Let's get specific on the politics of GUN CONTROL

[the_human_being]

 

[candycorn]

Lots of people are "crazy" and never shoot up anything. You, for example.

Okay, you see, there's a difference between "Crazy" and "saying stuff you don't like".

I'm sorry I have to explain this to you.

But let's look at that.

For the job I started last year, the company did-

1) A complete background check.
2) A credit check
3) Checked where I went to school
4) Asked several co-workers about me (even though they had two of my former co-workers already working for them, which is how I heard about the job.)

In short, before they let me issue a single purchase order on their behalf, they thoroughly checked me out.

Seems to me we should probably do the same before we let people have guns.

If they had done a background check on James "Joker" Holmes, they'd have found his university was in the process of expelling him.

Had they done a background check on Dylan Roof, they'd have found he had been arrested for drugs and was under a restraining order for stalking a girl.

Had they done a background check on Seung-Hui Cho (The Virginia Tech Shooter) they'd have found a history of anti-social, violent behavior dating back to junior high school.

Good post.

Good dialogue as well.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lots of people are "crazy" and never shoot up anything. You, for example.

Okay, you see, there's a difference between "Crazy" and "saying stuff you don't like".

I'm sorry I have to explain this to you.

But let's look at that.

For the job I started last year, the company did-

1) A complete background check.
2) A credit check
3) Checked where I went to school
4) Asked several co-workers about me (even though they had two of my former co-workers already working for them, which is how I heard about the job.)

In short, before they let me issue a single purchase order on their behalf, they thoroughly checked me out.

Seems to me we should probably do the same before we let people have guns.

If they had done a background check on James "Joker" Holmes, they'd have found his university was in the process of expelling him.

Had they done a background check on Dylan Roof, they'd have found he had been arrested for drugs and was under a restraining order for stalking a girl.

Had they done a background check on Seung-Hui Cho (The Virginia Tech Shooter) they'd have found a history of anti-social, violent behavior dating back to junior high school.

Good post.

Good dialogue as well.

Suck post.
We do not deny rights based on expulsions from school. Nor based on hearsay from someone who may have a grudge. In Cho's case he was actually prohibited. But laws pushed by liberals for privacy prevented the law enforcement agencies from having that information so his background check passed.
As usual, Joe is wrong. And stupid.

 

[OKTexas]

"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?
.

Maybe you should get your facts straight first. There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. FFL's must run background checks on all sales. Private citizens who are not licensed gun dealers don't. You want the law changed of the definition of a dealer, talk to your congressman.

 

[candycorn]

Lots of people are "crazy" and never shoot up anything. You, for example.

Okay, you see, there's a difference between "Crazy" and "saying stuff you don't like".

I'm sorry I have to explain this to you.

But let's look at that.

For the job I started last year, the company did-

1) A complete background check.
2) A credit check
3) Checked where I went to school
4) Asked several co-workers about me (even though they had two of my former co-workers already working for them, which is how I heard about the job.)

In short, before they let me issue a single purchase order on their behalf, they thoroughly checked me out.

Seems to me we should probably do the same before we let people have guns.

If they had done a background check on James "Joker" Holmes, they'd have found his university was in the process of expelling him.

Had they done a background check on Dylan Roof, they'd have found he had been arrested for drugs and was under a restraining order for stalking a girl.

Had they done a background check on Seung-Hui Cho (The Virginia Tech Shooter) they'd have found a history of anti-social, violent behavior dating back to junior high school.

Good post.

Good dialogue as well.

Suck post.
We do not deny rights based on expulsions from school. Nor based on hearsay from someone who may have a grudge. In Cho's case he was actually prohibited. But laws pushed by liberals for privacy prevented the law enforcement agencies from having that information so his background check passed.
As usual, Joe is wrong. And stupid.

You're right, "we do not".....

Perhaps "we should".

And of course there is also the 2016 election coming up. I would think that when Hillary gets to pick Scalia's replacement, she'll ask her or him about the 2nd Amendment and how they interpret it. The Roberrts court seems happy to take on some big issues. You guys may want to accept the political reality in favor of thwarting a ruling that is much more harsh to your nutty need to own a gun.

 

[OKTexas]

Ya see that, Mac? How can anyone argue with airtight logic like that? The Rabbi has a right to sell his firearms......to anyone. There is no legal precedent that he'd agree with which would in any way regulate the sale of anything he owns to anyone. Period.

The fed have no authority to regulate anything I want to sell to my neighbor. If I sell a gun across state lines it has to go through a dealer by law already.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

You know what, you've sold me. So right. No more background checks.

Instead, when someone takes your former property and mows down a bunch of preschoolers with it, you face the same criminal charges he does, because you knowingly sold it to him.

How about we apply that same principle if you sell your car and the buyer gets drunk and kills a bunch of people?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Slippery slope fallacy.

 

[OKTexas]

Ya see that, Mac? How can anyone argue with airtight logic like that? The Rabbi has a right to sell his firearms......to anyone. There is no legal precedent that he'd agree with which would in any way regulate the sale of anything he owns to anyone. Period.

You are of course wrong and stupid. If I know the person is prohibited it is a crime to sell to him.
How many criminals consider that when selling their guns?

How are you going to know if the person is prohibited?

Are there any other things that you aren't allowed to sell without meeting some kind of regulatory criteria? If so.......are all of these regulations infringements on your rights and to be ignored?

You either know or you dont. If you know the guy is a resident of another state then you cannot sell to him. If you know he just got out ofprison on a felony, you cannot sell to him. But if you dont know then you dont.
Yes, you cannot sell your prescription drugs to someone else.

You might benefit from the background check then. So you can be certain that you are selling to a person legally. If you said that, though, you'd be accused of being reasonable. Can't have that.

You want me to run a background check, give me the access to NICS for free. That would require a change in the law, your dear leader can't do it with his pen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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?
.

And once again we see that conservatives have no valid reason to oppose background checks, no rational argument to offer, no facts or objective evidence in support of opposing background checks.

Background checks are Constitutional, as Federal courts have held, they are rationally based, pursue a compelling governmental interest, and are a reasonable regulation of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[OKTexas]

You are of course wrong and stupid. If I know the person is prohibited it is a crime to sell to him.
How many criminals consider that when selling their guns?

How are you going to know if the person is prohibited?

Are there any other things that you aren't allowed to sell without meeting some kind of regulatory criteria? If so.......are all of these regulations infringements on your rights and to be ignored?

You either know or you dont. If you know the guy is a resident of another state then you cannot sell to him. If you know he just got out ofprison on a felony, you cannot sell to him. But if you dont know then you dont.
Yes, you cannot sell your prescription drugs to someone else.

You might benefit from the background check then. So you can be certain that you are selling to a person legally. If you said that, though, you'd be accused of being reasonable. Can't have that.

If you really want to do that you are free to go to a dealer and insist it be done through his books. No one is stopping you.
Next.

Nope. Not next. You've not made the case.

I'm bored to death from reading the same shit from the same people on this subject. You aren't an exception. I've exposed your failed logic.

The guy that bought the rifles for the San Bernardino shooters passed the background check and in reality there was no need for him to buy them, the shooter could have bought them on his own and passed the check.

 

[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?
.

And once again we see that conservatives have no valid reason to oppose background checks, no rational argument to offer, no facts or objective evidence in support of opposing background checks.

Background checks are Constitutional, as Federal courts have held, they are rationally based, pursue a compelling governmental interest, and are a reasonable regulation of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Which of Congress' enumerated powers would allow it to criminalize a firearms purchase without a background check?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"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?
.

And once again we see that conservatives have no valid reason to oppose background checks, no rational argument to offer, no facts or objective evidence in support of opposing background checks.

Background checks are Constitutional, as Federal courts have held, they are rationally based, pursue a compelling governmental interest, and are a reasonable regulation of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In order to enforce private sales background checks the Government would need to implement registration that requires a new law and violates the no infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[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?
.

And once again we see that conservatives have no valid reason to oppose background checks, no rational argument to offer, no facts or objective evidence in support of opposing background checks.

Background checks are Constitutional, as Federal courts have held, they are rationally based, pursue a compelling governmental interest, and are a reasonable regulation of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Wrong on every count.
Background checks today are done by licensed dealers. They are licensed by the federal government and are doing interstate commerce. It is much harder to say the feds can regulate what happens between citizens of the same state.
Background checks serve no valid function. There is no proof they accomplish anything. In fact the opposite. Gun violence has increased since the the Gun Control Act of 1968.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Wrong.

It is not an 'infringement' on your 'right' to sell your own property, the notion is ignorant idiocy – the regulatory policy is applied to the person buying the gun, not the person selling; they buyer is the person subject to the background check.

Background checks are effective for their intended purpose and scope; no one has presented background checks as a 'panacea' for all gun crimes and gun violence.

And seeking to oppose background checks because criminals don't follow the law fails as a red herring fallacy – again, beyond the scope and intent of background checks; one cannot say a law has 'failed' because it doesn't address a situation it was never intended to address.

 

[Centinel]

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?

Wrong.

It is not an 'infringement' on your 'right' to sell your own property, the notion is ignorant idiocy – the regulatory policy is applied to the person buying the gun, not the person selling; they buyer is the person subject to the background check.

Background checks are effective for their intended purpose and scope; no one has presented background checks as a 'panacea' for all gun crimes and gun violence.

And seeking to oppose background checks because criminals don't follow the law fails as a red herring fallacy – again, beyond the scope and intent of background checks; one cannot say a law has 'failed' because it doesn't address a situation it was never intended to address.

The states never gave congress the power to enact laws requiring background checks. Look at Art I, section 8, where you will see the exhaustive list of congress' powers. Background checks does not appear among this list.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Slippery slope fallacy.

That fails as mere assertion. As well as being contrary to truth.
In NY state they started registration of "assault weapons." THey then used that registry to ban those specific guns.

 

[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?

Wrong.

It is not an 'infringement' on your 'right' to sell your own property, the notion is ignorant idiocy – the regulatory policy is applied to the person buying the gun, not the person selling; they buyer is the person subject to the background check.

Background checks are effective for their intended purpose and scope; no one has presented background checks as a 'panacea' for all gun crimes and gun violence.

And seeking to oppose background checks because criminals don't follow the law fails as a red herring fallacy – again, beyond the scope and intent of background checks; one cannot say a law has 'failed' because it doesn't address a situation it was never intended to address.

That fails as gross sophistry. For every seller there must be a buyer. If the state interferes with the process it is infringing on my right.
If I meet someone Sun morning in church and want to buy his gun I will have to wait until Monday. That is an infringement.

 

[OKTexas]

Is the TSA no flight list accurate ? No
Next.

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

Accurate enough.

Of course hardened cockpits has nothing to do with that.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Opposed to the delusion that the government will keep us safe. Never has: Never will.

And of course according to SCOTUS has no obligation to.