Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended ... ?

[Sallow]

Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended to promote gun control?

"When was the last time somebody drove a car and killed 20 children and six teachers on purpose? When was the last time someone took a syringe full of "flu" into a movie theater to wipe out 12 people on purpose?" Ud

Needed gun legislation in Politics Forum

Automobiles may kill more humans than guns kill in the U.S.
But we already regulate them. To operate them on public roadways:
- the driver must be licensed
- the vehicle must meet legal standards
- obeying motor-vehicle & traffic laws is required
- cars are being built safer and "better" all the time. Most of a century ago, there were cars on the road with 2 wheel brakes. Today there are cars on our public roadways with:
4 wheel power disc brakes
anti-lock brakes
air bags (front & side)
crumple-zone crash-energy absorption design
collapsible steering column
and much, much more.

So since their proliferation, cars have gotten safer, and better.
In vivid contrast, since the U.S. Founding, guns have gotten vastly more lethal.

Should the United States Constitution's Second Amendment which acknowledges the People's "right to keep and bear arms" be amended to compensate for this divergent technological trend? Safer cars, and ever more deadly guns?

The Second Amendment says more than what you posted.

There are several requirements.

1. You are part of a militia.
2. You are engaged in defending the state.
3. You are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and the Commander in Chief.

Case law screwed that up.

And that's what needs to be addressed.

None of those are requirements.

Well yeah. They are.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Better cars=safer cars
Better guns=deadlier guns
Get over it.

And how exactly does starting a civil war make the country safer?

 

[skookerasbil]

Gotta remember here........every progressive forum member in here has the political IQ of a small soap dish because they get their reality filtered through the k00ks at MSNBC. Every single progressive posting in this thread will be watching MSNBC over the next few nights and thinking it represents the thinking of the masses. Well.........we all know how many Americans watch MSNBC!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh.....and Im laughing.

I want to see the numbers in a few days........of gun purchases since Soetero's speech on Thursday afternoon. This bozo president can be credited as the most prominent gun salesman in the country!!!

 

[2aguy]

In my ongoing consideration and debate on this issue I've spent a lot of time trying to find a compromise, if there even is one... All of the "gun-nuts" know that universal background checks are an absolute waste of time, but the "anti-gunners" know it will magically solve all the gun crime.

How about an agreement; we "gun-nuts" let you have your silly universal background check crap temporarily and when it fails, you "anti-gunners" admit that making lawful American's jump through hoops is useless in stopping criminals? At least then both sides will know if it works or not, right?

I think we can do it, legally I mean, I know we can basically set aside constitutional protections temporarily under marshal law and stuff, so we'd basically set aside the 2nd amendment with an /automatic/ and /unchangeable/ sunset clause. The wording and shit would have to be an iron clad guarantee with absolutely /no/ possible way to "extend" or otherwise "alter" it to ensure that some bastard's can't try to make it permanent. There would also need to be a very specific and detailed set of "goals" the universal background check's would achieve; like for example a percentage per capita less violent homicides involving a gun, etc. The contents of the universal background check and it's "gun ownership" qualifications would also need to be iron clad; to prevent the adding in of things like "must be over 200 to buy a gun" and stuff.

In addition, the new universal background check system will be tied into something similar to voter ID checks and ID checks for most, if not all, forms of gov funded aid; This would be to balance out the "burden" of American's; typically Dems say it's too much of a burden for the poor to get an ID, and Republican's complain that it is too much of a burden for them to deal with background checks yea? Basically, everyone in the country goes in for bg check and comes out with the ID they are required to have for voting/gov aid. We can even sunset clause this stuff to expire and see if it's done what we Repub's think it will do for fraud, etc.



What do you guys think, too radical/scary?

Sorry...you can't let the left have anything like this...they never give back a freedom once they take it....there is no compromising on basic human Rights.

I know the feel, real hard to trust when even their highest who get elected do so regularly...

hmmm how about something more along the lines of my universal background check voter id thing for buying guns (rather than the amendment stuff)? If you don't have the id/ubc then you can't buy without court approval?

