Nevada Governor vetoes offensive Gun control bill.

[Harry Dresden]

Offensive? What is offensive about requiring background checks for gun purchases? Are you afraid of offending criminals?

JED i think a lot of people are afraid it does not stop after the check.....that your name will go onto the big....."HE HAS A GUN" govt list......and on that....i understand their distrust......

Which is why the recent gun legislation that didn't pass had in it a provision that disallowed a registry. So...

im sorry i dont trust the fuckers....especially someone like Napolitano....i dont trust her at all....

 

[Harry Dresden]

JED i think a lot of people are afraid it does not stop after the check.....that your name will go onto the big....."HE HAS A GUN" govt list......and on that....i understand their distrust......

The problem is that background checks do not stop any crimes or any injuries, all they do is invade the privacy of gun buyers.

Bullshit. If a criminal is not permitted to purchase a gun, then that in and of itself is a crime deterent.

Why is it a bad thing to keep felons from buying guns legally?

so if they know they cant buy them in a shop.....they go and get them the way they do now......how are they being deterred?.....

 

[Wildman]

The only people that would be against enhanced background checks are people with something to hide.

that is pure bullshit.., have you heard that we have a Constitution that prevents such shit !!

yet you liberals still ignore it.., if you have nothing to hide, post your SS number.

 

[Wildman]

The only people that would be against enhanced background checks are people with something to hide.

That's actually incorrect. For example there a some that are just plain impatient and don't wanna waste time while the government ***** with them. and there are a lot more.

Impatience isn't a good enough reason to allow lunatics to own guns.

lunatics = liberals

 

[OriginalShroom]

I can't believe the people who are willing to surrender not only their rights, but my rights, my Children's rights, and my Chldren's Children's rights simply because they want "society to advance".

 

[Zona]

Nevada governor vetoes bill to strengthen gun background checks

So one of the Good Guys acted to safe guard our second amendment rights, GOOD JOB.

I used to think we needed gun control. Then I found out that two thirds of ALL gun related deaths in the US were suicide. Most of them were white guys in Red States. That makes them Republicans. Then I realized that every cloud has a silver lining. It's not guns who kill people. It's the GOP killing themselves. And all that talk about how dangerous Chicago is and it turns out that Illinois is like 34th in gun related deaths. And that the most are in Red States that have the fewest regulations.

So it looks like we may be on the same side after all. GOOD JOB!

brilliant post.

 

[Zona]

The only people that would be against enhanced background checks are people with something to hide.

That's actually incorrect. For example there a some that are just plain impatient and don't wanna waste time while the government ***** with them. and there are a lot more.

The only people that would be against warrantless wiretaps are people with something to hide.

Especially on 9/12. Righty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nevada governor vetoes bill to strengthen gun background checks

So one of the Good Guys acted to safe guard our second amendment rights, GOOD JOB.

A background check could save a life. Obviously this proves that Republicans care more about their right to own a shiny metal toy than about saving innocent lives.

How many lives have been saved by background checks?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The only people that would be against enhanced background checks are people with something to hide.

Or people that believe in privacy and/or the Constitution.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nevada governor vetoes bill to strengthen gun background checks

So one of the Good Guys acted to safe guard our second amendment rights, GOOD JOB.

A background check could save a life. Obviously this proves that Republicans care more about their right to own a shiny metal toy than about saving innocent lives.

That "shiny metal toy" as you so describe it, has been used to save innocent lives. It can be used to take them as well. But by itself it is neutral, indiscriminate.

I told Plasmaballs earlier that background checks already exist in the country. In the 5 years since his election, over 65,000,000 background checks have been performed on prospective gun owners using our background check system. It is quite disturbing that people will use "the innocent" to push a fallacious political argument. There's nothing innocent about rendering someone defenseless in the midst of danger.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That's actually incorrect. For example there a some that are just plain impatient and don't wanna waste time while the government ***** with them. and there are a lot more.

The only people that would be against warrantless wiretaps are people with something to hide.

Especially on 9/12. Righty.

