Universal background checks... really?

[Natural Citizen]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales.

Said progressives aren't just occupying the Democratic party either. There's just as many progressives functioning under the Republican banner and selling it just as hard. And the malfeasant mainstream media is running interference for all of them. They're mostly a bunch of lawyers occupying the malfeasant mainstream media anyway. They're hardly journalists.

Now. In every instance, background checks violate the 1st Amendment in that they compel the electorate to speak and to provide information about itself in order to require a gun. In every instance, background checks violate the 5th Amendment in that they compel the electorate to provide evidence against itself in order to require a gun. And in every instance, background checks violate the 10th Amendment in that the federal mandate for the electorate to provide this information is not a constitutional function of the federal government.

It's not just the 2nd Amendment that's under attack. Cultural Marxists are using the 2nd as a means of effectively turning the entire constitution on its head.

 

[Leo123]

Oh, you did. Now exactly where do you get those rights? Do you get them from your God? What if I don't worship the same God, does that mean I don't have the same rights? Or how about an athiest, does that mean they have none of those rights? Where do you get those rights, who gives them to you? Let's face it, the Rights you harbor aren't really in the Constitution of the United States the way you keep bringing it up. That means you must be getting them from somewhere else?

Your Queen is your 'god' ain't she Daryl? All rights come from the Crown. Right?

I didn't ask where I get MY rights from. I asked where YOU get YOUR rights from. Now answer that question.

Well I’m asking YOU. Our Founders referred to a Creator. The Crown is your ‘Creator.’ Morality must then be whatever the ‘chosen’ decide for you.

 

[2aguy]

No, you're right. Background checks won't do the trick. Ban and confiscate assault rifles and mags over 10 rounds. Insist on safety courses and licensing, including a clean mental health evaluation, every five years, for any gun. Clean up the NICS data base so it actually contains the information needed to make an informed decision on a potential buyer's appropriateness for a gun.
Americans are stupid mental cases.

No law, no single provision of a regulation will ever, and has never stopped criminal actions. Speed limits have not eradicated high speed highway accidents. No building codes have ever ended building fires.

But who would argue that speed limits have substantially reduced high speed airomobile accidents? Who would argue that building codes have been totally ineffective in making construction standards higher and therefore safer?

The Gun Culture is retrenching so deeply in the canard that massively popular, common sense gun safety regulations inevitably result in gun confiscation. The 'slippery slope' doctrine.

Those who successfully introduced Prohibition used the same intractable political tact. The most obstinate politics in 20th century American politics. But when faced with overwhelming popular opposition, they held fast until they were utterly smashed. A few compromises would most certainly saved the Prohibition movement.

You can't name any common sense gun regulations....all you put out are gun laws meant to restrict gun access for law abiding gun owners.

Every gun owner is a law abiding citizen right up to the point they pull the trigger.

A background check does not infringe the right to bear arms.

Jayzus! Ya want an ID to cast a vote, but not to get a gun!

Dude you do realize we already have background checks?

Do they apply to every gun purchase?

They don't have to....in a free country, you can sell private property without government permission.....

 

[2aguy]

Fortunately after a week or so sometimes less, progressives quit lighting their hair on fire about these shootings.
But the drum beat goes on for frivolous gun control laws...

But the last two shooters in Texas were absolutely no different than these shit stains...

Mass shooting is color blind... Both with the shooter and the ones being shot apparently. Lol

As a gun dealer you might be biased. People don't need military style weapons. They should ban the sales. and we do need a mental health system. What we need is to tax the rich more than the rest of us for crying out loud this is ridiculous. The Democratic Rich know- only assholes don't. oh and you dupes....

The AR-15 is not a military anything. It has never been used by the military it has never been used in a war....and the way it operates is the same way as all other semi-automatic guns. The 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun is a current military weapon....according to you that should be banned as well...along with the bolt action rifle, which is also a current, actual military weapon.

 

[2aguy]

Still waiting for the solutions from the right wing on how to stop our near weekly massacres.

We don't have weekly massacres....we have lots of gun crime because democrats keep letting repeat gun offenders out of jail on bond, and out of prison on light sentences.....if you want to reduce gun crime and murder, stop letting known, repeat gun offenders out of prison.

 

[2aguy]

Still waiting for the solutions from the right wing on how to stop our near weekly massacres.

Put offenders in jail to prevent them from becoming repeat offenders. Chicago Police Department

Okay…would that have stopped the massacres in El Paso or Midland just this Month?

They are different crimes, the criminals were crime free until those attacks...and keep in mind, we had a grand total of 12 of these attacks in 2018, with a total number killed 93. Lawn mowers kill over 75 people a year, and knives kill over 1,500 people every single year. Cars over 38,000.