Universal Background checks would work no better than current mandatory federal background checks. Criminals get around current federal, mandatory background checks by stealing guns or by getting people with clean records to buy the guns for them. They would use both methods to get past "universal" background checks.

What the anti gunners want is to make it more difficult for normal people to own, carry and use guns. A universal background check is not aimed at stopping criminals...the anti gunners know this....universal background checks are intended to make it harder for normal people to sell a legal product, guns. If you want to sell your gun to your brother or another relative...you would now have to try to find a gun dealer or police station that would run that check...so now the gun store will charge you...a lot.....and a police station will take forever as they now have to devote police resources to your background check.....

And what if you don't have a gun store nearby....what if your gun store is an hour away....

Also...what if your brother wants to use your gun at the range...because he wants to see if he likes that particular model...if you lend it to him...without a background check...you are now both felons.

What if your father dies...and he owned guns...is your mother now a felon because she didn't get a background check on herself before he died?

See the problem...they want to increase the paperwork and the complexity in order to scare normal people from buying, owning and carrying guns.

That is all the universal background check push is for. It won't stop criminals. It won't stop mass shooters...but it will catch normal people and turn them into felons.

And if you have a life...a mortgage, a job, a family.....would you risk losing it because you are now a felon because you didn't get a background check on your brother when you sold him your .22 bolt action rifle?

 

[2aguy]

In my ongoing consideration and debate on this issue I've spent a lot of time trying to find a compromise, if there even is one... All of the "gun-nuts" know that universal background checks are an absolute waste of time, but the "anti-gunners" know it will magically solve all the gun crime.

How about an agreement; we "gun-nuts" let you have your silly universal background check crap temporarily and when it fails, you "anti-gunners" admit that making lawful American's jump through hoops is useless in stopping criminals? At least then both sides will know if it works or not, right?

I think we can do it, legally I mean, I know we can basically set aside constitutional protections temporarily under marshal law and stuff, so we'd basically set aside the 2nd amendment with an /automatic/ and /unchangeable/ sunset clause. The wording and shit would have to be an iron clad guarantee with absolutely /no/ possible way to "extend" or otherwise "alter" it to ensure that some bastard's can't try to make it permanent. There would also need to be a very specific and detailed set of "goals" the universal background check's would achieve; like for example a percentage per capita less violent homicides involving a gun, etc. The contents of the universal background check and it's "gun ownership" qualifications would also need to be iron clad; to prevent the adding in of things like "must be over 200 to buy a gun" and stuff.

In addition, the new universal background check system will be tied into something similar to voter ID checks and ID checks for most, if not all, forms of gov funded aid; This would be to balance out the "burden" of American's; typically Dems say it's too much of a burden for the poor to get an ID, and Republican's complain that it is too much of a burden for them to deal with background checks yea? Basically, everyone in the country goes in for bg check and comes out with the ID they are required to have for voting/gov aid. We can even sunset clause this stuff to expire and see if it's done what we Repub's think it will do for fraud, etc.



What do you guys think, too radical/scary?

If you would even consider trusting the fed to do this I have some prime ocean front property in Tucson I can let you have at fire sale prices.

Do you actually think that our politicians are /that/ corrupt? I mean I know they're sellouts and liars, but I think abusing something like this is far past what they'd be willing to do...

Yes.

 

[skookerasbil]

Take Sallow here........a whore of the PC matrix. Lives in NYC and views things through the uber-progressive lens of Manhattan liberals who dominate the island. Highly likely has never even layed eyes on a gun in his life. He thinks that banning guns is a chip shot field goal..........meanwhile, 75% of the country say "FUCK YOU!!" to that nonsense!!!

 

[westwall]

Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended to promote gun control?