You liberals certainly hid something when Obama sealed the records on Fast and Furious. Now now, can't have you being a hypocrite can we, Lefty?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Nevada governor vetoes bill to strengthen gun background checks

So one of the Good Guys acted to safe guard our second amendment rights, GOOD JOB.

I used to think we needed gun control. Then I found out that two thirds of ALL gun related deaths in the US were suicide. Most of them were white guys in Red States. That makes them Republicans. Then I realized that every cloud has a silver lining. It's not guns who kill people. It's the GOP killing themselves. And all that talk about how dangerous Chicago is and it turns out that Illinois is like 34th in gun related deaths. And that the most are in Red States that have the fewest regulations.

So it looks like we may be on the same side after all. GOOD JOB!

brilliant post.

By your guys's idiotic ******* logic, you'd start requiring more rigorous checks on black people. And in fact, why don't you? If you're going to have idiotic logic; at least be consistent for ****'s sake.

America's 10 Deadliest Cities 2012

 

[RDD_1210]

Specifically?

Its intent is to restrict rights.

Which rights are being restricted? Specifically.

The right of private individuals not to have to get the prior approval of the government to transfer ownership of property.

Specifically.

Where exactly is that right outlined..... specifically.

 

[RDD_1210]

Should the government be able to track it when you sell a washing machine? How about books? If not, why not?

That is why they shouldn't be able to track all gun sales.

Holy **** you create the worst analogies....ie. The gem you put in my signature.

Books are a lot more dangerous to governments than guns.

Tell me the one again how cough drops are just as dangerous as guns.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which rights are being restricted? Specifically.

The right of private individuals not to have to get the prior approval of the government to transfer ownership of property.

Specifically.

Where exactly is that right outlined..... specifically.

Why does it have to be outlined? What if it is only highlighted, would that work for you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Holy **** you create the worst analogies....ie. The gem you put in my signature.

Books are a lot more dangerous to governments than guns.

Tell me the one again how cough drops are just as dangerous as guns.

Wouldn't I have to say that before I could say it again?

 

[Noomi]

Nevada governor vetoes bill to strengthen gun background checks

So one of the Good Guys acted to safe guard our second amendment rights, GOOD JOB.

A background check could save a life. Obviously this proves that Republicans care more about their right to own a shiny metal toy than about saving innocent lives.

How many lives have been saved by background checks?

I said could save a life, meaning background checks have the potential to save a life.
No one should oppose background checks. You still get your gun, you just have to wait a short while to get one. Its not a big deal.

 

[Plasmaball]

I am amazed that you actually think an illegal gun dealer, i.e. the gangbanger on the street, and a psycho wanting to buy a gun are going to give a shit about running a frigging background check.

Enhanced background checks sound wonderful, but only a fool thinks they will accomplish anything more than adding a few dollars to the government slush fund.

Immie

And what's your solution besides nothing?
You people offer no solutions, just excuses..

You wont stop people. Its a poor example. Out there someone might want to kill you and hey who cares right? We bother trying to stop them because in the end they will find a way.
Really its a great outlook on life. How about we just remove cops period? I mean under your opinion they are redundant.

Your solution is to make life more difficult for everyone but the criminals and the crazy people? In what ******* universe does that make sense?

You are a retard. I suggest buying a helmet.

 

[Plasmaball]

But somehow you think guns do more killing. How deluded you are. Cars kill more people than guns, drug use kills more people than guns, cancer kills more people than guns, ABORTION kills more people than guns. The conundrum, Plasmaball, is that you let people get away with slaughtering hundreds of thousands of unborn children, but if someone so much as owns a gun, it makes them a ruthless killer. Say, don't you have your priorities mixed up?

There are already background checks, as I recall there have been over 65 million background checks performed in this country during Obama's presidency!. You don't need a registry of every gun owner in America, you need a registry of those who commit crimes with guns, or who lets theirs fall into the hands of a minor. This is an invasion of the 4th and 5th Amendment rights of all law abiding gun owners!

I said guns are tools just like a car.

Wow 65 million while we have over 300 million out there. Im not impressed at all.

You need a license, permit, and insurance ( all but New hampshire) to drive a car.
I have no problem doing this for guns as well.

waaaaa now you are rolling out the 4th and 5th lol...

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


you going to whine about your rights because you can't carry a gun in a school?

District of Columbia v. Heller ? Case Brief Summary

The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.

keep swinging....

I'm so happy you have no problem surrendering your rights. However, when you start trying to abrogate mine, I take issue with that. To date there are over 20,000 gun laws on the books and not one has ever been shown to have prevented a crime.

You are totally wrong on your read of US V Miller, they held that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled "because it had no forseeable military purpose". Their ruling had nothing to do with the civilian useage of weapons at the time.

Further, once the law was passed the ATF's precurser took it upon themselves (like all bureaucracies do) to add weapons to the controlled list via non-legislative "rules". They have passed thousands of rules that most people have no knowledge of.

And that leads to the final issue which is namely once something is regulated, the regulations can be made ever more onerous. But you anti civil rights propagandists know that, you simply don't care. You want power over the population and you willuse whatever nefarious methods you have to to obtain your goal.

Lol im not going to change your mind on the issue like most other people. You are going to weasel your way out of everything in order to say the government is going after your rights.

Normal thinking people understand they are not. Sure some people want laws passed to ban guns, but that wont be happening. Scotus already stated you cant pass those type of laws.

Passi g a law that states you must have your gun locked and in a rack is not infringing on your rights. You already own the gun.

Good for those 20k laws on the books. Id still pass further background checks, higher more agents to check inventories of gun stores and maybe have gun locks on guns when being stored.

Rational people would be fine with this. I understand you are not a rational person on this issue.

Yes my methods are voting to have laws passed. Im ******* evil....

 

[Plasmaball]

But somehow you think guns do more killing. How deluded you are. Cars kill more people than guns, drug use kills more people than guns, cancer kills more people than guns, ABORTION kills more people than guns. The conundrum, Plasmaball, is that you let people get away with slaughtering hundreds of thousands of unborn children, but if someone so much as owns a gun, it makes them a ruthless killer. Say, don't you have your priorities mixed up?

There are already background checks, as I recall there have been over 65 million background checks performed in this country during Obama's presidency!. You don't need a registry of every gun owner in America, you need a registry of those who commit crimes with guns, or who lets theirs fall into the hands of a minor. This is an invasion of the 4th and 5th Amendment rights of all law abiding gun owners!

I said guns are tools just like a car.

Wow 65 million while we have over 300 million out there. I'm not impressed at all.

You need a license, permit, and insurance ( all but New hampshire) to drive a car.
I have no problem doing this for guns as well.

waaaaa now you are rolling out the 4th and 5th lol...

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - NationalJournal.com




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


you going to whine about your rights because you can't carry a gun in a school?

District of Columbia v. Heller ? Case Brief Summary

The Second Amendment right is not a right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner and for any purpose. The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. The historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons supports the holding in United States v. Miller that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time.

keep swinging....

Oh so you just used Heller on me huh? Read the summary again, tool.

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

And then we take a look at McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), which essentially reaffirmed Heller, and built upon it. It essentially held that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.

Read Justice Alito's majority opinion on the subject here beginning on page 16.

A person's gun is his personal property, as covered in the 4th Amendment, and he has a right to be safe from reprisal by his government for owning it. The 5th Amendment says he has a right to life liberty and property, thus he has a right to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment says his rights to use that weapon for self defense or for whatever reason that does not break the law, shall not be restricted. Therefore any restrictions placed on that right would be unconstitutional.

Knocked this one out of the park, buddy. Going, going, gone.

Sigh you are still arguing like im taking your guns away when ive stated I have zero Intention to.
Until you actually understand this point we can not go further. Ive noticed this is a problem with a lot of you. You are already coming in with this preset idea and you will spout the same rhetoric over and over.

Its boring.