Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[iolo]

Clearly Americans shoot one another in astounding numbers, and something should be done while some are still alive. In my view, the obvious move is to make the NRA co-defendant in any gun-murder trial, as it is so obviously an accessory.

 

[USNavyVet]

Clearly Americans shoot one another in astounding numbers, and something should be done while some are still alive. In my view, the obvious move is to make the NRA co-defendant in any gun-murder trial, as it is so obviously an accessory.

What do you consider "astonishing numbers"? And how do you justify making any group not associated with the crime a co-defendant?

 

[Mac1958]

The point is to form a registry. Just like California did.... And now they are putting the list to use to confiscate weapons.

I looked that up -- not sure if this is what you're referring to, but I found a California law is confiscating guns for these reasons: State Approves Funds For Confiscating Illegal Guns From Homes

Lynda Gledhill, spokesperson for the California DOJ, said that of the individuals deemed unfit to own guns, about 30 percent have a criminal record, 30 percent are mentally ill, 20 percent have a restraining order out on them and a small percentage have a warrant out for their arrest.

So there are specific people who they're going after.
.

 

[USNavyVet]

The point is to form a registry. Just like California did.... And now they are putting the list to use to confiscate weapons.

I looked that up -- not sure if this is what you're referring to, but I found a California law is confiscating guns for these reasons: State Approves Funds For Confiscating Illegal Guns From Homes

Lynda Gledhill, spokesperson for the California DOJ, said that of the individuals deemed unfit to own guns, about 30 percent have a criminal record, 30 percent are mentally ill, 20 percent have a restraining order out on them and a small percentage have a warrant out for their arrest.

So there are specific people who they're going after.
.

Give it time.

 

[Mac1958]

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

If someone has a criminal history, or a significant mental issue history, or a restraining order on them, would you like to know that when they're purchasing a gun?
.

 

[USNavyVet]

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

If someone has a criminal history, or a significant mental issue history, or a restraining order on them, would you like to know that when they're purchasing a gun?
.

Sorry to poke in here. Actually none of that is any of my business. If they have omitted a crime and gone to jail, they've paid for their crime and it's none of my business. Mental issues are between them and their doctor. Restraining orders are again none of my business. Even if a BC is conducted, none of that should be revealed to me if I'm the seller. A simple yes or no is all I should get.

 

[Mac1958]

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

If someone has a criminal history, or a significant mental issue history, or a restraining order on them, would you like to know that when they're purchasing a gun?
.

Sorry to poke in here. Actually none of that is any of my business. If they have omitted a crime and gone to jail, they've paid for their crime and it's none of my business. Mental issues are between them and their doctor. Restraining orders are again none of my business. Even if a BC is conducted, none of that should be revealed to me if I'm the seller. A simple yes or no is all I should get.

Poking in is welcome!

This to me falls under the category of the government protecting its citizens. To me, violent criminals, mentally unstable individuals and those who represent enough of a danger to someone to be on the wrong side of a restraining order are a class of citizen who would qualify for greater scrutiny when purchasing a deadly weapon. So we'll disagree there, but I understand your point.

Let me ask you this - is there a level of compromise on the background check issue that you would consider? Examples might be waiting periods or specific personal history issues.
.

 

[USNavyVet]

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

If someone has a criminal history, or a significant mental issue history, or a restraining order on them, would you like to know that when they're purchasing a gun?
.

Sorry to poke in here. Actually none of that is any of my business. If they have omitted a crime and gone to jail, they've paid for their crime and it's none of my business. Mental issues are between them and their doctor. Restraining orders are again none of my business. Even if a BC is conducted, none of that should be revealed to me if I'm the seller. A simple yes or no is all I should get.

Poking in is welcome!

This to me falls under the category of the government protecting its citizens. To me, violent criminals, mentally unstable individuals and those who represent enough of a danger to someone to be on the wrong side of a restraining order are a class of citizen who would qualify for greater scrutiny when purchasing a deadly weapon. So we'll disagree there, but I understand your point.

Let me ask you this - is there a level of compromise on the background check issue that you would consider? Examples might be waiting periods or specific personal history issues.
.

For me there is no compromise when it comes to our rights. So no.

 

[JoeB131]

Why am I responsible for someone else's actions whn I had no idea that's what he would do?
WHen you sell a car to someone are you responsible if they get into an accident with it?
Joe is the biggest dumbshit on this site

If I gave my car to someone knowing he was drunk, and he runs over a bunch of nuns and orphans with it, you are darned right someone is going to look at my level of liability.

The thing was, we used to hold gun sellers responsible for their actions. When the DC Snipers were found to have gotten their guns illegally (one being a minor, the other being a convicted felon), a court found the gun shop and the gun manufacturers liable.

And the gun industry ran right to congress and whined until they got civil immunity most merchants wouldn't dream of having.

Of course, the gun industry NEEDS mayhem. It needs for the occassional asshole to go out there and mow down a bunch of preschoolers. Because then all the rest of you will want guns, too, on the delusion they keep you safe.

 

[JoeB131]

Ted Kennedy was on a no fly list. Obama would have banned him from having a gun.

Was Ted Kennedy actually not allowed to fly somewhere?

This is one of those right wing myths that they love to repeat.

Ted Kennedy and the No-Fly List Myth

It has been reported manytimes that Kennedy had trouble boarding planes several times in 2004 allegedly because he was on a no-fly list. But the TSA in 2008 said the former Democratic senator from Massachusetts was “NOT on the no-fly or selectee lists.” Kennedy was “misidentified” as someone on the “selectee list.” Those on the selectee list “must undergo additional security screening before being permitted to board.” Kennedy ultimately boarded his flights and didn’t miss any flights.

 

[dilloduck]

Ted Kennedy was on a no fly list. Obama would have banned him from having a gun.

Was Ted Kennedy actually not allowed to fly somewhere?

This is one of those right wing myths that they love to repeat.

Ted Kennedy and the No-Fly List Myth

It has been reported manytimes that Kennedy had trouble boarding planes several times in 2004 allegedly because he was on a no-fly list. But the TSA in 2008 said the former Democratic senator from Massachusetts was “NOT on the no-fly or selectee lists.” Kennedy was “misidentified” as someone on the “selectee list.” Those on the selectee list “must undergo additional security screening before being permitted to board.” Kennedy ultimately boarded his flights and didn’t miss any flights.

Is the TSA no flight list accurate ? No
Next.

 

[Redfish]

the answer is simple: enforce the laws already on the books, including immigration laws. Pass Kate's law to remove criminal illegals from this country. Allow families to institutionalize their mentally ill relatives (with doctors approval of course). Track and arrest would-be terrorists before they kill innocents.

taking guns from law abiding americans will solve nothing, and may result in a revolution or secession movement.

 

[The Rabbi]

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

If someone has a criminal history, or a significant mental issue history, or a restraining order on them, would you like to know that when they're purchasing a gun?
.

Not really. And if that passed I still wouldn't know because defeating the background check is just too easy.
Why dont you respond to my post on those points: it is an infringement and it will not be effective.

 

[Redfish]

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

If someone has a criminal history, or a significant mental issue history, or a restraining order on them, would you like to know that when they're purchasing a gun?
.

Not really. And if that passed I still wouldn't know because defeating the background check is just too easy.
Why dont you respond to my post on those points: it is an infringement and it will not be effective.

he wont respond because he knows that the dem/lib agenda is to take guns from everyone except criminals and the government.

 

[JoeB131]

Is the TSA no flight list accurate ? No
Next.

Have there been any more hijackings since 9-11? Nope.

Accurate enough.

 

[JoeB131]

Not really. And if that passed I still wouldn't know because defeating the background check is just too easy.
Why dont you respond to my post on those points: it is an infringement and it will not be effective.

How do you define "Effective"?

The thing is, every time one of these crazy assholes shoots up a church or a school or a theater, the media finds out just how crazy these people are within hours.

seems the gun industry should be held to the same standard before selling someone a gun.

 

[The Rabbi]

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

If someone has a criminal history, or a significant mental issue history, or a restraining order on them, would you like to know that when they're purchasing a gun?
.

Not really. And if that passed I still wouldn't know because defeating the background check is just too easy.
Why dont you respond to my post on those points: it is an infringement and it will not be effective.

he wont respond because he knows that the dem/lib agenda is to take guns from everyone except criminals and the government.

I dunno. Mac is one poster with a fair amount of integrity. I'd like to wait for a response and then debate it.

 

[Centinel]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

 

[Mac1958]

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

First, it represents an infringement on my right to sell my own property.
Second, it will be ineffective in reducing crime. Will criminals submit to background checks? No.
Third. Well, with an infringement of rights on one hand and an ineffective policy on the other what more do you need to understand it's a stupid policy?

If someone has a criminal history, or a significant mental issue history, or a restraining order on them, would you like to know that when they're purchasing a gun?
.

Not really. And if that passed I still wouldn't know because defeating the background check is just too easy.
Why dont you respond to my post on those points: it is an infringement and it will not be effective.

Well, "effective" is subjective. Would it stop just one psycho from getting a gun? A hundred? Ten thousand? Surely it would have some positive effect, the question is the degree. What is the real cost of going through a background check? A little temporary inconvenience?

Same thing with the notion of "infringement'. Any law or ordinance could be considered an infringement. I'm First Amendment purist, but even I will grudgingly bend for certain laws.

This isn't a binary situation. Rights are not destroyed by laws.
.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Gun control" is such a vague, catch-all phrase. I know how important bumper-sticker sloganeering is nowadays, but maybe we could get more specific on the individual issues within the overall gun control issue.

Let's start off with background checks. It seems to me that doing a background check on anyone who wants to purchase a gun - universal background checks - makes perfect sense and there is no reason why gun shows, for example, should have any kind of exemption.

A strong of Americans can see a value in this. Poll shows bipartisan support for expanding background checks -- Conservatives, if you disagree with that, what are your reasons?
.

If you're talking about a federal law mandating background checks, then we first have to identify which of congress' enumerated powers would permit the enactment of such a law. Without the power to do so, enacting such a law would violate the constitution.

It clearly falls under interstate commerce. They already have background checks. That isnt the issue. But you raise a point with checks within states, which is harder to make.