask again.
By asking for universal back ground checks, what right are you being asked to give up?
Answer or I'll move on.

i will explain again:
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.
As such, background checks are an infringement on the right to arms.
I shall ask again:
If liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights, how can gun owners compromise with them?

You've already lost that fight stupid

I have? When? Did the SCotuUS rule on the issue? No?

I shall ask again:
If liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights, how can gun owners compromise with them?
Please try to not avoid the question this time.

Here's the latest ruling which upheld background checks as lawful.

Abramski v. United States

 

[M14 Shooter]

Apparently any right the liberals want, given that you argue that if gun owners are not willing to work wirth the liberals, they are part of the problem.
Liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights; as such, it is impossible for gun owners to compromise.

I will ask again.
By asking for universal back ground checks, what right are you being asked to give up?
Answer or I'll move on.

i will explain again:
Background checks are a form of prior restraint, where the state prevents you form exercise your rights until it determines that you aren't breaking the law -- in effect, the state forces you to prove your innocence, w/o any probable cause to do so.
As such, background checks are an infringement on the right to arms.
I shall ask again:
If liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights, how can gun owners compromise with them?

You've already lost that fight stupid

I have? When? Did the SCotuUS rule on the issue? No?

I shall ask again:
If liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights, how can gun owners compromise with them?
Please try to not avoid the question this time.

Here's the latest ruling which upheld background checks as lawful.
Abramski v. United States

Thank you for confirming that the SCotUS has not ruled on the issue as the case cited above concerns straw buyers, not background checks, and does not rule on the constitutional validity of background check in any way.

I shall ask again:
If liberals offer noting in return for gun owners further giving up part of their rights, how can gun owners compromise with them?
Please try to not avoid the question this time

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

eh, im out of the thread, M14 has no desire to have an honest intellectual discussion

 

[M14 Shooter]

eh, im out of the thread, M14 has no desire to have an honest intellectual discussion

This is, of course, a lie - a lie posted by someone who refuses to answer a question central to his point because he knows it will defeat that point.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

then my question would be "how in the world would you POSSIBLY regulate illegal sales?"

That's easy. Just enact a law that states that it's illegal to do anything that is illegal. This should not only put an end to all illegal gun dealing, but also all crime of all sorts.

 

[2aguy]

I assume she means illegal sales.

As you of course know, we disagree on a few aspects of gun control, but her claim that there is an unregulated flow of guns onto the street is just ludicrous. There are TONS of regulations.

Certainly -- that why I assumed she meant illegal sales.

then my question would be "how in the world would you POSSIBLY regulate illegal sales?"

That's more or less what I saked -- you admit you cannot prevent crime -- how can you prevent illegal sales?

Now, if I could just convince you that better for the law abiding gun owners , like the two of us, to take EVERY precaution to make sure those sales are legal. Including universal background checks.

Some of this other stuff though, let's say I have a gun and you buy it and then you give it to someone who shouldn't have had it, how can that POSSIBLY be stopped by any new laws?

you caan't have universal background checks without total gun registration because you have to know who has the guns the day the law befins...otherwise they just tell you they always owned the gun


and universal checks are avoided the same way as current background checks are avoided....the criminals or mass shooters steal the gun or get someone with a clean record to buy it for them.....


So your univrsal xheck is useless the minute it becomes law....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

then my question would be "how in the world would you POSSIBLY regulate illegal sales?"

That's easy. Just enact a law that states that it's illegal to do anything that is illegal. This should not only put an end to all illegal gun dealing, but also all crime of all sorts.

…And if that doesn't work, just pass another law, referencing the first, and stating that it's illegal to do anything that violates that earlier law.

 

[2aguy]

That's more or less what I saked -- you admit you cannot prevent crime -- how can you prevent illegal sales?

Now, if I could just convince you that better for the law abiding gun owners , like the two of us, to take EVERY precaution to make sure those sales are legal. Including universal background checks.

I see it like this:
if you want to make sure your sale is legal, you already have the capacity to run a check on the buyer.
If you do not care, then you won't, regardless of the law.
Thus, there's no reason to force people to do so, and there's no reason to open the door for universal registration.

Some of this other stuff though, let's say I have a gun and you buy it and then you give it to someone who shouldn't have had it, how can that POSSIBLY be stopped by any new laws?

It cannot.

Oh, I don't believe anyone should be FORCED to run a background check.

Weren't you just proponnenting for UBCs?

I just think that if a gun is used in a crime and it is proven that you sold/gave the gun to the person who committed the crime without running a background check that you should be charged with a crime.

What crime would that be?

Accesory to whatever crime was committed with the weapon.

Be reasonable and realistic. I can get on FaceBook right now and buy a gun from someone who doesn't know me from Adam, just show up with cash, my choice of guns in fact. That is not a responsible way to deal with gun sales

and how does a universal background check stop that?


england does not allow private ownership of pistols....at all...there are no universal background checks because you can't own a pistol....last week a 19 year old bought a pistol and 90 rounds of ammo and pipe bombs on the Dark Web...to shoot up his school

so no...universal background checks do not keep anyone from getting a gun.