"When was the last time somebody drove a car and killed 20 children and six teachers on purpose? When was the last time someone took a syringe full of "flu" into a movie theater to wipe out 12 people on purpose?" Ud

Needed gun legislation in Politics Forum

Automobiles may kill more humans than guns kill in the U.S.
But we already regulate them. To operate them on public roadways:
- the driver must be licensed
- the vehicle must meet legal standards
- obeying motor-vehicle & traffic laws is required
- cars are being built safer and "better" all the time. Most of a century ago, there were cars on the road with 2 wheel brakes. Today there are cars on our public roadways with:
4 wheel power disc brakes
anti-lock brakes
air bags (front & side)
crumple-zone crash-energy absorption design
collapsible steering column
and much, much more.

So since their proliferation, cars have gotten safer, and better.
In vivid contrast, since the U.S. Founding, guns have gotten vastly more lethal.

Should the United States Constitution's Second Amendment which acknowledges the People's "right to keep and bear arms" be amended to compensate for this divergent technological trend? Safer cars, and ever more deadly guns?

No. The founders were far smarter than us. Only a true moron would try and change one of the most well thought out and written systems of government ever devised.

 

[Auld Phart]

Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended to promote gun control?

"When was the last time somebody drove a car and killed 20 children and six teachers on purpose? When was the last time someone took a syringe full of "flu" into a movie theater to wipe out 12 people on purpose?" Ud

Needed gun legislation in Politics Forum

Automobiles may kill more humans than guns kill in the U.S.
But we already regulate them. To operate them on public roadways:
- the driver must be licensed
- the vehicle must meet legal standards
- obeying motor-vehicle & traffic laws is required
- cars are being built safer and "better" all the time. Most of a century ago, there were cars on the road with 2 wheel brakes. Today there are cars on our public roadways with:
4 wheel power disc brakes
anti-lock brakes
air bags (front & side)
crumple-zone crash-energy absorption design
collapsible steering column
and much, much more.

So since their proliferation, cars have gotten safer, and better.
In vivid contrast, since the U.S. Founding, guns have gotten vastly more lethal.

Should the United States Constitution's Second Amendment which acknowledges the People's "right to keep and bear arms" be amended to compensate for this divergent technological trend? Safer cars, and ever more deadly guns?

The Second Amendment says more than what you posted.

There are several requirements.

1. You are part of a militia.
2. You are engaged in defending the state.
3. You are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government and the Commander in Chief.

Case law screwed that up.

And that's what needs to be addressed.

None of those are requirements.

Well yeah. They are.

 

[skookerasbil]

ammo up my friends!!!!

 

[Auld Phart]

ammo up my friends!!!!

Got all I need, for now

 

[JimBowie1958]

Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended to promote gun control?

"When was the last time somebody drove a car and killed 20 children and six teachers on purpose? When was the last time someone took a syringe full of "flu" into a movie theater to wipe out 12 people on purpose?" Ud

Needed gun legislation in Politics Forum

Automobiles may kill more humans than guns kill in the U.S.
But we already regulate them. To operate them on public roadways:
- the driver must be licensed
- the vehicle must meet legal standards
- obeying motor-vehicle & traffic laws is required
- cars are being built safer and "better" all the time. Most of a century ago, there were cars on the road with 2 wheel brakes. Today there are cars on our public roadways with:
4 wheel power disc brakes
anti-lock brakes
air bags (front & side)
crumple-zone crash-energy absorption design
collapsible steering column
and much, much more.

So since their proliferation, cars have gotten safer, and better.
In vivid contrast, since the U.S. Founding, guns have gotten vastly more lethal.

Should the United States Constitution's Second Amendment which acknowledges the People's "right to keep and bear arms" be amended to compensate for this divergent technological trend? Safer cars, and ever more deadly guns?

no

 

[boedicca]

In response to the OP: No.

End of story.

Period.

 

[EverCurious]

In my ongoing consideration and debate on this issue I've spent a lot of time trying to find a compromise, if there even is one... All of the "gun-nuts" know that universal background checks are an absolute waste of time, but the "anti-gunners" know it will magically solve all the gun crime.

