How many democrats own guns?

[M14 Shooter]

gun ownership was not an individual right for more than 200 years.

Gun ownership has never been held as anything but an individual right.

 

[Slade3200]

im definitely against registration

as for a universal background check

im not really for that either

however i do believe in responsible gun ownership to include not selling a bad guy a gun

in a sale like that the bad guy trying to buy the gun is already breaking the law

The only reason for a universal background check is to get universal gun registraton......universal background checks cannot be confirmed without registration of guns....that is why the anti gunners are pushing for it so hard.....it does nothing to stop crime or mass shooters...so why are they pushing it? Registration.

You seem like a bright guy, it puzzles me that you can't understand the logic. It's like metal detectors in the airport... A simple preventative measure to limit access the legal sale of weapons to risky individuals. Yes criminals can still get guns in the black market... some will and some won't. Not everybody is connected with illegal arms dealers...

Yet you still can't say what type of background check a thief that STOLE my gun by entering a LOCKED vehicle on PRIVATE PROPERTY where he/she didn't belong will go through for having that gun.

I did answer that... No kind of background check. bg checks have no effect on criminals that illegally buy or steal arms. Do you claim that 100% of criminals steal or illegally obtain guns and 0% are detoured from not being able to easily buy one from a store?

The laws you support won't keep criminals from getting guns because they're criminals. They will find a way to get them. The laws you support will make it harder for those that wouldn't do the things for which you use to put those laws in place.

Making somebody go through a bg check could be an instant thing, it doesn't need to be a process that makes the purchase of a gun any harder. And it definitely could prevent SOME criminals from getting weapons... Not all criminals but some. That's the point

 

[Conservative65]

The only reason for a universal background check is to get universal gun registraton......universal background checks cannot be confirmed without registration of guns....that is why the anti gunners are pushing for it so hard.....it does nothing to stop crime or mass shooters...so why are they pushing it? Registration.

You seem like a bright guy, it puzzles me that you can't understand the logic. It's like metal detectors in the airport... A simple preventative measure to limit access the legal sale of weapons to risky individuals. Yes criminals can still get guns in the black market... some will and some won't. Not everybody is connected with illegal arms dealers...

Yet you still can't say what type of background check a thief that STOLE my gun by entering a LOCKED vehicle on PRIVATE PROPERTY where he/she didn't belong will go through for having that gun.

I did answer that... No kind of background check. bg checks have no effect on criminals that illegally buy or steal arms. Do you claim that 100% of criminals steal or illegally obtain guns and 0% are detoured from not being able to easily buy one from a store?

The laws you support won't keep criminals from getting guns because they're criminals. They will find a way to get them. The laws you support will make it harder for those that wouldn't do the things for which you use to put those laws in place.

Making somebody go through a bg check could be an instant thing, it doesn't need to be a process that makes the purchase of a gun any harder. And it definitely could prevent SOME criminals from getting weapons... Not all criminals but some. That's the point

The problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.

What percentage are you willing to accept when it comes to stopping those that shouldn't get guns related to background checks. If it's 90% successful, is that OK? If the 10%, or whatever you are willing to accept, get them and mass shootings still take place, at what level are you willing to say it was successful?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I support Dems legally owning guns to offset the untra right wingers that are heavily armed and want to get the armed revolution started as soon as possible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.

Two problem with universal background checks:
- The law will not affect criminals
- Enforcement is only possible with universal registration.

Universal registration is the goal; no one wonders why.

 

[jillian]

gun ownership was not an individual right for more than 200 years.

Gun ownership has never been held as anything but an individual right.

you should probably read breyer and steven's dissent to Scalia's absurd decision in heller.

while it isn't law, it will tell you the history of the 2nd amendment....which had zero to do with personal protection, but instead concerned only the defense of the country since there was no standing army at the time.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZD1

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[jillian]

The problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.

Two problem with universal background checks:
- The law will not affect criminals
- Enforcement is only possible with universal registration.

Universal registration is the goal; no one wonders why.

what a bunch of BS.

 

[Slade3200]

I live in California, don't really subscribe to a political party but my views are mostly liberal with a touch of conservatism when it comes to government spending... I own 14 guns and don't have a problem with most the gun control measures that have been proposed. Got no need for semi auto assault riffles or high capacity mags. Wouldn't be thrilled about registration or bg checking a private sale but I'm not going to cry about it either.

The NRA which I'm a member of is pretty full of shit with their propaganda, I get the letters and laugh most the time. The Left is just as full of shit with their propaganda and they are a bit misguided with their control efforts in my opinion.

You are sadly naïve. You have yours so you aren't concerned with how hard it is for anyone else. Naïve and apathetic.

How hard is it? You get a back ground check and buy a gun. My buddy owns a gun shop in California and can't keep his shelves stocked.

As I said naive.

You think it's going to stay that way? That's the whole point.

Say hi to the Strawman for me

You keep using that word, but you have no idea what it means. Typical.

It means you are fighting an invisible enemy. You are objecting to things that are not a reality, they are a product of your paranoia and assumptions of a hidden agenda that you think your political opponents have. It takes you from reasonable status to wingnut or extremist status

 

[whitehall]

Democrats don't give a damn about guns. It's a political issue that the freaking hypocrites take advantage of with the full cooperation of the drooling left wing media. Legendary anti-2nd Amendment activist Teddy Kennedy probably didn't own a gun but his personally hired bodyguard was arrested trying to enter the Senate building armed with several illegal and unregistered forearms. Teddy quietly found a friendly democrat judge who dismissed the case.

 

[Slade3200]

[

I did answer that... No kind of background check. bg checks have no effect on criminals that illegally buy or steal arms. Do you claim that 100% of criminals steal or illegally obtain guns and 0% are detoured from not being able to easily buy one from a store?

Background checks are as worthless as tits on a boar.

The great majority of gun violence in this country is done with stolen or cheap black market guns. Every shooting in Chicago every night is done with a gun that was not obtained through a back ground check.

Occasionally a person will legally buy a gun and then later on decide to use in a crime (like in Orlando) but if the person really wanted to commit the crime and couldn't get one legally he would get the gun through illegal means.

The NICS system is worthless.

I have never committed a crime nor have been been arrested. The only time I have ever been in a court house is when called to jury duty or property business. I also have had several high national level security clearances.

I buy several guns a year and have been run through the NICS system numerous times. I have been rejected two times for no apparent reason. It was cleared up after some hassle but it just shows how flawed the system is.

We simply don't need the government giving us permission to enjoy our Constitutional rights, which is what background checks are all about. That is wrong and oppressive and provides no tangible benefit. It is the assumption that a person is guilty until proven innocent and that is also against the Constitution.

If you have to get permission from the filthy ass government to enjoy a right protected under the Bill of Rights then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

The crime should absolutely never be the possession of firearms. The crime should be using the firearm for an illegal purpose. .

That's a fair position to take... It is also fair for your opponents to take the opposite position and want to limit the sale and distribution of weapons to risky individuals. Force the crazy stalker guy with a restraining order to go find a black market gun or try and steal one instead of allowing him to walk into a store and legally buy one.

 

[Slade3200]

You seem like a bright guy, it puzzles me that you can't understand the logic. It's like metal detectors in the airport... A simple preventative measure to limit access the legal sale of weapons to risky individuals. Yes criminals can still get guns in the black market... some will and some won't. Not everybody is connected with illegal arms dealers...

Yet you still can't say what type of background check a thief that STOLE my gun by entering a LOCKED vehicle on PRIVATE PROPERTY where he/she didn't belong will go through for having that gun.

I did answer that... No kind of background check. bg checks have no effect on criminals that illegally buy or steal arms. Do you claim that 100% of criminals steal or illegally obtain guns and 0% are detoured from not being able to easily buy one from a store?

The laws you support won't keep criminals from getting guns because they're criminals. They will find a way to get them. The laws you support will make it harder for those that wouldn't do the things for which you use to put those laws in place.

