Conservatives who warn of tyranny and a police state want armed guards everywhere?

[eflatminor]

Yes, I think mandatory background checks would make it much more difficult for criminals to buy guns since they can do so quite easily now under the current system.

Zero evidence to back that up. Should work out about as well as gun free zones. But hey, if it feels right to you, let's go with it, logic and reason be damned.

Currently, they can just go to a gun show and seek out a private seller. Or they can answer an ad in the paper or on a bulletin board, and neither they nor the seller are required to follow the background check procedure that dealers must follow.

Which means a law abiding citizen can exercise his inalienable right to self protection without seeking permission from government. Change that and you think criminals will all of a sudden begin following the law?

Common sense backs it up. If a person who can't legally buy a gun from a dealer can easily buy a gun legally from a private seller, there is NO effective deterrent in preventing a criminal from buying a gun. There are no effective obstacles to his being able to purchase a gun right out in the open. However, if the law is changed, and background checks are required under penalty of law (to both the buyer AND the seller), then the person who wants to buy a gun has to go to far greater trouble to find one, let alone buy one. Some may succeed. Many, if not most, will not be able to get their hands on one unless they steal one or can find a black market seller, and it's not like those people advertise in the newspaper.

To a criminal, there is NO deterred no matter what laws you pass. If you had any legs to stand on, California would be the safest state in the Union. They have required ALL firearm transactions to go through a licensed dealer (thereby requiring a background check) since 1991. How's that working out for them? You can't privately sell a firearm in Washington DC either. How's their violent crime rate working out?

Again, you only have an emotionally based argument. No matter what feel good legislation you support, criminals will not obey your laws. Your regulations only serve to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage and to make criminals out of people that merely wish to sell a personal possession.

Pass!

 

[Mustang]

Zero evidence to back that up. Should work out about as well as gun free zones. But hey, if it feels right to you, let's go with it, logic and reason be damned.

Which means a law abiding citizen can exercise his inalienable right to self protection without seeking permission from government. Change that and you think criminals will all of a sudden begin following the law?

Common sense backs it up. If a person who can't legally buy a gun from a dealer can easily buy a gun legally from a private seller, there is NO effective deterrent in preventing a criminal from buying a gun. There are no effective obstacles to his being able to purchase a gun right out in the open. However, if the law is changed, and background checks are required under penalty of law (to both the buyer AND the seller), then the person who wants to buy a gun has to go to far greater trouble to find one, let alone buy one. Some may succeed. Many, if not most, will not be able to get their hands on one unless they steal one or can find a black market seller, and it's not like those people advertise in the newspaper.

To a criminal, there is NO deterred no matter what laws you pass. If you had any legs to stand on, California would be the safest state in the Union. They have required ALL firearm transactions to go through a licensed dealer (thereby requiring a background check) since 1991. How's that working out for them? You can't privately sell a firearm in Washington DC either. How's their violent crime rate working out?

Again, you only have an emotionally based argument. No matter what feel good legislation you support, criminals will not obey your laws. Your regulations only serve to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage and to make criminals out of people that merely wish to sell a personal possession.

Pass!

There may be no deterrent in terms of what they want. But there would be a deterrent in terms of what they could get. Yeah, when one state requires background checks on all gun purchases, and a nearby state doesn't require one, what do you think happens? If it's like what happened when I lived in a state with a drinking age of 21, and just across the border, the drinking age was 18 in a different state, then people will flock to where they can legally attain the gun (or the beer, or the fireworks, or whatever else they want). Making the law uniform in all states (like making private sellers comply with the same requirements as dealers) will prevent large numbers of people from buying guns legally. The question is whether or not they'll be able to find one illegally. Some will. I don't think most will be able to find one because they'll have no idea where to look for one. And those attempted purchases are almost as likely to result in them getting robbed as it is to result in them getting a gun since they have to know that showing up at some secret location late at night with a large sum of cash to buy an illegal firearm from an unknown seller is inherently dangerous.

 

[eflatminor]

Common sense backs it up. If a person who can't legally buy a gun from a dealer can easily buy a gun legally from a private seller, there is NO effective deterrent in preventing a criminal from buying a gun. There are no effective obstacles to his being able to purchase a gun right out in the open. However, if the law is changed, and background checks are required under penalty of law (to both the buyer AND the seller), then the person who wants to buy a gun has to go to far greater trouble to find one, let alone buy one. Some may succeed. Many, if not most, will not be able to get their hands on one unless they steal one or can find a black market seller, and it's not like those people advertise in the newspaper.

To a criminal, there is NO deterred no matter what laws you pass. If you had any legs to stand on, California would be the safest state in the Union. They have required ALL firearm transactions to go through a licensed dealer (thereby requiring a background check) since 1991. How's that working out for them? You can't privately sell a firearm in Washington DC either. How's their violent crime rate working out?

Again, you only have an emotionally based argument. No matter what feel good legislation you support, criminals will not obey your laws. Your regulations only serve to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage and to make criminals out of people that merely wish to sell a personal possession.

Pass!

There may be no deterrent in terms of what they want. But there would be a deterrent in terms of what they could get. Yeah, when one state requires background checks on all gun purchases, and a nearby state doesn't require one, what do you think happens?

Right, that's how criminals in California obtain weapons...they drive to another state...

Massive fail there dude.

 

[OKTexas]

Common sense backs it up. If a person who can't legally buy a gun from a dealer can easily buy a gun legally from a private seller, there is NO effective deterrent in preventing a criminal from buying a gun. There are no effective obstacles to his being able to purchase a gun right out in the open. However, if the law is changed, and background checks are required under penalty of law (to both the buyer AND the seller), then the person who wants to buy a gun has to go to far greater trouble to find one, let alone buy one. Some may succeed. Many, if not most, will not be able to get their hands on one unless they steal one or can find a black market seller, and it's not like those people advertise in the newspaper.

To a criminal, there is NO deterred no matter what laws you pass. If you had any legs to stand on, California would be the safest state in the Union. They have required ALL firearm transactions to go through a licensed dealer (thereby requiring a background check) since 1991. How's that working out for them? You can't privately sell a firearm in Washington DC either. How's their violent crime rate working out?

Again, you only have an emotionally based argument. No matter what feel good legislation you support, criminals will not obey your laws. Your regulations only serve to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage and to make criminals out of people that merely wish to sell a personal possession.

Pass!

There may be no deterrent in terms of what they want. But there would be a deterrent in terms of what they could get. Yeah, when one state requires background checks on all gun purchases, and a nearby state doesn't require one, what do you think happens? If it's like what happened when I lived in a state with a drinking age of 21, and just across the border, the drinking age was 18 in a different state, then people will flock to where they can legally attain the gun (or the beer, or the fireworks, or whatever else they want). Making the law uniform in all states (like making private sellers comply with the same requirements as dealers) will prevent large numbers of people from buying guns legally. The question is whether or not they'll be able to find one illegally. Some will. I don't think most will be able to find one because they'll have no idea where to look for one. And those attempted purchases are almost as likely to result in them getting robbed as it is to result in them getting a gun since they have to know that showing up at some secret location late at night with a large sum of cash to buy an illegal firearm from an unknown seller is inherently dangerous.

Yep, let's assume you get your federal laws, then what will you do when an illegal gun trade develops across our boarders? Are you then going to decide it might be a good idea to secure the boarders? Ya know if you do that first, a huge portion of the gun violence would disappear without the other laws you're pushing for now? So may I suggest you reassess your priorities.

 

[Mustang]

To a criminal, there is NO deterred no matter what laws you pass. If you had any legs to stand on, California would be the safest state in the Union. They have required ALL firearm transactions to go through a licensed dealer (thereby requiring a background check) since 1991. How's that working out for them? You can't privately sell a firearm in Washington DC either. How's their violent crime rate working out?

Again, you only have an emotionally based argument. No matter what feel good legislation you support, criminals will not obey your laws. Your regulations only serve to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage and to make criminals out of people that merely wish to sell a personal possession.

Pass!

There may be no deterrent in terms of what they want. But there would be a deterrent in terms of what they could get. Yeah, when one state requires background checks on all gun purchases, and a nearby state doesn't require one, what do you think happens? If it's like what happened when I lived in a state with a drinking age of 21, and just across the border, the drinking age was 18 in a different state, then people will flock to where they can legally attain the gun (or the beer, or the fireworks, or whatever else they want). Making the law uniform in all states (like making private sellers comply with the same requirements as dealers) will prevent large numbers of people from buying guns legally. The question is whether or not they'll be able to find one illegally. Some will. I don't think most will be able to find one because they'll have no idea where to look for one. And those attempted purchases are almost as likely to result in them getting robbed as it is to result in them getting a gun since they have to know that showing up at some secret location late at night with a large sum of cash to buy an illegal firearm from an unknown seller is inherently dangerous.

Yep, let's assume you get your federal laws, then what will you do when an illegal gun trade develops across our boarders? Are you then going to decide it might be a good idea to secure the boarders? Ya know if you do that first, a huge portion of the gun violence would disappear without the other laws you're pushing for now? So may I suggest you reassess your priorities.

A boarder is someone who rents a room. I assume you mean border.

The border is more secure than conservatives would have people think since large numbers of illegals originally came here on visas, and a large amount of our illegal drugs are grown and/or manufactured right here in this country.

With that said, the border will NEVER be completely closed off from illegal traffic in either people or black market goods. However, that's no reason not to pass laws in this country to make it harder for people to get their hands on firearms when their legal status should otherwise prevent it.

 

[Erand7899]

There are several reasons why they need to be government employees and not just private security.

HERE:

1- Only police departments and government jobs sensitive to security can (military, FBI, etc) can put a person through a lie detector for condition of employment. Thats a labor law. So, if you put a man with a gun in a school, and he is a govt employee, to get hired he must submit to a lie detector and psych evaluation. A private security guard does not.

2- Read #1 over again. Need we go any further?

No, we need go no further, your ignorance is already obvious. There are already hundreds of thousands of private security personnel in this country. Doubling or tripling that number will not create any need for lie detectors or psych evaluations.

Our local malls already have armed guards, and every event where large numbers of people are massed, armed guards and/or police are present. They have never caused me any anxiety or fear of being oppressed.

Our schools do not need armed guards. They need to be hardened sufficiently to delay a shooter from getting to the kids, and they need armed personnel in the school to counter any shooter that does get in. Any teachers or administrators that wish to get trained and get a concealed carry permit, should be allowed to possess a concealed firearm in the school. The simple fact that the targets may be armed is enough to deter a prospective shooter.

 

[OKTexas]

There may be no deterrent in terms of what they want. But there would be a deterrent in terms of what they could get. Yeah, when one state requires background checks on all gun purchases, and a nearby state doesn't require one, what do you think happens? If it's like what happened when I lived in a state with a drinking age of 21, and just across the border, the drinking age was 18 in a different state, then people will flock to where they can legally attain the gun (or the beer, or the fireworks, or whatever else they want). Making the law uniform in all states (like making private sellers comply with the same requirements as dealers) will prevent large numbers of people from buying guns legally. The question is whether or not they'll be able to find one illegally. Some will. I don't think most will be able to find one because they'll have no idea where to look for one. And those attempted purchases are almost as likely to result in them getting robbed as it is to result in them getting a gun since they have to know that showing up at some secret location late at night with a large sum of cash to buy an illegal firearm from an unknown seller is inherently dangerous.

Yep, let's assume you get your federal laws, then what will you do when an illegal gun trade develops across our boarders? Are you then going to decide it might be a good idea to secure the boarders? Ya know if you do that first, a huge portion of the gun violence would disappear without the other laws you're pushing for now? So may I suggest you reassess your priorities.

A boarder is someone who rents a room. I assume you mean border.

The border is more secure than conservatives would have people think since large numbers of illegals originally came here on visas, and a large amount of our illegal drugs are grown and/or manufactured right here in this country.

With that said, the border will NEVER be completely closed off from illegal traffic in either people or black market goods. However, that's no reason not to pass laws in this country to make it harder for people to get their hands on firearms when their legal status should otherwise prevent it.

You're right about 40% of illegals over stay visas, that leaves 60% crossing borders illegally along with cocaine and heroin, neither of which are grown here. There are also large quantities of marijuana because they can't grow enough here. Then you have criminal gangs moving people in both directions as needed. You keep spewing the party line that are borders are more secure, but you can never say our borders ARE secure, because they are not.

 

[Mustang]

Yep, let's assume you get your federal laws, then what will you do when an illegal gun trade develops across our boarders? Are you then going to decide it might be a good idea to secure the boarders? Ya know if you do that first, a huge portion of the gun violence would disappear without the other laws you're pushing for now? So may I suggest you reassess your priorities.

A boarder is someone who rents a room. I assume you mean border.

The border is more secure than conservatives would have people think since large numbers of illegals originally came here on visas, and a large amount of our illegal drugs are grown and/or manufactured right here in this country.

With that said, the border will NEVER be completely closed off from illegal traffic in either people or black market goods. However, that's no reason not to pass laws in this country to make it harder for people to get their hands on firearms when their legal status should otherwise prevent it.

You're right about 40% of illegals over stay visas, that leaves 60% crossing borders illegally along with cocaine and heroin, neither of which are grown here. There are also large quantities of marijuana because they can't grow enough here. Then you have criminal gangs moving people in both directions as needed. You keep spewing the party line that are borders are more secure, but you can never say our borders ARE secure, because they are not.

The border is NEVER going to be secured to the extent where people or contraband of one kind or another can't be smuggled in one way or another. However, a great deal of what comes into this country comes in by sea by both commercial shipping and private boats as well as by airplanes. Even trucks can bring a lot in. But walking across the desert with contraband? That's a death sentence since most people can't even carry enough water to get them across before they die of thirst.

But as far as guns are concerned, it's far more likely that guns will be smuggled out of the country then smuggled in. Right now, thieves steal about 235,000 guns a year in this country from people who foolishly leave their guns where they can be stolen. Look for that number to increase if the laws are changed. Gun owners need to be more responsible with their firearms.

 

[Flopper]

Yep, let's assume you get your federal laws, then what will you do when an illegal gun trade develops across our boarders? Are you then going to decide it might be a good idea to secure the boarders? Ya know if you do that first, a huge portion of the gun violence would disappear without the other laws you're pushing for now? So may I suggest you reassess your priorities.

A boarder is someone who rents a room. I assume you mean border.

The border is more secure than conservatives would have people think since large numbers of illegals originally came here on visas, and a large amount of our illegal drugs are grown and/or manufactured right here in this country.

With that said, the border will NEVER be completely closed off from illegal traffic in either people or black market goods. However, that's no reason not to pass laws in this country to make it harder for people to get their hands on firearms when their legal status should otherwise prevent it.

You're right about 40% of illegals over stay visas, that leaves 60% crossing borders illegally along with cocaine and heroin, neither of which are grown here. There are also large quantities of marijuana because they can't grow enough here. Then you have criminal gangs moving people in both directions as needed. You keep spewing the party line that are borders are more secure, but you can never say our borders ARE secure, because they are not.

I don't think 60% crossed the boarder illegally. Everything I have read indicate that a majority enter the country legally. Often illegal immigrants enter the country legally, overstay their visa, but eventually return to their homeland. Some remain but others return, sometimes legally but often illegally.

A big problems has been students that overstay their visa. In the pass the INS has not done a very good job of enforcing the time limits on visas. Students can request a visa extension, however there is no certainty that it will be granted. Often it's better from the students prospective to stay in school and take the chance of being caught rather than apply for an extension.

What many seem to believe about illegal immigration is just not true. For example, most illegal immigrants do not sneak across the boarder. Most enter the country under the eyes of boarder guards via cars, trucks, and planes.