How about an agreement; we "gun-nuts" let you have your silly universal background check crap temporarily and when it fails, you "anti-gunners" admit that making lawful American's jump through hoops is useless in stopping criminals? At least then both sides will know if it works or not, right?

I think we can do it, legally I mean, I know we can basically set aside constitutional protections temporarily under marshal law and stuff, so we'd basically set aside the 2nd amendment with an /automatic/ and /unchangeable/ sunset clause. The wording and shit would have to be an iron clad guarantee with absolutely /no/ possible way to "extend" or otherwise "alter" it to ensure that some bastard's can't try to make it permanent. There would also need to be a very specific and detailed set of "goals" the universal background check's would achieve; like for example a percentage per capita less violent homicides involving a gun, etc. The contents of the universal background check and it's "gun ownership" qualifications would also need to be iron clad; to prevent the adding in of things like "must be over 200 to buy a gun" and stuff.

In addition, the new universal background check system will be tied into something similar to voter ID checks and ID checks for most, if not all, forms of gov funded aid; This would be to balance out the "burden" of American's; typically Dems say it's too much of a burden for the poor to get an ID, and Republican's complain that it is too much of a burden for them to deal with background checks yea? Basically, everyone in the country goes in for bg check and comes out with the ID they are required to have for voting/gov aid. We can even sunset clause this stuff to expire and see if it's done what we Repub's think it will do for fraud, etc.



What do you guys think, too radical/scary?

Sorry...you can't let the left have anything like this...they never give back a freedom once they take it....there is no compromising on basic human Rights.

I know the feel, real hard to trust when even their highest who get elected do so regularly...

hmmm how about something more along the lines of my universal background check voter id thing for buying guns (rather than the amendment stuff)? If you don't have the id/ubc then you can't buy without court approval?

Universal Background checks would work no better than current mandatory federal background checks. Criminals get around current federal, mandatory background checks by stealing guns or by getting people with clean records to buy the guns for them. They would use both methods to get past "universal" background checks.

What the anti gunners want is to make it more difficult for normal people to own, carry and use guns. A universal background check is not aimed at stopping criminals...the anti gunners know this....universal background checks are intended to make it harder for normal people to sell a legal product, guns. If you want to sell your gun to your brother or another relative...you would now have to try to find a gun dealer or police station that would run that check...so now the gun store will charge you...a lot.....and a police station will take forever as they now have to devote police resources to your background check.....

And what if you don't have a gun store nearby....what if your gun store is an hour away....

Also...what if your brother wants to use your gun at the range...because he wants to see if he likes that particular model...if you lend it to him...without a background check...you are now both felons.

What if your father dies...and he owned guns...is your mother now a felon because she didn't get a background check on herself before he died?

See the problem...they want to increase the paperwork and the complexity in order to scare normal people from buying, owning and carrying guns.

That is all the universal background check push is for. It won't stop criminals. It won't stop mass shooters...but it will catch normal people and turn them into felons.

And if you have a life...a mortgage, a job, a family.....would you risk losing it because you are now a felon because you didn't get a background check on your brother when you sold him your .22 bolt action rifle?

hmmm I never thought of some of that stuff, inheritance or letting the kid take a shot at the moose while hunting or something.

I was just thinking of the inconvenience issue rather than the slimy shit. I'm apparently not "gun-nutter" enough

 

[2aguy]

In my ongoing consideration and debate on this issue I've spent a lot of time trying to find a compromise, if there even is one... All of the "gun-nuts" know that universal background checks are an absolute waste of time, but the "anti-gunners" know it will magically solve all the gun crime.

How about an agreement; we "gun-nuts" let you have your silly universal background check crap temporarily and when it fails, you "anti-gunners" admit that making lawful American's jump through hoops is useless in stopping criminals? At least then both sides will know if it works or not, right?

I think we can do it, legally I mean, I know we can basically set aside constitutional protections temporarily under marshal law and stuff, so we'd basically set aside the 2nd amendment with an /automatic/ and /unchangeable/ sunset clause. The wording and shit would have to be an iron clad guarantee with absolutely /no/ possible way to "extend" or otherwise "alter" it to ensure that some bastard's can't try to make it permanent. There would also need to be a very specific and detailed set of "goals" the universal background check's would achieve; like for example a percentage per capita less violent homicides involving a gun, etc. The contents of the universal background check and it's "gun ownership" qualifications would also need to be iron clad; to prevent the adding in of things like "must be over 200 to buy a gun" and stuff.

In addition, the new universal background check system will be tied into something similar to voter ID checks and ID checks for most, if not all, forms of gov funded aid; This would be to balance out the "burden" of American's; typically Dems say it's too much of a burden for the poor to get an ID, and Republican's complain that it is too much of a burden for them to deal with background checks yea? Basically, everyone in the country goes in for bg check and comes out with the ID they are required to have for voting/gov aid. We can even sunset clause this stuff to expire and see if it's done what we Repub's think it will do for fraud, etc.



What do you guys think, too radical/scary?

Sorry...you can't let the left have anything like this...they never give back a freedom once they take it....there is no compromising on basic human Rights.

I know the feel, real hard to trust when even their highest who get elected do so regularly...

hmmm how about something more along the lines of my universal background check voter id thing for buying guns (rather than the amendment stuff)? If you don't have the id/ubc then you can't buy without court approval?

Universal Background checks would work no better than current mandatory federal background checks. Criminals get around current federal, mandatory background checks by stealing guns or by getting people with clean records to buy the guns for them. They would use both methods to get past "universal" background checks.

What the anti gunners want is to make it more difficult for normal people to own, carry and use guns. A universal background check is not aimed at stopping criminals...the anti gunners know this....universal background checks are intended to make it harder for normal people to sell a legal product, guns. If you want to sell your gun to your brother or another relative...you would now have to try to find a gun dealer or police station that would run that check...so now the gun store will charge you...a lot.....and a police station will take forever as they now have to devote police resources to your background check.....

And what if you don't have a gun store nearby....what if your gun store is an hour away....

Also...what if your brother wants to use your gun at the range...because he wants to see if he likes that particular model...if you lend it to him...without a background check...you are now both felons.

What if your father dies...and he owned guns...is your mother now a felon because she didn't get a background check on herself before he died?

See the problem...they want to increase the paperwork and the complexity in order to scare normal people from buying, owning and carrying guns.

That is all the universal background check push is for. It won't stop criminals. It won't stop mass shooters...but it will catch normal people and turn them into felons.

And if you have a life...a mortgage, a job, a family.....would you risk losing it because you are now a felon because you didn't get a background check on your brother when you sold him your .22 bolt action rifle?

hmmm I never thought of some of that stuff, inheritance or letting the kid take a shot at the moose while hunting or something.

I was just thinking of the inconvenience issue rather than the slimy shit. I'm apparently not "gun-nutter" enough

I never thought about it much before either...but then when you actually look at the gun laws and see how they aren't really focused on the criminal, and rather affect non criminals...you have to start looking closely at any "Common Sense" gun control the anti gunners say they want.

 

[2aguy]

Better cars=safer cars
Better guns=deadlier guns
Get over it.

And how exactly does starting a civil war make the country safer?

No...better guns means that the weak, the old, the injured, the physically diabled, and those outnumbered can defeat stronger, younger, more numerous or more aggressive violent attackers.......and save lives..especially their own.

 

[2aguy]

In my ongoing consideration and debate on this issue I've spent a lot of time trying to find a compromise, if there even is one... All of the "gun-nuts" know that universal background checks are an absolute waste of time, but the "anti-gunners" know it will magically solve all the gun crime.

How about an agreement; we "gun-nuts" let you have your silly universal background check crap temporarily and when it fails, you "anti-gunners" admit that making lawful American's jump through hoops is useless in stopping criminals? At least then both sides will know if it works or not, right?

I think we can do it, legally I mean, I know we can basically set aside constitutional protections temporarily under marshal law and stuff, so we'd basically set aside the 2nd amendment with an /automatic/ and /unchangeable/ sunset clause. The wording and shit would have to be an iron clad guarantee with absolutely /no/ possible way to "extend" or otherwise "alter" it to ensure that some bastard's can't try to make it permanent. There would also need to be a very specific and detailed set of "goals" the universal background check's would achieve; like for example a percentage per capita less violent homicides involving a gun, etc. The contents of the universal background check and it's "gun ownership" qualifications would also need to be iron clad; to prevent the adding in of things like "must be over 200 to buy a gun" and stuff.

In addition, the new universal background check system will be tied into something similar to voter ID checks and ID checks for most, if not all, forms of gov funded aid; This would be to balance out the "burden" of American's; typically Dems say it's too much of a burden for the poor to get an ID, and Republican's complain that it is too much of a burden for them to deal with background checks yea? Basically, everyone in the country goes in for bg check and comes out with the ID they are required to have for voting/gov aid. We can even sunset clause this stuff to expire and see if it's done what we Repub's think it will do for fraud, etc.



What do you guys think, too radical/scary?

Sorry...you can't let the left have anything like this...they never give back a freedom once they take it....there is no compromising on basic human Rights.

I know the feel, real hard to trust when even their highest who get elected do so regularly...

hmmm how about something more along the lines of my universal background check voter id thing for buying guns (rather than the amendment stuff)? If you don't have the id/ubc then you can't buy without court approval?

Universal Background checks would work no better than current mandatory federal background checks. Criminals get around current federal, mandatory background checks by stealing guns or by getting people with clean records to buy the guns for them. They would use both methods to get past "universal" background checks.

What the anti gunners want is to make it more difficult for normal people to own, carry and use guns. A universal background check is not aimed at stopping criminals...the anti gunners know this....universal background checks are intended to make it harder for normal people to sell a legal product, guns. If you want to sell your gun to your brother or another relative...you would now have to try to find a gun dealer or police station that would run that check...so now the gun store will charge you...a lot.....and a police station will take forever as they now have to devote police resources to your background check.....

And what if you don't have a gun store nearby....what if your gun store is an hour away....

Also...what if your brother wants to use your gun at the range...because he wants to see if he likes that particular model...if you lend it to him...without a background check...you are now both felons.

What if your father dies...and he owned guns...is your mother now a felon because she didn't get a background check on herself before he died?

See the problem...they want to increase the paperwork and the complexity in order to scare normal people from buying, owning and carrying guns.

That is all the universal background check push is for. It won't stop criminals. It won't stop mass shooters...but it will catch normal people and turn them into felons.

And if you have a life...a mortgage, a job, a family.....would you risk losing it because you are now a felon because you didn't get a background check on your brother when you sold him your .22 bolt action rifle?

hmmm I never thought of some of that stuff, inheritance or letting the kid take a shot at the moose while hunting or something.

I was just thinking of the inconvenience issue rather than the slimy shit. I'm apparently not "gun-nutter" enough

Yes...if a a gun owner dies and their spouse is not knowlegable about gun laws...they can get into trouble for not getting a background check..on themselves....right? Then you have to have a new law making an exception....bugt meanwhile, a normal, law abiding person is now trying to fight off a criminal suit that will make them a felon...just because of a clerical misstep. Exactly what the gun grabbers want.

 

[EverCurious]

In my ongoing consideration and debate on this issue I've spent a lot of time trying to find a compromise, if there even is one... All of the "gun-nuts" know that universal background checks are an absolute waste of time, but the "anti-gunners" know it will magically solve all the gun crime.

How about an agreement; we "gun-nuts" let you have your silly universal background check crap temporarily and when it fails, you "anti-gunners" admit that making lawful American's jump through hoops is useless in stopping criminals? At least then both sides will know if it works or not, right?

I think we can do it, legally I mean, I know we can basically set aside constitutional protections temporarily under marshal law and stuff, so we'd basically set aside the 2nd amendment with an /automatic/ and /unchangeable/ sunset clause. The wording and shit would have to be an iron clad guarantee with absolutely /no/ possible way to "extend" or otherwise "alter" it to ensure that some bastard's can't try to make it permanent. There would also need to be a very specific and detailed set of "goals" the universal background check's would achieve; like for example a percentage per capita less violent homicides involving a gun, etc. The contents of the universal background check and it's "gun ownership" qualifications would also need to be iron clad; to prevent the adding in of things like "must be over 200 to buy a gun" and stuff.

In addition, the new universal background check system will be tied into something similar to voter ID checks and ID checks for most, if not all, forms of gov funded aid; This would be to balance out the "burden" of American's; typically Dems say it's too much of a burden for the poor to get an ID, and Republican's complain that it is too much of a burden for them to deal with background checks yea? Basically, everyone in the country goes in for bg check and comes out with the ID they are required to have for voting/gov aid. We can even sunset clause this stuff to expire and see if it's done what we Repub's think it will do for fraud, etc.



What do you guys think, too radical/scary?

Sorry...you can't let the left have anything like this...they never give back a freedom once they take it....there is no compromising on basic human Rights.

I know the feel, real hard to trust when even their highest who get elected do so regularly...

hmmm how about something more along the lines of my universal background check voter id thing for buying guns (rather than the amendment stuff)? If you don't have the id/ubc then you can't buy without court approval?

Universal Background checks would work no better than current mandatory federal background checks. Criminals get around current federal, mandatory background checks by stealing guns or by getting people with clean records to buy the guns for them. They would use both methods to get past "universal" background checks.

What the anti gunners want is to make it more difficult for normal people to own, carry and use guns. A universal background check is not aimed at stopping criminals...the anti gunners know this....universal background checks are intended to make it harder for normal people to sell a legal product, guns. If you want to sell your gun to your brother or another relative...you would now have to try to find a gun dealer or police station that would run that check...so now the gun store will charge you...a lot.....and a police station will take forever as they now have to devote police resources to your background check.....

And what if you don't have a gun store nearby....what if your gun store is an hour away....

Also...what if your brother wants to use your gun at the range...because he wants to see if he likes that particular model...if you lend it to him...without a background check...you are now both felons.

What if your father dies...and he owned guns...is your mother now a felon because she didn't get a background check on herself before he died?

See the problem...they want to increase the paperwork and the complexity in order to scare normal people from buying, owning and carrying guns.

That is all the universal background check push is for. It won't stop criminals. It won't stop mass shooters...but it will catch normal people and turn them into felons.

And if you have a life...a mortgage, a job, a family.....would you risk losing it because you are now a felon because you didn't get a background check on your brother when you sold him your .22 bolt action rifle?

hmmm I never thought of some of that stuff, inheritance or letting the kid take a shot at the moose while hunting or something.

I was just thinking of the inconvenience issue rather than the slimy shit. I'm apparently not "gun-nutter" enough

I never thought about it much before either...but then when you actually look at the gun laws and see how they aren't really focused on the criminal, and rather affect non criminals...you have to start looking closely at any "Common Sense" gun control the anti gunners say they want.

Yea probs right. I'm out of my "generation" in a lot of ways, I'm from like the GI Gen, where people actually cared about America and their fellow American's idk "more" - it seems like a lot of things these days are built on fucking over people. It's unfortunate. :/

 

[Iron Head]

Should be completely repealed. Pleanty of countries get on just fine and a lot better than us without 2nd amendments.

Bullshit. Most of us do not want our families exposed, unprotected, to PREDATORS.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The individual right to possess a firearm is unrelated to militia service (DC v. Heller); indeed, the Amendment's reference to the militia is predicated on the reliance of the individual to possess his own personal firearm so that he might execute his responsibilities as a member of a militia, in no way mitigating or undermining the individual right:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER