CDZ Should we require criminal background checks before people can vote in elections?

[2aguy]

Even assuming your argument is accurate, there is a big difference between the two things: voting is time-restricted.

So.....you just make the person get the background check 24 hours before they vote......or 72 hours like they do to buy a gun.......

Because of the timing issue, background checks would be more of a burden for voting. That would make the idea harder to pass legal muster, I would imagine.

And the woman who was waiting for her concealed carry permit in New Jersey who was stabbed to death on her driveway by her husband....with the restraining order already against him......that was a timing issue too.....

 

[alang1216]

And again....."just want to know that gun owners know what they are doing..." turns into rules and regulations that will prohibit normal people, through time and expense, from being able to own and carry guns...that is how they do it in Europe. The rules and regulations that you have to know to own the few shotgun models for hunting birds in Britain are so excessive, only the wealthy and politically connected can make it through the hurdles...

So no.....you are wrong.

Drivers must abide by rules and regulations to ensure they know what they are doing and we have over 200 million drivers in this country. I'd say most of those are 'normal' people who seem able to navigate the system. I'd wager that gun owners are similarly capable.

So you are fear-mongering and just plain wrong.

 

[sparky]

Should we require criminal background checks before people can run for election?

^^FIFY^^

~S~

 

[2aguy]

And again....."just want to know that gun owners know what they are doing..." turns into rules and regulations that will prohibit normal people, through time and expense, from being able to own and carry guns...that is how they do it in Europe. The rules and regulations that you have to know to own the few shotgun models for hunting birds in Britain are so excessive, only the wealthy and politically connected can make it through the hurdles...

So no.....you are wrong.

Drivers must abide by rules and regulations to ensure they know what they are doing and we have over 200 million drivers in this country. I'd say most of those are 'normal' people who seem able to navigate the system. I'd wager that gun owners are similarly capable.

So you are fear-mongering and just plain wrong.

It isn't about being able to pass your tests....it is a fact that those tests would be used to keep normal people from being able to own and carry guns...as we already see in California and New York and various other places.......we also know from Europe, where the tests and fees are so onerous that "normal" people, can't get past them to have guns.....

These are facts, they have real world examples, so you aren't fooling anyone.

The democrat party used Literacy Tests to keep blacks from voting......anti-gun extremists would create tests that would keep normal people from owning and carrying guns...

So again....no.

 

[2aguy]

And again....."just want to know that gun owners know what they are doing..." turns into rules and regulations that will prohibit normal people, through time and expense, from being able to own and carry guns...that is how they do it in Europe. The rules and regulations that you have to know to own the few shotgun models for hunting birds in Britain are so excessive, only the wealthy and politically connected can make it through the hurdles...

So no.....you are wrong.

Drivers must abide by rules and regulations to ensure they know what they are doing and we have over 200 million drivers in this country. I'd say most of those are 'normal' people who seem able to navigate the system. I'd wager that gun owners are similarly capable.

So you are fear-mongering and just plain wrong.

Gun owners also have to abide by rules....they can't use their guns for crime or murder and if they accidentally shoot someone they get punished.......what you want...we already have.

 

[alang1216]

And again....."just want to know that gun owners know what they are doing..." turns into rules and regulations that will prohibit normal people, through time and expense, from being able to own and carry guns...that is how they do it in Europe. The rules and regulations that you have to know to own the few shotgun models for hunting birds in Britain are so excessive, only the wealthy and politically connected can make it through the hurdles...

So no.....you are wrong.

Drivers must abide by rules and regulations to ensure they know what they are doing and we have over 200 million drivers in this country. I'd say most of those are 'normal' people who seem able to navigate the system. I'd wager that gun owners are similarly capable.

So you are fear-mongering and just plain wrong.

It isn't about being able to pass your tests....it is a fact that those tests would be used to keep normal people from being able to own and carry guns...as we already see in California and New York and various other places.......we also know from Europe, where the tests and fees are so onerous that "normal" people, can't get past them to have guns.....

