Gun Control - What's the Problem?

[Leo123]

Given the fact that the lefts ultimate goal is to have a disarmed society, those who are receiving help for anything will be disarmed overnight once they get power. That may be extended to people with physical problems as well. For instance I'm an insulin dependent diabetic. The Democrats could easily say I'm not capable of owning a firearm.

Yes, gun-grabbers live in La La land, they never think that the shit they propose will fall on them someday. They are like people with no recollection of past events as they tiip-toe through their garden of Utopian Tulips.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no hidden, capricious, malevolent government authority that subjectively designates citizens prohibited persons simply because of a prescription drug they might be taking.

Yet.........

Please explain how DumBama regulated people on Social Security who could not write a check for their own bills be legally unable to buy or own a firearm. They never had their say in court and never even committed a crime.

 

[Leo123]

See you make the case for me. You say, Criminals don’t buy guns from stores because they don’t want it traced to them or they won’t pass a BG check. That’s a good thing. The fact that we have the ability to trace and do background checks is a deterrent from allowing them easy access to weapons. Push them to the black market and make it easier for law enforcement to fight the good fight. It means the laws are working

It's against the law for a felon to have a gun in the first place. The only thing a background check does is to put up another road block for law abiding citizens to buy and own guns.

 

[Slade3200]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

If you start taking rights away from those with mental health issue fewer and fewer will seek help with those issues
and also you will be infringing on doctor-patient privilege

and your bull crap about gun control not being debated is just that bull crap the debate been going on for decades its just you gun grabbers keep losing the debate and won't accept defeat so you act like a debate hasn't been going on

No shit, that’s why I brought up those issues. There will never be victory or defeat on this issue. You are naive to think so.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Given the fact that the lefts ultimate goal is to have a disarmed society, those who are receiving help for anything will be disarmed overnight once they get power. That may be extended to people with physical problems as well. For instance I'm an insulin dependent diabetic. The Democrats could easily say I'm not capable of owning a firearm.

Yes, gun-grabbers live in La La land, they never think that the shit they propose will fall on them someday. They are like people with no recollection of past events as they tiip-toe through their garden of Utopian Tulips.

Their ultimate goal is gun confiscation. Yes, they will be trying to do it in baby steps. A baby step here, after another mass shooting, another baby step there, but in the end, most people won't be able to own a firearm.

We know Democrats so we understand the grand plan. Their followers don't. They really believe the Democrat politicians are concerned for their safety like they thought the Democrats were concerned about them having healthcare insurance.

 

[Slade3200]

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

You are not going to keep criminals and the criminal mentally ill from obtaining firearms. There should be no debate. We already have laws against criminals owning firearms. Most people with actual mental illness are NOT given guns. These little perps can think for themselves and can decide what is right and what is wrong. That makes them perfectly mentally competent.

They're just rotters who have been taught by our liberal politicians and our liberal MSM to hate. No amount of gun control with cure this, the only cure is to reject leftist, Neo-Marxist bullshit and teach our children morals and values by MODELING good sexual relationships with heterosexual relationships and marriages with commitment that uphold family and societal values.

Like I already said it's not the guns it's government SUPPORT of fatherless families (especially in the 'black' community), support of little girls getting abortions when they should have NEVER allowed themselves to get pregnant in the first place, support and promotion of gender dysphoria, the notion that humans are destroying the Earth and on and on and on. WTF did you expect?

We can keep many of them from getting firearms legally and easily in stores. Data shows that we already are because of our laws. We want them getting guns on the black market and being limited with options and selection. Those are good things. Why would we want to make it easier for them?

 

[Leo123]

No shit, that’s why I brought up those issues. There will never be victory or defeat on this issue. You are naive to think so.

the 2nd amendment should preclude gun ownership from being an 'issue' because it is a right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do you bother READING what is being said? Let me repeat it for you again:

"We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Where do you think that pre-existing Right came from??? It was codified from a document that Thomas Jefferson said was the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man" - the Declaration of Independence.