You are allowed to exploit the rarest of rare crimes because the anti-gun democrats in the press over expose these killers, creating new killers in the process.

 

[2aguy]

Not permanently.

How would you determine who should be denied guns and votes?

Simple for their group. Anyone that agrees with them will have those rights. Anyone that does not should be denied those privileges.

By what mechanism?

You are doing nothing but trying to find a loophole and find a gotcha. Sorry, won't play your stupid game.

How would a gun seller know if a person's gun rights have been suspended? Maybe a background check? Shouldn't such checks be performed at every sale?

The buyer who is a felon already knows they are breaking the law, and when they are caught with the illegal gun, they can already be arrested and put in jail.....to be promptly released by the nearest democrat judge. So, we don't need the next step to gun registration...we need to keep violent criminals locked up.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The ******* spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

No, you're right. Background checks won't do the trick. Ban and confiscate assault rifles and mags over 10 rounds. Insist on safety courses and licensing, including a clean mental health evaluation, every five years, for any gun. Clean up the NICS data base so it actually contains the information needed to make an informed decision on a potential buyer's appropriateness for a gun.
Americans are stupid mental cases.

/—-/ Old Joe says ban magazines that hold multiple bullets.
Biden calls for ban of magazines that hold more than one bullet

 

[2aguy]

Still waiting for the solutions from the right wing on how to stop our near weekly massacres.

lol
Shit happens, Only a fool thinks more frivolous gun control laws will save a single soul

There is no way to measure how many lives were saved by the waiting period, the current insufficient background checks, etc…. We should at least try something instead of being resigned to shrugging our shoulders at the massacres.

Yes there is....0.

What we need to try is keeping known, repeat gun offenders locked up........what is so hard about that that you dopes won't do it....

 

[2aguy]

Still waiting for the solutions from the right wing on how to stop our near weekly massacres.

First of all, 200 dead a year from mass murders, is so ridiculously insignificant, that there is no reason to be concerned.
Remember, the annual murder rate is more like 10,000.
But there is a lot we obviously could do.
Better access to health care is the place to start, since anyone that volatile would likely prefer to get treatment earlier.
But likely we also should make the educational system less competitive, more interesting, more realistic, etc., and we need to make a guaranteed employment system and housing, so the tension of employment is reduced.

It is less that that...... 93 in 2018......

 

[2aguy]

Fortunately after a week or so sometimes less, progressives quit lighting their hair on fire about these shootings.
But the drum beat goes on for frivolous gun control laws...

But the last two shooters in Texas were absolutely no different than these shit stains...

Mass shooting is color blind... Both with the shooter and the ones being shot apparently. Lol

As a gun dealer you might be biased. People don't need military style weapons. They should ban the sales. and we do need a mental health system. What we need is to tax the rich more than the rest of us for crying out loud this is ridiculous. The Democratic Rich know- only assholes don't. oh and you dupes....

lol
More frivolous gun control laws will not save a single soul, redistribution is for pussies

89% of the country is for good background checks. This last guy was turned down before for federal background check but loopholes.

Those people don't understand 1) we already have background checks and they don't keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters and 2) that any universal background check will also fail to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass shooters because 3) criminals use straw buyers, people who can pass any background check, and mass shooters pass the background checks...or both types of criminal simply steal the guns...

 

[2aguy]

Fortunately after a week or so sometimes less, progressives quit lighting their hair on fire about these shootings.
But the drum beat goes on for frivolous gun control laws...

But the last two shooters in Texas were absolutely no different than these shit stains...

Mass shooting is color blind... Both with the shooter and the ones being shot apparently. Lol

As a gun dealer you might be biased. People don't need military style weapons. They should ban the sales. and we do need a mental health system. What we need is to tax the rich more than the rest of us for crying out loud this is ridiculous. The Democratic Rich know- only assholes don't. oh and you dupes....

Military style weapons are full auto, and they have been illegal for most people since 1986.
And AR-15 is NOT a military style weapon, and just looks similar.
There are no full auto assault weapons available to most people.
There is just a lot of lying going on.
The reality is that at close urban ranges, the most dangerous firearm is a shotgun.

Good. Then you won't need to be buying military-style weapons. Military style means what they look like. And there are plenty of ways to turn them automatic.

No, moron...... the 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun is an actual, current, military weapon....the bolt action rifle is a current military weapon...the AR-15 has never been used in the military.......

You are essentially saying the Toyota Camry needs to be banned because of the cover body we put over the engine, but the Corolla is fine because it's body isn't offensive to you...even though the engines operate in the exact same way....

 

[2aguy]

Fortunately after a week or so sometimes less, progressives quit lighting their hair on fire about these shootings.
But the drum beat goes on for frivolous gun control laws...

But the last two shooters in Texas were absolutely no different than these shit stains...

Mass shooting is color blind... Both with the shooter and the ones being shot apparently. Lol

As a gun dealer you might be biased. People don't need military style weapons. They should ban the sales. and we do need a mental health system. What we need is to tax the rich more than the rest of us for crying out loud this is ridiculous. The Democratic Rich know- only assholes don't. oh and you dupes....

Military style weapons are full auto, and they have been illegal for most people since 1986.
And AR-15 is NOT a military style weapon, and just looks similar.
There are no full auto assault weapons available to most people.
There is just a lot of lying going on.
The reality is that at close urban ranges, the most dangerous firearm is a shotgun.

Good. Then you won't need to be buying military-style weapons. Military style means what they look like dumbass. And there are plenty of ways to turn them automatic.

Wrong.
While the most dangerous firearm at close ranges is a shotgun, most people do not need or want the most dangerous firearm for close ranges.
They don't want a shotgun because it is too likely to harm unintended victims because they always spread out where they are going to hit.
Appearance is a military style.
Military weapons have lots of different appearances.
And the AR line was not originally designed for the military.
Nor is appearance a valid means or reason to legislate.
And NO, it requires a full machine shop and professionals to make an AR fully automatic.
There are lots of much easier firearms to make fully automatic.

Walmart is now just selling deer rifles and shotguns. handguns should be more regulated than they are now anyway my goodness. This is out of control.

It's not out of control.....what is out of control are democrats who keep releasing known, repeat gun offenders who are the ones who are actually shooting people, even with multiple illegal gun convictions...

Stop the democrats from letting these shooters out of jail and prison, and our gun crime rate drops...

 

[2aguy]

Simple for their group. Anyone that agrees with them will have those rights. Anyone that does not should be denied those privileges.

By what mechanism?

You are doing nothing but trying to find a loophole and find a gotcha. Sorry, won't play your stupid game.

How would a gun seller know if a person's gun rights have been suspended? Maybe a background check? Shouldn't such checks be performed at every sale?

One word answer. And you already knew the answer before you asked the question. You are still trying to play gotcha.

I'm trying to understand the opposition to universal background checks.

Because they 1) do nothing to stop criminals and mass shooters, and 2) the only reason the anti-gunners want them is to then demand universal gun registration......

That's why.

 

[SweetTea]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The ******* spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

No, you're right. Background checks won't do the trick. Ban and confiscate assault rifles and mags over 10 rounds. Insist on safety courses and licensing, including a clean mental health evaluation, every five years, for any gun. Clean up the NICS data base so it actually contains the information needed to make an informed decision on a potential buyer's appropriateness for a gun.
Americans are stupid mental cases.

Your very naive and ill-informed opinion regarding gun control aside, I read the quote in your signature line about conservatives and the first thing that came to mind is just how large of a role envy plays in the life of a leftist.

 

[2aguy]

Still waiting for the solutions from the right wing on how to stop our near weekly massacres.

lol
Shit happens, Only a fool thinks more frivolous gun control laws will save a single soul

There is no way to measure how many lives were saved by the waiting period, the current insufficient background checks, etc…. We should at least try something instead of being resigned to shrugging our shoulders at the massacres.

Ah, so you don't know if anything you suggest would stop anything, but you're determined to do "something".

What's the solution?

I support a life sentence on any criminal who uses a gun for an actual gun crime..... and 30 years if a criminal is caught in possession of a gun, even if they are not using it at that moment for crime.
This will dry up gun crime over night. Criminals will stop using guns for robberies, rapes and murders.....and those who do will be gone forever......

Criminals will also stop walking around with guns in their pants......which is the leading cause of random gang shootings in our cities. if they are stopped by police, with a gun in their pants, they are gone for 30 years...they will stop carrying those guns, and random gang violence will end.

You implement this with two other things...

1) No More Bargaining Away the Gun Charge.........it must be against the law to bargain away a gun charge as part of a plea deal....this stops.

2) When a criminal is arrested for any crime, and booked in...they will be read the announcement that any use of a crime is a life sentence without parole, owning or carrying a gun as a felon is a 30 year sentence without parole....when they are released from custody...the same will be read to them again....when they meet their parole officer it will be read to them again.....the U.S. government will also buy and send out Public announcements on this policy on t.v. radio. and cable......

That is how you stop gun crime over night.

Mass shooters are different..... but with only 93 people killed in mass public shootings in 2018, they are not the major problem in gun crime.

The value in my plan......it actually targets the individuals actually using guns to commit crimes and murder people....

It does not require new background check laws, it does not require gun licensing, licensing gun owners, gun registration, new taxes, fees or regulations on guns...

By making gun crime a life sentence, criminals will stop using guns for crime and will stop carrying guns around for protection.....

Also....a nurse, with a legal gun, driving from Pennsylvania, to New Jersey, will not be considered a gun criminal.....that will end. Criminals with a record of crime, caught with a gun will get 30 years, no deals.....and criminals who use guns for actual crime...robbing the local store, rape, robbery, murder.....life without parole...

This, of course, eliminates the need for more gun control laws...we can already do this.....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You can't pick and choose.

This conversation is stupid.

Though it mainly stems from thinking of rights as a permission rather than inherent to self-owning agents, and demonstrable through individual autonomy. Your rights only end where those of another self-owning agent begins.

You can't marry a 10-year-old, not because the Government says you can't, but because a 10-year-old can't consent, due to not being developed enough to understand what they're consenting to. This would make the action unethical.

Sacrificing a Bald Eagle is not comparable in any way, much like marrying a 10-year-old, to owning a fire arm. Sacrificing a Bald Eagle is not unethical, as they are not self-owning agents. Making it illegal does not make it wrong.

Neither of these are comparable to owning a firearm, as owning a firearm is passive. Owning property is not unethical. Preventing someone from owning a firearm or stealing it, however, is an active position which infringes on the property rights of another individual.

Note: I only quoted Daryl's pointless non-argument of a post because I didn't feel like looking for Timmy's post, it just isn't worth the effort.

Like I said, you can't have it both ways. It's is or it isn't.

Yes, and like I said, you apparently don't know what rights are or where they come from, otherwise you'd have realized that I already refuted your post and Timmy's.

Not that there was any content in yours.

Oh, you did. Now exactly where do you get those rights? Do you get them from your God? What if I don't worship the same God, does that mean I don't have the same rights? Or how about an athiest, does that mean they have none of those rights? Where do you get those rights, who gives them to you? Let's face it, the Rights you harbor aren't really in the Constitution of the United States the way you keep bringing it up. That means you must be getting them from somewhere else?

Nowhere in my post did I mention God, stop trying to construct a strawman.

Nobody can give rights, that's actually retarded. A person cannot give what they don't have, so claiming they have to come from someone else is circular logic. I specifically stated that they're inherent to the individual, and demonstrable by their agency. The fact that people can act of their own free will shows that they are self-owning agents, and being a self-owning agent demonstrates that they have individual rights.

I never mentioned the Constitution, either. Quote one sentence in any recent post of mine in which I claim that the Constitution grants rights. Just one.

I'll go ahead and save you some time; The Constitution does not grant rights. Just like someone else cannot give something they don't have, a piece of paper cannot do that either. The Constitution isn't even a legitimate document, nobody consented to it, and implicit consent does not exist.

I understand your english comprehension may be sorely lacking, since you apparently don't understand the word "inherent" or "demonstrable". Try reading my previous posts again, and use Google to understand the words I used so that you don't keep making the same mistake, champ.

You are squirming. Where did you get those RIGHTS you keep saying are yours?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oh, you did. Now exactly where do you get those rights? Do you get them from your God? What if I don't worship the same God, does that mean I don't have the same rights? Or how about an athiest, does that mean they have none of those rights? Where do you get those rights, who gives them to you? Let's face it, the Rights you harbor aren't really in the Constitution of the United States the way you keep bringing it up. That means you must be getting them from somewhere else?

Your Queen is your 'god' ain't she Daryl? All rights come from the Crown. Right?

I didn't ask where I get MY rights from. I asked where YOU get YOUR rights from. Now answer that question.

Well I’m asking YOU. Our Founders referred to a Creator. The Crown is your ‘Creator.’ Morality must then be whatever the ‘chosen’ decide for you.

The question of where I get my rights from is not in question here. Not once have I tried to claim that it's my Right to do anything in this discussion. Meanwhile, you have stated that this whole thing was in violation of your rights. Where do you get those rights from? Stop squirming and answer that question.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Oh, you did. Now exactly where do you get those rights? Do you get them from your God? What if I don't worship the same God, does that mean I don't have the same rights? Or how about an athiest, does that mean they have none of those rights? Where do you get those rights, who gives them to you? Let's face it, the Rights you harbor aren't really in the Constitution of the United States the way you keep bringing it up. That means you must be getting them from somewhere else?

Your Queen is your 'god' ain't she Daryl? All rights come from the Crown. Right?

I didn't ask where I get MY rights from. I asked where YOU get YOUR rights from. Now answer that question.

Well I’m asking YOU. Our Founders referred to a Creator. The Crown is your ‘Creator.’ Morality must then be whatever the ‘chosen’ decide for you.

The question of where I get my rights from is not in question here. Not once have I tried to claim that it's my Right to do anything in this discussion. Meanwhile, you have stated that this whole thing was in violation of your rights. Where do you get those rights from? Stop squirming and answer that question.

The real question is where does the government get the right to restrict gun ownership from. The answer is from the people, and the American people are not about to give up their guns just because Democrats need a political issue for the next election.

If you make the legal purchase of guns so difficult that criminal and crazies can't purchase them legally, you will also create a strong black market for the illegal purchase of guns, just as laws that restricted alcohol and drugs created strong criminal subcultures for the illegal sales of these items, and the only way to stop the illegal purchase of guns is to have a strong police presence on the streets where such purchases are most likely to happen, that is in poor minority neighborhoods, and the Democrats are opposed to that, so the whole issue of more restrictive gun laws is just a way for Democrats to avoid doing anything substantial about violent crime. Not all neighborhoods in Chicago have the same per capita murder rate but all enjoy the same availability of guns, so obviously the availability of guns is not the deciding factor in violent crime.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

This conversation is stupid.

Though it mainly stems from thinking of rights as a permission rather than inherent to self-owning agents, and demonstrable through individual autonomy. Your rights only end where those of another self-owning agent begins.

You can't marry a 10-year-old, not because the Government says you can't, but because a 10-year-old can't consent, due to not being developed enough to understand what they're consenting to. This would make the action unethical.

Sacrificing a Bald Eagle is not comparable in any way, much like marrying a 10-year-old, to owning a fire arm. Sacrificing a Bald Eagle is not unethical, as they are not self-owning agents. Making it illegal does not make it wrong.

Neither of these are comparable to owning a firearm, as owning a firearm is passive. Owning property is not unethical. Preventing someone from owning a firearm or stealing it, however, is an active position which infringes on the property rights of another individual.

Note: I only quoted Daryl's pointless non-argument of a post because I didn't feel like looking for Timmy's post, it just isn't worth the effort.

Like I said, you can't have it both ways. It's is or it isn't.

Yes, and like I said, you apparently don't know what rights are or where they come from, otherwise you'd have realized that I already refuted your post and Timmy's.

Not that there was any content in yours.

Oh, you did. Now exactly where do you get those rights? Do you get them from your God? What if I don't worship the same God, does that mean I don't have the same rights? Or how about an athiest, does that mean they have none of those rights? Where do you get those rights, who gives them to you? Let's face it, the Rights you harbor aren't really in the Constitution of the United States the way you keep bringing it up. That means you must be getting them from somewhere else?

Nowhere in my post did I mention God, stop trying to construct a strawman.

Nobody can give rights, that's actually retarded. A person cannot give what they don't have, so claiming they have to come from someone else is circular logic. I specifically stated that they're inherent to the individual, and demonstrable by their agency. The fact that people can act of their own free will shows that they are self-owning agents, and being a self-owning agent demonstrates that they have individual rights.

I never mentioned the Constitution, either. Quote one sentence in any recent post of mine in which I claim that the Constitution grants rights. Just one.

I'll go ahead and save you some time; The Constitution does not grant rights. Just like someone else cannot give something they don't have, a piece of paper cannot do that either. The Constitution isn't even a legitimate document, nobody consented to it, and implicit consent does not exist.

I understand your english comprehension may be sorely lacking, since you apparently don't understand the word "inherent" or "demonstrable". Try reading my previous posts again, and use Google to understand the words I used so that you don't keep making the same mistake, champ.

You are squirming. Where did you get those RIGHTS you keep saying are yours?

They are INHERENT to ourselves demonstrated by our agency, through our self-ownership.

Since you're apparently incredibly dense, I'll give you examples. The fact that you chose to sit down and write that pathetic excuse for a reply that didn't address any of my arguments in any way shows that you're a self-owning agent. You therefor demonstrated that because it required no initiation of force, you have a right to do that. You can demonstrate that you own the device which you used to perform that task, you demonstrated that every keystroke was of your own accord.

As said earlier, in yet another post that flew over your head, each right only ends where another agent's begins, meaning that if someone requires an initiation of force or coercion, it is not a right.

I also explained that rights cannot come from another source since something which is not had cannot be given, so the fact that you keep asking where they came from every time I articulate that they're inherent only shows you either didn't read my post, it keeps flying over your head, or you're intentionally missing the point.