Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you have no problems with a background check to ensure you are not a felon, then what exactly is your problem with this bill? Specifically.
Specifically?
Its intent is to restrict rights.
Which rights are being restricted? Specifically.
JED i think a lot of people are afraid it does not stop after the check.....that your name will go onto the big....."HE HAS A GUN" govt list......and on that....i understand their distrust......
Which is why the recent gun legislation that didn't pass had in it a provision that disallowed a registry. So...
Not the Nevada bill that is the subject of this OP. It most certainly DID have a registry component.
Nevada governor vetoes bill to strengthen gun background checks
So one of the Good Guys acted to safe guard our second amendment rights, GOOD JOB.
A background check could save a life. Obviously this proves that Republicans care more about their right to own a shiny metal toy than about saving innocent lives.
I can't believe the people who are willing to surrender not only their rights, but my rights, my Children's rights, and my Chldren's Children's rights simply because they want "society to advance".
A background check could save a life. Obviously this proves that Republicans care more about their right to own a shiny metal toy than about saving innocent lives.
How many lives have been saved by background checks?
I said could save a life, meaning background checks have the potential to save a life.
No one should oppose background checks. You still get your gun, you just have to wait a short while to get one. Its not a big deal.
Bullshit. If a criminal is not permitted to purchase a gun, then that in and of itself is a crime deterent.
Why is it a bad thing to keep felons from buying guns legally?
so if they know they cant buy them in a shop.....they go and get them the way they do now......how are they being deterred?.....
Maybe they DON'T go and get one elsewhere. Maybe they get turned down at the gun shop and have second thoughts. Maybe a person with a history of mental illness goes off his meds and with thoughts of suicide or doing harm to others, goes to a gun shop and gets turned down. Maybe that deters him.
Is that really so implausable?
I always hear from gun rights advocates that they're responsible gun owners who practice safety. Well, there are people out there who are not responsible with guns. There are people out there who have bad intent; who are mentally unstable; who have a history of selling weapons to criminals. I would think that "responsible" gun owners would want to make it more difficult for those types of people to get a gun. It turns out that people like you just want to own/sell/trade any weapon you choose under the guise of "protecting your 2nd amendment right" without regard to public safety. In my world, that makes you an irresponsible gun owner.
so if they know they cant buy them in a shop.....they go and get them the way they do now......how are they being deterred?.....
Maybe they DON'T go and get one elsewhere. Maybe they get turned down at the gun shop and have second thoughts. Maybe a person with a history of mental illness goes off his meds and with thoughts of suicide or doing harm to others, goes to a gun shop and gets turned down. Maybe that deters him.
Is that really so implausable?
I always hear from gun rights advocates that they're responsible gun owners who practice safety. Well, there are people out there who are not responsible with guns. There are people out there who have bad intent; who are mentally unstable; who have a history of selling weapons to criminals. I would think that "responsible" gun owners would want to make it more difficult for those types of people to get a gun. It turns out that people like you just want to own/sell/trade any weapon you choose under the guise of "protecting your 2nd amendment right" without regard to public safety. In my world, that makes you an irresponsible gun owner.
JED your talking about a guy with a mental illness.....i am talking about Gangs or just just Criminals....quit trying to say im one of them....you know fucking well those guys are going to get their dam guns just like they always have been doing.....and they kill a lot more people than legal gun owners or the people with mental problems.....in my world YOU are irresponsible and have no regard for public safety for not having the fucking balls to go after the guys who need to be dealt with...
There is no compromising with you people,
Specifically?
Its intent is to restrict rights.
Which rights are being restricted? Specifically.
I think I see your problem. you have reading comprehension difficulties. Let me help you.
He said "It's intent to restrict rights." He's talking future tense, you are countering with the present tense argument that the restrictions don't exist NOW. Get it yet?
Maybe they DON'T go and get one elsewhere. Maybe they get turned down at the gun shop and have second thoughts. Maybe a person with a history of mental illness goes off his meds and with thoughts of suicide or doing harm to others, goes to a gun shop and gets turned down. Maybe that deters him.
Is that really so implausable?
I always hear from gun rights advocates that they're responsible gun owners who practice safety. Well, there are people out there who are not responsible with guns. There are people out there who have bad intent; who are mentally unstable; who have a history of selling weapons to criminals. I would think that "responsible" gun owners would want to make it more difficult for those types of people to get a gun. It turns out that people like you just want to own/sell/trade any weapon you choose under the guise of "protecting your 2nd amendment right" without regard to public safety. In my world, that makes you an irresponsible gun owner.
JED your talking about a guy with a mental illness.....i am talking about Gangs or just just Criminals....quit trying to say im one of them....you know fucking well those guys are going to get their dam guns just like they always have been doing.....and they kill a lot more people than legal gun owners or the people with mental problems.....in my world YOU are irresponsible and have no regard for public safety for not having the fucking balls to go after the guys who need to be dealt with...
Let's start enforcing some laws around here. Commit a crime with a gun and go the the big house for a very, very long time. If we were really serious about gun control, we would enforce the current laws to the fullest extent.
Trust me- Put some real consequences to gun crime, or any other for that matter, and the problem will solve itself.
-Geaux
Which rights are being restricted? Specifically.
I think I see your problem. you have reading comprehension difficulties. Let me help you.
He said "It's intent to restrict rights." He's talking future tense, you are countering with the present tense argument that the restrictions don't exist NOW. Get it yet?
Good job, you didnt answer the question.
Um a background check does neither. You have your right to privacy, dont buy a gun.pass the back ground and you can own said gun. Neither infringe on your rights to own a gun, you have the potential to own one anytime you want.You keep insisting, against all logic, that it doesn't infringe on my rights as if simply because you say it it is true.
I am in this to counter left wing lunacy, and since you have no logical argument and in fact choose to ignore the argument, i win again.
Prove background checks infringe on your right to own a gun. Go ahead this should be funny.
Oh pred you havent changed, full of shit.
Are you talking the background checks we already have in place or the ones you looneys are proposing?
If you mean the ones you wing nuts want to add, well then that's easy.
Frist of all I said "rights", and not simply "Right to own a gun". If I have to have my neighbor perform a background check on me it infringes on two rights, 1, the right to buy a gun, and 2, my right to privacy. The problem with you is you don't inderstand the definition of "Infringe".
You haven't changed. You're still a partisan hack who will say any stupid thing as long as it is the opposite of what a conservative says.
The Constitution is not subject to compromise.And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like fucking assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?
Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.
You are not the good guys.
Oh so you just used Heller on me huh? Read the summary again, tool.
"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
And then we take a look at McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), which essentially reaffirmed Heller, and built upon it. It essentially held that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.
Read Justice Alito's majority opinion on the subject here beginning on page 16.
A person's gun is his personal property, as covered in the 4th Amendment, and he has a right to be safe from reprisal by his government for owning it. The 5th Amendment says he has a right to life liberty and property, thus he has a right to own a gun. The 2nd Amendment says his rights to use that weapon for self defense or for whatever reason that does not break the law, shall not be restricted. Therefore any restrictions placed on that right would be unconstitutional.
Knocked this one out of the park, buddy. Going, going, gone.
Sigh you are still arguing like im taking your guns away when ive stated I have zero Intention to.
Until you actually understand this point we can not go further. Ive noticed this is a problem with a lot of you. You are already coming in with this preset idea and you will spout the same rhetoric over and over.
Its boring.
But it's accurate comrade. It's called incrementalism and we understand its uses quite well....as do you...
I think I see your problem. you have reading comprehension difficulties. Let me help you.
He said "It's intent to restrict rights." He's talking future tense, you are countering with the present tense argument that the restrictions don't exist NOW. Get it yet?
Good job, you didnt answer the question.
No, he just didn't answer it the way you wanted him to. Disappointed? Good.
As I said - you arent looking for the pro-gun side to compromise, you're looking for them to give in to your demands.And this is where the right looses me as a gun supporter.
No this doesnt make you the good guys. This makes you look like fucking assholes who wont compromise period. There is no compromising with you people, so then why bother seeking it out in the end?
Background checks do not infringe on your right. Thus says the supreme court on this matter.
You are not the good guys.
How much more compromising do you want?
Look at the 20k gun laws already on the books.. Each and everyone of a compromise of the "Shall not be infringed" statement in the Constitution.
When will you gun grabbers be satisfied that there are enough laws and restrictions on guns and that there are evil people in the world who will kill other people regardless of the laws?
You can buy whatever gun you want with whatever rounds and size clips you want. You can buy a tank for all I care. Just have the proper permits and pass a background check.
Thats it. If you cant agree with this simple reasoning then simply fuck off.
So... what are you offering the pro-gun side that it does not already have?And what's your solution besides nothing?
You people offer no solutions, just excuses..
You wont stop people. Its a poor example. Out there someone might want to kill you and hey who cares right? We bother trying to stop them because in the end they will find a way.
Really its a great outlook on life. How about we just remove cops period? I mean under your opinion they are redundant.
You are not doing a damned thing to stop these crimes. All you want to do is interfere with a citizen's right to legally own guns. You offer no solutions to crime, you only want to make more criminals by making gun ownership illegal.
Personally, I have no issue with registration of guns, licensing owners or even background checks; however, this call for "enhanced background checks" is nothing more than bullshit smoke and mirrors.
Only an idiot actually believes these will stop criminals from obtaining guns. Neither you or RDD are idiots. That makes me think you are simply taking the partisan stance on this.
And no, I do not have a solution, but neither do you so don't try pulling that shit on me.
And compromise? Are you serious? I suppose you believe you are willing to compromise on things but those terrible conservatives just won't give in. Do you really want us to believe you are willing to compromise? Please!
Immie
I See all assumptions in this post. You dont know what I want. What I want is reasonable solutions, without the emotional attachments.
Back ground checks on all weapons.
More agents to check the stock and records of gun shops.
No limits on ammo, clip size, or what you can own as a citizen.
Simple:Nevada Governor vetoes offensive Gun control bill.
Offensive? What is offensive about requiring background checks for gun purchases? Are you afraid of offending criminals?
Good job, you didnt answer the question.
No, he just didn't answer it the way you wanted him to. Disappointed? Good.
Nope just typical. People rather play the game than actually have conversations. You rather fuck over everyone on the left than have sensible solutions towards issues.you are a burden to society and thus why you will never have control in government. People in the end dont like the party of no style politics. Sometimes you need to have an real adult answer.