I am still not following.
I agree that rights are not created by government, and must be pre-existing, or else we could not create governments.
I agree that since rights are inherent, they can not be sold or even given away.
But they can have reasonable restrictions.
For example, you always have the right of defense.
But when you walk into a police station, you don't need to be armed in order to be safe.
So there can be a restriction on carrying arms into a police station.
That is not an arbitrary infringement, but a concession necessary for the safety of police.
As long as any restriction can be shown as necessary in order to satisfy the rights of others, then it is not an infringement or illegal.

So are we disagreeing about something?

The reason you can't be armed in a police station isn't because it's "reasonable." The reason is that the police department owns the police station, and that means they get to make the rules. You can tell people they can't bring weapons into your house. Is that a limitation on your 2nd amendment rights? No, it's just you exercising your property rights.

Not following.
The police department does not own the police station.
You do, collectively, with a million other people.
No different than roads or parks.

Pure horseshit. Whoever sets the rules is the owner. The police department (or the city, take your pick) purchased the property. It sets the rules. It determines how the property is used. It can sell the property if it likes. Your theory that the people can own anything has been demonstrated to be absurd countless times. Government can own things. The people can't. The claim makes nonsense of the word "ownership."

But you still need to be armed for defense at roads or parks, because you would not be safe otherwise.
In a police station you are safe, so no need to be armed.
Can you tell police they can't bring weapons into your house?
I don't think so, because there can be situations where they do have to, even if you do not want them to, such as if they have a search warrant.

The rest of your post is irrelevant babble.

The government has the power to do illegal things, but they lack the authority. WHEN enough people have had enough of the B.S. the government is doing, they will act in accordance to the blueprint provided by the founders of our Republic.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

Wrong.

Acts of government are presumed to be legal and Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise, in deference to the will of the people (see, US v. Morrison (2000).

And the people have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, to repeal laws and measures they oppose, and to remove from office elected official who no longer represent the will of the majority of the people.

But just because a minority of citizens subjectively perceive a law to be ‘bad’ or ‘illegal’ doesn’t make it so, including firearm regulatory measures.

 

[Likkmee]

Poor sight adjustments and lack of range time.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

You are not going to keep criminals and the criminal mentally ill from obtaining firearms. There should be no debate. We already have laws against criminals owning firearms. Most people with actual mental illness are NOT given guns. These little perps can think for themselves and can decide what is right and what is wrong. That makes them perfectly mentally competent.

They're just rotters who have been taught by our liberal politicians and our liberal MSM to hate. No amount of gun control with cure this, the only cure is to reject leftist, Neo-Marxist bullshit and teach our children morals and values by MODELING good sexual relationships with heterosexual relationships and marriages with commitment that uphold family and societal values.

Like I already said it's not the guns it's government SUPPORT of fatherless families (especially in the 'black' community), support of little girls getting abortions when they should have NEVER allowed themselves to get pregnant in the first place, support and promotion of gender dysphoria, the notion that humans are destroying the Earth and on and on and on. WTF did you expect?

We can keep many of them from getting firearms legally and easily in stores. Data shows that we already are because of our laws. We want them getting guns on the black market and being limited with options and selection. Those are good things. Why would we want to make it easier for them?

Hey bud...I’m begging for your attention....grace us with your presence over here for a minute will you...We’re hoping you’ll shed some light and explain the logic.
Stop the sale of AR-15’s but not the importation of illegal aliens.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one is going to ‘take’ your guns.

No one is going to ‘confiscate’ your guns.

Conservatives need to stop with the ridiculous lies, fallacies, and demagoguery.

 

[bripat9643]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

If you start taking rights away from those with mental health issue fewer and fewer will seek help with those issues
and also you will be infringing on doctor-patient privilege

and your bull crap about gun control not being debated is just that bull crap the debate been going on for decades its just you gun grabbers keep losing the debate and won't accept defeat so you act like a debate hasn't been going on

No shit, that’s why I brought up those issues. There will never be victory or defeat on this issue. You are naive to think so.