These are facts, they have real world examples, so you aren't fooling anyone.

The democrat party used Literacy Tests to keep blacks from voting......anti-gun extremists would create tests that would keep normal people from owning and carrying guns...

So again....no.

And if pigs had wings they could fly.

 

[alang1216]

Gun owners also have to abide by rules....they can't use their guns for crime or murder and if they accidentally shoot someone they get punished.......what you want...we already have.

Do they know the rules? How do you know they know?

 

[2aguy]

Gun owners also have to abide by rules....they can't use their guns for crime or murder and if they accidentally shoot someone they get punished.......what you want...we already have.

Do they know the rules? How do you know they know?

Yeah......not killing people with guns and not using guns to steal stuff....pretty easy to learn.

 

[candycorn]

A moronic idea.

You prefer to let Putin hack our democracy again, eh Komrade

I know the blob does.

 

[2aguy]

A moronic idea.

You prefer to let Putin hack our democracy again, eh Komrade

I know the blob does.

Yes...hilary wants Putin to help her again, but calling her a blob is outside of CDZ rules.

 

[Montrovant]

Even assuming your argument is accurate, there is a big difference between the two things: voting is time-restricted.

So.....you just make the person get the background check 24 hours before they vote......or 72 hours like they do to buy a gun.......

Because of the timing issue, background checks would be more of a burden for voting. That would make the idea harder to pass legal muster, I would imagine.

And the woman who was waiting for her concealed carry permit in New Jersey who was stabbed to death on her driveway by her husband....with the restraining order already against him......that was a timing issue too.....

I figured that sort of example might come up. Here's the difference: Every election has a very specific time limit. Every gun purchase does not. Not only could that make it difficult for someone to vote, because elections happen at a specific time, it's likely that a large amount of people would try getting their background checks at about the same time, which could strain or break the system.

The two situations are different enough that the comparison doesn't quite work.

 

[alang1216]

Gun owners also have to abide by rules....they can't use their guns for crime or murder and if they accidentally shoot someone they get punished.......what you want...we already have.

Do they know the rules? How do you know they know?

Yeah......not killing people with guns and not using guns to steal stuff....pretty easy to learn.

Except there are times when killing people is the goal. When is that acceptable? Stand your ground, self-defense, etc.

 

[sparky]

These are facts, they have real world examples, so you aren't fooling anyone.

and so, you'll define 'normal' in factual context towards gun ownership for us all then

you've the floor sir 2aguy.....

~S~

 

[2aguy]

Even assuming your argument is accurate, there is a big difference between the two things: voting is time-restricted.

So.....you just make the person get the background check 24 hours before they vote......or 72 hours like they do to buy a gun.......

Because of the timing issue, background checks would be more of a burden for voting. That would make the idea harder to pass legal muster, I would imagine.

And the woman who was waiting for her concealed carry permit in New Jersey who was stabbed to death on her driveway by her husband....with the restraining order already against him......that was a timing issue too.....

I figured that sort of example might come up. Here's the difference: Every election has a very specific time limit. Every gun purchase does not. Not only could that make it difficult for someone to vote, because elections happen at a specific time, it's likely that a large amount of people would try getting their background checks at about the same time, which could strain or break the system.

The two situations are different enough that the comparison doesn't quite work.

It does work......anti-gunners want to increase the time police departments have to get background checks done.....it will get to the point where they can take as long as they want.

 

[2aguy]

Gun owners also have to abide by rules....they can't use their guns for crime or murder and if they accidentally shoot someone they get punished.......what you want...we already have.

Do they know the rules? How do you know they know?

Yeah......not killing people with guns and not using guns to steal stuff....pretty easy to learn.

Except there are times when killing people is the goal. When is that acceptable? Stand your ground, self-defense, etc.

Stand your ground, it would be nice if you understood what that means.....

Let me clarify....not using the gun to commit murder.....and you can try to muddy the water as much as you want, but we have all the laws and regulations we need...considering that as more people now own and carry guns and our gun murder rate has gone down 49%, and our gun crime rate has gone down 75%.....that means that people pretty much understand the right and wrong of guns...

 

[2aguy]

These are facts, they have real world examples, so you aren't fooling anyone.

and so, you'll define 'normal' in factual context towards gun ownership for us all then

you've the floor sir 2aguy.....

~S~

That is easy too......anyone who hasn't been convicted of a felony crime, or adjudicated dangerously mentally ill.......we already have these laws.....

 

[alang1216]

Stand your ground, it would be nice if you understood what that means.....

Let me clarify....not using the gun to commit murder.....and you can try to muddy the water as much as you want, but we have all the laws and regulations we need...considering that as more people now own and carry guns and our gun murder rate has gone down 49%, and our gun crime rate has gone down 75%.....that means that people pretty much understand the right and wrong of guns...

If gun owners are so knowledgeable and responsible it should be easy for them to prove it and if they'd cooperate and police themselves better there might be fewer people afraid of them and less pressure to regulate them.

 

[2aguy]

Stand your ground, it would be nice if you understood what that means.....

Let me clarify....not using the gun to commit murder.....and you can try to muddy the water as much as you want, but we have all the laws and regulations we need...considering that as more people now own and carry guns and our gun murder rate has gone down 49%, and our gun crime rate has gone down 75%.....that means that people pretty much understand the right and wrong of guns...

If gun owners are so knowledgeable and responsible it should be easy for them to prove it and if they'd cooperate and police themselves better there might be fewer people afraid of them and less pressure to regulate them.

Again.....you want to know who has guns so that when you get the power, you can confiscate them. Every point you are making has been used in other countries to first register, and then later confiscate guns. Americans do not have to prove anything when it comes to their Rights........Blacks did not have to prove that it would be okay for them to eat at lunch counters to the democrat party who kept them from those lunch counters. You would have supported requiring Blacks to pass a "literacy" test to vote since it should have been easy for them to read the sentences the democrat party officials wanted them to read before they could vote....right? Knowing that Blacks passed the "literacy" test would make democrats less afraid they were voting...right?

 

[2aguy]

Stand your ground, it would be nice if you understood what that means.....

Let me clarify....not using the gun to commit murder.....and you can try to muddy the water as much as you want, but we have all the laws and regulations we need...considering that as more people now own and carry guns and our gun murder rate has gone down 49%, and our gun crime rate has gone down 75%.....that means that people pretty much understand the right and wrong of guns...

If gun owners are so knowledgeable and responsible it should be easy for them to prove it and if they'd cooperate and police themselves better there might be fewer people afraid of them and less pressure to regulate them.

and police themselves better

The ones who have to police themselves better are the democrat party judges, politicians and prosecutors who are letting the violent, repeat gun criminals out of jail and prison....they are the problem, not normal Americans who already use guns responsibly.

 

[alang1216]

Stand your ground, it would be nice if you understood what that means.....

Let me clarify....not using the gun to commit murder.....and you can try to muddy the water as much as you want, but we have all the laws and regulations we need...considering that as more people now own and carry guns and our gun murder rate has gone down 49%, and our gun crime rate has gone down 75%.....that means that people pretty much understand the right and wrong of guns...

If gun owners are so knowledgeable and responsible it should be easy for them to prove it and if they'd cooperate and police themselves better there might be fewer people afraid of them and less pressure to regulate them.

and police themselves better

The ones who have to police themselves better are the democrat party judges, politicians and prosecutors who are letting the violent, repeat gun criminals out of jail and prison....they are the problem, not normal Americans who already use guns responsibly.

As with every complex problem there is no simple solution but I agree normal Americans who already use guns responsibly are not the problem. It is the, admittedly rare, individuals who are not responsible.