Making somebody go through a bg check could be an instant thing, it doesn't need to be a process that makes the purchase of a gun any harder. And it definitely could prevent SOME criminals from getting weapons... Not all criminals but some. That's the point

The problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.

What percentage are you willing to accept when it comes to stopping those that shouldn't get guns related to background checks. If it's 90% successful, is that OK? If the 10%, or whatever you are willing to accept, get them and mass shootings still take place, at what level are you willing to say it was successful?

If it stops one guy from getting a gun and killing somebody then it's a success. The stats you are looking for are not measurable. You can't record murders that didn't happen. I'd think that you would support national and personal security measures. A comprehensive bg check system that flags risky or dangerous individuals and prevents them from purchasing weapons should be something you champion. It shouldn't have any effect on responsible law abiding citizens and would likely cost a fraction of what the NRA and gun lobby has spent on fighting these measures

 

[M14 Shooter]

gun ownership was not an individual right for more than 200 years.

Gun ownership has never been held as anything but an individual right.

you should probably read breyer and steven's dissent to Scalia's absurd decision in heller.

Sorry -- their dissent isn't the holding of the court. You probably don't know this.

Question: When did the SCotUS hold that the 2nd protected something other than an individual right?
Answer: Never.

Thus: Gun ownership has never been held as anything but an individual right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The problem is what's being proposed with background checks will make it harder and only so for those that no one has to worry about when it comes to the reasons such laws are being suggested.

Two problem with universal background checks:
- The law will not affect criminals
- Enforcement is only possible with universal registration.
Universal registration is the goal; no one wonders why.

what a bunch of BS.

All three of my statements are absolutely true; you are fully aware of the fact that cannot show otherwise.

 

[Flash]

[

That's a fair position to take... It is also fair for your opponents to take the opposite position and want to limit the sale and distribution of weapons to risky individuals. Force the crazy stalker guy with a restraining order to go find a black market gun or try and steal one instead of allowing him to walk into a store and legally buy one.

The problem is that once you open the door for the government to decided who can enjoy the Bill of Rights and who can't then the Bill of Rights really isn't one, is it?

The Bill of Rights establishes boundaries of liberties that the filthy government cannot cross. If we allow the filthy government to arbitrarily decide who can have rights and who can't then we might as well go burn the document or use it for toilet paper because it is worthless.

If Liberals were reasonable then maybe we come to some middle ground but time and time again we have found out that Liberals aren't reasonable.

For instance, the SAFE Act was passed in NY on the false premise that it was "common sense gun control". Two weeks after it was passed a decorated veteran was arrested and charged under the law for having two unloaded 30 rd magazines in the trunk of his car. Earlier this year a man in NY went to see the doctor about insomnia and under the SAFE Act the doctor felt compelled to report him to the government thugs and they came to his house and confiscated his firearms. He was also a veteran.

Recently in NJ a man was arrested for the mere possession of firearms like millions of Americans have. He had no criminal background and was not on any list and there was no reason to believe he was going to use the firearms for crimes. His only "crime" was possession. How reasonable is that?

I could give many more examples of how unreasonable gun control laws are if you would like.

I don't want these stupid Libtards getting a vote in my Constitutional rights, do you?

 

[Slade3200]

[

That's a fair position to take... It is also fair for your opponents to take the opposite position and want to limit the sale and distribution of weapons to risky individuals. Force the crazy stalker guy with a restraining order to go find a black market gun or try and steal one instead of allowing him to walk into a store and legally buy one.

The problem is that once you open the door for the government to decided who can enjoy the Bill of Rights and who can't then the Bill of Rights really isn't one, is it?

The Bill of Rights establishes boundaries of liberties that the filthy government cannot cross. If we allow the filthy government to arbitrarily decide who can have rights and who can't then we might as well go burn the document or use it for toilet paper because it is worthless.

If Liberals were reasonable then maybe we come to some middle ground but time and time again we have found out that Liberals aren't reasonable.

For instance, the SAFE Act was passed in NY on the false premise that it was "common sense gun control". Two weeks after it was passed a decorated veteran was arrested and charged under the law for having two unloaded 30 rd magazines in the trunk of his car. Earlier this year a man in NY went to see the doctor about insomnia and under the SAFE Act the doctor felt compelled to report him to the government thugs and they came to his house and confiscated his firearms. He was also a veteran.

Recently in NJ a man was arrested for the mere possession of firearms like millions of Americans have. He had no criminal background and was not on any list and there was no reason to believe he was going to use the firearms for crimes. His only "crime" was possession. How reasonable is that?

I could give many more examples of how unreasonable gun control laws are if you would like.

I don't want these stupid Libtards getting a vote in my Constitutional rights, do you?

First off, all our rights are subject to limitations and regulations and this is reflected in our laws. For example, freedom of speech... We have libel, slander, and rules about noise, vulgarity, disturbing the peace, censorship in advertising and entertainment etc etc etc.

Don't pretend that the 2nd amendment is targeted for regulation more than others.

I can't comment on your examples because I don't know the details. From what you stated, I don't see a problem with doctors flagging mentally unstable individuals if they impose a risk. We do need to be careful with how we do this as it shouldn't deture people from seeking mental healthcare. I assume that with your examples law enforcement had reason to think these individuals posed a risk or dangerous threat or had broken the law.

 

[PredFan]

You are sadly naïve. You have yours so you aren't concerned with how hard it is for anyone else. Naïve and apathetic.

How hard is it? You get a back ground check and buy a gun. My buddy owns a gun shop in California and can't keep his shelves stocked.

As I said naive.

You think it's going to stay that way? That's the whole point.

Say hi to the Strawman for me

You keep using that word, but you have no idea what it means. Typical.

It means you are fighting an invisible enemy. You are objecting to things that are not a reality, they are a product of your paranoia and assumptions of a hidden agenda that you think your political opponents have. It takes you from reasonable status to wingnut or extremist status

You need to stop and look it up. That isn't what it means.

A strawman argument is one in which you misrepresent your opponents position in order to weaken it as to make it easier to defeat. It comes from when people would practice with swords against practice dummies stuffed with straw.

Now, do you have the intelligence to see that that is not what I'm doing?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I could give many more examples of how unreasonable gun control laws are if you would like.
I don't want these stupid Libtards getting a vote in my Constitutional rights, do you?

Under current jurisprudence, the exercise of rights may only be restricted when it harms someone or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger -- libel, slander and falsely yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.

if the anti-gun side were to limit the restrictions they seek to place on the rights of the law abiding to these instances, there'd be little argument from anyone - but, as we all know, many of the restrictions already in place and virtually all of the further restrictions they seek go far beyond those laid on other rights.

 

[Slade3200]

How hard is it? You get a back ground check and buy a gun. My buddy owns a gun shop in California and can't keep his shelves stocked.

As I said naive.

You think it's going to stay that way? That's the whole point.

Say hi to the Strawman for me

You keep using that word, but you have no idea what it means. Typical.

It means you are fighting an invisible enemy. You are objecting to things that are not a reality, they are a product of your paranoia and assumptions of a hidden agenda that you think your political opponents have. It takes you from reasonable status to wingnut or extremist status

You need to stop and look it up. That isn't what it means.

A strawman argument is one in which you misrepresent your opponents position in order to weaken it as to make it easier to defeat. It comes from when people would practice with swords against practice dummies stuffed with straw.

Now, do you have the intelligence to see that that is not what I'm doing?

Yes, apologies, thanks for the correction. I've actually never technically looked up the definition of the strawman argument, and I have been using the term incorrectly. You are not doing that, but you are doing what I stated above... fighting against an invisible enemy based off your assumption of a hidden agenda from your political opponents.

 

[Flash]

[

First off, all our rights are subject to limitations and regulations and this is reflected in our laws. For example, freedom of speech... We have libel, slander, and rules about noise, vulgarity, disturbing the peace, censorship in advertising and entertainment etc etc etc.

Don't pretend that the 2nd amendment is targeted for regulation more than others.

I can't comment on your examples because I don't know the details. From what you stated, I don't see a problem with doctors flagging mentally unstable individuals if they impose a risk. We do need to be careful with how we do this as it shouldn't deture people from seeking mental healthcare. I assume that with your examples law enforcement had reason to think these individuals posed a risk or dangerous threat or had broken the law.

You are arguing that the Bill of Rights really isn't a Bill of Rights but a guidance document that can be changed willy nilly at the whim of stupid politicians elected by special interest groups and asshole Libtard judges appoint by those politicians.

In the three cases I cited the facts are accurate. An unreasonable law was passed and individuals had their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arm blatantly infringed although they had committed no crime other than disobeying the stupid unreasonable law. In one of the cases it wasn't intentional, another one no harm was done and in another one the citizen did nothing but go to the doctor.

The one about the insomnia case is very egregious. Just when does a mild case of insomnia constitute a mental illness that is so dangerous as to constitute taking away a veteran's Constitutional right?

I had a bad case of insomnia about three years ago. I went to the doctor and he treated me for it and in a few months I got over it. While having insomnia I never committed a crime of misusing any of my firearms. Had I live in commie New York then the filthy ass government thugs would have come to my home and the jackbooted asshole brown shirts would have confiscated my firearms. Isn't this what our Founding Fathers fought against? The government taking our means to keep and bear arms?

What the hell good does it do us to have a Bill of Rights when the filthy ass government can infringe upon that right? Isn't a Constitutional Republic suppose to be an ironclad contract to prevent the government from taking away our rights?

You simply cannot trust these stupid hateful Liberals with the definition of reasonableness because their agenda is to never be reasonable but to do away with the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Slade3200]

[

First off, all our rights are subject to limitations and regulations and this is reflected in our laws. For example, freedom of speech... We have libel, slander, and rules about noise, vulgarity, disturbing the peace, censorship in advertising and entertainment etc etc etc.

Don't pretend that the 2nd amendment is targeted for regulation more than others.

I can't comment on your examples because I don't know the details. From what you stated, I don't see a problem with doctors flagging mentally unstable individuals if they impose a risk. We do need to be careful with how we do this as it shouldn't deture people from seeking mental healthcare. I assume that with your examples law enforcement had reason to think these individuals posed a risk or dangerous threat or had broken the law.

You are arguing that the Bill of Rights really isn't a Bill of Rights but a guidance document that can be changed willy nilly at the whim of stupid politicians elected by special interest groups and asshole Libtard judges appoint by those politicians.

In the three cases I cited the facts are accurate. An unreasonable law was passed and individuals had their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arm blatantly infringed although they had committed no crime other than disobeying the stupid unreasonable law. In one of the cases it wasn't intentional, another one no harm was done and in another one the citizen did nothing but go to the doctor.

The one about the insomnia case is very egregious. Just when does a mild case of insomnia constitute a mental illness that is so dangerous as to constitute taking away a veteran's Constitutional right?

I had a bad case of insomnia about three years ago. I went to the doctor and he treated me for it and in a few months I got over it. While having insomnia I never committed a crime of misusing any of my firearms. Had I live in commie New York then the filthy ass government thugs would have come to my home and the jackbooted asshole brown shirts would have confiscated my firearms. Isn't this what our Founding Fathers fought against? The government taking our means to keep and bear arms?

What the hell good does it do us to have a Bill of Rights when the filthy ass government can infringe upon that right? Isn't a Constitutional Republic suppose to be an ironclad contract to prevent the government from taking away our rights?

You simply cannot trust these stupid hateful Liberals with the definition of reasonableness because their agenda is to never be reasonable but to do away with the right to keep and bear arms.

You didn't address a word I said about the first amendment. Do you have sustain for all the laws that regulate freedoms of speech as well? Do you see usefulness in any of them?

Our constitution gives the government the right and the responsibility to create and evolve our laws to best protect and benefit our citizens. He have courts, appeals, elections and a system of checks and balances that comprises our system of government. We the people are more than just words on a piece of paper.