So why should anyone who supports the 2nd Amendment concede on inch to your agenda?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No one is going to ‘take’ your guns.

That is indeed correct.

No one is going to ‘confiscate’ your guns.

Two for two. A personal record?

Conservatives need to stop with the ridiculous lies, fallacies, and demagoguery.

Democrats need to stop whining about guns and stop putting criminals back on the streets.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I am still not following.
I agree that rights are not created by government, and must be pre-existing, or else we could not create governments.
I agree that since rights are inherent, they can not be sold or even given away.
But they can have reasonable restrictions.
For example, you always have the right of defense.
But when you walk into a police station, you don't need to be armed in order to be safe.
So there can be a restriction on carrying arms into a police station.
That is not an arbitrary infringement, but a concession necessary for the safety of police.
As long as any restriction can be shown as necessary in order to satisfy the rights of others, then it is not an infringement or illegal.

So are we disagreeing about something?

The reason you can't be armed in a police station isn't because it's "reasonable." The reason is that the police department owns the police station, and that means they get to make the rules. You can tell people they can't bring weapons into your house. Is that a limitation on your 2nd amendment rights? No, it's just you exercising your property rights.

Not following.
The police department does not own the police station.
You do, collectively, with a million other people.
No different than roads or parks.

Pure horseshit. Whoever sets the rules is the owner. The police department (or the city, take your pick) purchased the property. It sets the rules. It determines how the property is used. It can sell the property if it likes. Your theory that the people can own anything has been demonstrated to be absurd countless times. Government can own things. The people can't. The claim makes nonsense of the word "ownership."

But you still need to be armed for defense at roads or parks, because you would not be safe otherwise.
In a police station you are safe, so no need to be armed.
Can you tell police they can't bring weapons into your house?
I don't think so, because there can be situations where they do have to, even if you do not want them to, such as if they have a search warrant.

The rest of your post is irrelevant babble.

The government has the power to do illegal things, but they lack the authority. WHEN enough people have had enough of the B.S. the government is doing, they will act in accordance to the blueprint provided by the founders of our Republic.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." An excerpt from the Declaration of Independence

Wrong.

Acts of government are presumed to be legal and Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise, in deference to the will of the people (see, US v. Morrison (2000).

And the people have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, to repeal laws and measures they oppose, and to remove from office elected official who no longer represent the will of the majority of the people.

But just because a minority of citizens subjectively perceive a law to be ‘bad’ or ‘illegal’ doesn’t make it so, including firearm regulatory measures.

The de jure government in America is a REPUBLIC. It is a word that the politicians dare not utter. So, you can throw United States Supreme Court decisions at me all day long; however, they are just as susceptible at violating the Constitution as the next guy.

Now this is my opinion:

When a statute is passed and it travels from lower courts to appeals courts to the United States Supreme Court, the high Court interprets the law. Their job is done. IF they don't like their decision years down the road, they don't fix it by granting powers they have no authority to grant; they don't fix it by reversing their own precedents; they don't legislate from the bench. I base my opinion on George Washington's Farewell Speech:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

Given those parameters, I stand by the first United States Supreme Court decisions and those that support the first interpretations and or are consistent with them. Spin that any way you like, but if we are ruled any other way, the government IS destroyed. If you understood that the government could pass a law today and claim your words, on this board, were criminal and you were THEN TRIED you might gain a whole new perspective on the issue. Until then, I'm probably talking to a brick wall.

 

[hadit]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

Three of the first four posts supply your answer all in the same way: the old Slippery Slope fallacy.

Post 11, as is his wont, prefers the Strawman.

The "slippery slope" argument is the one that I do not understand. Why oppose something that makes sense in fear of possible future proposals that may or may not take away your rights? Why not do what is right now in an effort to help a big problem (even if it just helps a little) and fight proposals that impede your rights if/when they are proposed?

That's like saying, "Why try to keep an avalanche from starting? Just deal with it when it's coming down the mountain". There's a historical pattern to this. We have seen totalitarianism first disarm the populace through these same measures. Slippery slope isn't a fallacy when it really exists.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

You are not going to keep criminals and the criminal mentally ill from obtaining firearms. There should be no debate. We already have laws against criminals owning firearms. Most people with actual mental illness are NOT given guns. These little perps can think for themselves and can decide what is right and what is wrong. That makes them perfectly mentally competent.

They're just rotters who have been taught by our liberal politicians and our liberal MSM to hate. No amount of gun control with cure this, the only cure is to reject leftist, Neo-Marxist bullshit and teach our children morals and values by MODELING good sexual relationships with heterosexual relationships and marriages with commitment that uphold family and societal values.

Like I already said it's not the guns it's government SUPPORT of fatherless families (especially in the 'black' community), support of little girls getting abortions when they should have NEVER allowed themselves to get pregnant in the first place, support and promotion of gender dysphoria, the notion that humans are destroying the Earth and on and on and on. WTF did you expect?

We can keep many of them from getting firearms legally and easily in stores. Data shows that we already are because of our laws. We want them getting guns on the black market and being limited with options and selection. Those are good things. Why would we want to make it easier for them?

Hey bud...I’m begging for your attention....grace us with your presence over here for a minute will you...We’re hoping you’ll shed some light and explain the logic.
Stop the sale of AR-15’s but not the importation of illegal aliens.

While I object to the name calling (as per Thomas Paine's admonitions) that was freaking funny. I really want to see the liberals try to mount a comeback.

Amendment 28

A well controlled society being the objective of the NEW WORLD ORDER, the right to import aliens to insure a multicultural society leading to a single race of people shall not be infringed, questioned, or resisted.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

You are not going to keep criminals and the criminal mentally ill from obtaining firearms. There should be no debate. We already have laws against criminals owning firearms. Most people with actual mental illness are NOT given guns. These little perps can think for themselves and can decide what is right and what is wrong. That makes them perfectly mentally competent.

They're just rotters who have been taught by our liberal politicians and our liberal MSM to hate. No amount of gun control with cure this, the only cure is to reject leftist, Neo-Marxist bullshit and teach our children morals and values by MODELING good sexual relationships with heterosexual relationships and marriages with commitment that uphold family and societal values.

Like I already said it's not the guns it's government SUPPORT of fatherless families (especially in the 'black' community), support of little girls getting abortions when they should have NEVER allowed themselves to get pregnant in the first place, support and promotion of gender dysphoria, the notion that humans are destroying the Earth and on and on and on. WTF did you expect?

We can keep many of them from getting firearms legally and easily in stores. Data shows that we already are because of our laws. We want them getting guns on the black market and being limited with options and selection. Those are good things. Why would we want to make it easier for them?

Hey bud...I’m begging for your attention....grace us with your presence over here for a minute will you...We’re hoping you’ll shed some light and explain the logic.
Stop the sale of AR-15’s but not the importation of illegal aliens.

While I object to the name calling (as per Thomas Paine's admonitions) that was freaking funny. I really want to see the liberals try to mount a comeback.

Amendment 28

A well controlled society being the objective of the NEW WORLD ORDER, the right to import aliens to insure a multicultural society leading to a single race of people shall not be infringed, questioned, or resisted.

As you can clearly see; Slade3200 wants nothing to do with explaining the logic...He is pretending he knows nothing of the thread...I’m guessing he has nothing sane to offer?

 

[TRFjr]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No, YOU think about it.....You spout this Utopian belief that we can actually control who gets guns. In the meantime, you offer no explanation as to who you 'think' shouldn't have a gun. Clever of you try to debunk the most likely possibility that the government will expand who they think is mentally incapable of owning a gun by indicting those who question such regulations as using 'fear tactics.'

When they decide that one of your prescription drugs renders you incapable of owning the guns you already have, maybe then the truth will sink in.

I think those are all fair concerns. Does bi polar disqualify somebody, autism, PTSD soldiers? There are no easy answers so it will be a hearty debate. Problem is we can’t even get to the debate because the team partisans won’t let it get there.

What I’m spouting is not a utopian belief it is common sense regulations that any responsible society should be doing.

If you start taking rights away from those with mental health issue fewer and fewer will seek help with those issues
and also you will be infringing on doctor-patient privilege

Given the fact that the lefts ultimate goal is to have a disarmed society, those who are receiving help for anything will be disarmed overnight once they get power. That may be extended to people with physical problems as well. For instance I'm an insulin dependent diabetic. The Democrats could easily say I'm not capable of owning a firearm.

1 out of 5 Americans suffer from one form or another mental health issues from depression to anxiety

 

[TRFjr]

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No Democrat wants to ‘confiscate’ guns.

Otherwise, yes – no firearm regulatory measure has been proposed as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence, including background checks.

Background checks work as intended.

The question is not whether they work or not, the question is whether they solve anything or not.

Nothing is ever going to solve the problem of gun violence, all we can do is try and help in as many areas as we can. Background checks force criminals and high risk individuals to get guns from illegal means. This makes it harder and more expensive for them and limits their options. It also narrows things for law enforcement who want to fight the underground gun market.

If we had no BG checks and no gun Regs then all that goes away and anybody can buy anything from any store that offers it. I personally don’t think that helps a thing, It can only hurt

I don't think background checks do all that much. Most people who want to commit a crime for the first time don't want a weapon that can be traced back to them in most cases, unless it's a mass shooting where suicide is part of the plan.

For people not legally allowed to buy or own a firearm, straw buyers seems to be the problem there, and I don't think we do enough to those people who are buying weapons on behalf of a felon.

See you make the case for me. You say, Criminals don’t buy guns from stores because they don’t want it traced to them or they won’t pass a BG check. That’s a good thing. The fact that we have the ability to trace and do background checks is a deterrent from allowing them easy access to weapons. Push them to the black market and make it easier for law enforcement to fight the good fight. It means the laws are working

the point made background checks don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals just like making drugs illegal keep from people obtaining drugs keep us from having a drug epidemic
why is that simple fact so hard for your ignorance to understand

 

[Blues Man]

I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.


View attachment 59771

"Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me."

seriously are you that ignorant? criminals don't buy guns which a background check is conducted the guns criminals possess are either stolen or bought off the street

and we have had many democrats say their agenda is gun confiscation hell most democrat candidates are running on that as part of their platform
so just stop it with that bull shit claim democrats don't want to take guns away

If a person can’t pass a background check then of course they won’t buy a gun in a shop. If we didn’t have background checks then they absolutely would. This isn’t hard to understand. Think about it.

I’m sure some dems want to confiscate guns. I’m not a dem nor do I care to speak for them. I’m a gun owner who is fine with regulations on firearms and tired of the slippery slope fear tactic.

No Democrat wants to ‘confiscate’ guns.

Otherwise, yes – no firearm regulatory measure has been proposed as a ‘panacea’ for all gun crime and violence, including background checks.

Background checks work as intended.

The question is not whether they work or not, the question is whether they solve anything or not.

Nothing is ever going to solve the problem of gun violence, all we can do is try and help in as many areas as we can. Background checks force criminals and high risk individuals to get guns from illegal means. This makes it harder and more expensive for them and limits their options. It also narrows things for law enforcement who want to fight the underground gun market.

If we had no BG checks and no gun Regs then all that goes away and anybody can buy anything from any store that offers it. I personally don’t think that helps a thing, It can only hurt

Any criminal who gets a gun today is getting it through higher risk means

That won't change

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk