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.
Apply that to laws against child molesting.
Have background checks for gun purchasers been ruled unconstitutional?
I think you're the one who's ignoring the constitution.
Its not background checks that are the issue, its what you want to be a qualifier for denying a right. Some here want any shrink to be able to put you on a "no gun" list, regardless of the fact that denying a right requires a judge, and the ability to face ones accuser in a court of law.
We have background checks, and all they do is make liberal idiots feel better because getting a gun illegally is, and will always be easy, no matter how many laws are passed.
I don't think "any shrink" should be able to put you on a list. But if a person has a clear documented history of mental illness then that person should not be able to purchase firearms. I think each case needs to be determined on it's own merits and not just paint every mental case with the same brush.
is a good guy with a gun"
It turns out Alexis was armed only with a shotgun. He was able to take down those "good guys with guns" in the building to then use their handguns to kill more people.
What will LaPierre and the gun-nutters say now?
Apply that to laws against child molesting.
Child molesting involves harming another person. Owning a firearm does not. We don't require people to register with the government before they interact with a child and if we did, it wouldn't stop predators from hurting children.
Do you support universal background checks, including background checks being required for private transactions?
90 percent of the people didn't support it you lying fuck!!
Just look at the number of people on this board that are against it. That should give you a clue.
You libturds do nothing but lie and what's sad is you believe the lies Obama and the Democrat politicians feed you.
I pity idiots like you.
This a conservative board. Are you too stupid to realize that?
That's why a blue state like Colorado recalled two anti-gun state Senators, the first time in that states history to do so.
Do you support universal background checks, including background checks being required for private transactions?
Yes, for the purchasing of spoons. Obesity is a major problem in this country that kills far more people than firearms. We must register spoons and require background checks (and weigh in) before anyone buys a spoon, even in a private transaction. We should also limit the capacity of spoons. No high capacity spoons! I mean, how big of a spoon does a person need to eat anyway?
It's for the children!!!
Apply that to laws against child molesting.
Child molesting involves harming another person. Owning a firearm does not. We don't require people to register with the government before they interact with a child and if we did, it wouldn't stop predators from hurting children.
Crazy people shooting other people with guns doesn't involve harming another person?
Convicted felons never harm any one?
These people are arguing that there should not be background checks because people can get around them.
What is the merit to that argument?
People drive drunk every day, by the tens of thousands. Does that mean we shouldn't have drunk driving laws?
This a conservative board. Are you too stupid to realize that?
That's why a blue state like Colorado recalled two anti-gun state Senators, the first time in that states history to do so.
The law is still in place, the legislature is still Democrat, and the governor is a still Democrat.
A meaningless tantrum by the gun industry lobby. Big deal.
Do you support universal background checks, including background checks being required for private transactions?
Yes, for the purchasing of spoons. Obesity is a major problem in this country that kills far more people than firearms. We must register spoons and require background checks (and weigh in) before anyone buys a spoon, even in a private transaction. We should also limit the capacity of spoons. No high capacity spoons! I mean, how big of a spoon does a person need to eat anyway?
It's for the children!!!
You're just proving my point. People like you are defending the right of this mental case, even if he had been legally declared ineligible to purchase and possess guns,
to be able to do so.
Its not background checks that are the issue, its what you want to be a qualifier for denying a right. Some here want any shrink to be able to put you on a "no gun" list, regardless of the fact that denying a right requires a judge, and the ability to face ones accuser in a court of law.
We have background checks, and all they do is make liberal idiots feel better because getting a gun illegally is, and will always be easy, no matter how many laws are passed.
I don't think "any shrink" should be able to put you on a list. But if a person has a clear documented history of mental illness then that person should not be able to purchase firearms. I think each case needs to be determined on it's own merits and not just paint every mental case with the same brush.
But since you oppose background checks for private transactions, that person would still be able to buy guns.
You are pretending to support something you don't actually support.
Yes, for the purchasing of spoons. Obesity is a major problem in this country that kills far more people than firearms. We must register spoons and require background checks (and weigh in) before anyone buys a spoon, even in a private transaction. We should also limit the capacity of spoons. No high capacity spoons! I mean, how big of a spoon does a person need to eat anyway?
It's for the children!!!
You're just proving my point. People like you are defending the right of this mental case, even if he had been legally declared ineligible to purchase and possess guns,
to be able to do so.
Wrong. There are already laws against owning a firearm for those declared ineligible due to mental issues.
Have background checks for gun purchasers been ruled unconstitutional?
I think you're the one who's ignoring the constitution.
Its not background checks that are the issue, its what you want to be a qualifier for denying a right. Some here want any shrink to be able to put you on a "no gun" list, regardless of the fact that denying a right requires a judge, and the ability to face ones accuser in a court of law.
We have background checks, and all they do is make liberal idiots feel better because getting a gun illegally is, and will always be easy, no matter how many laws are passed.
I don't think "any shrink" should be able to put you on a list. But if a person has a clear documented history of mental illness then that person should not be able to purchase firearms. I think each case needs to be determined on it's own merits and not just paint every mental case with the same brush.
You're just proving my point. People like you are defending the right of this mental case, even if he had been legally declared ineligible to purchase and possess guns,
to be able to do so.
Wrong. There are already laws against owning a firearm for those declared ineligible due to mental issues.
Are there laws requiring you to determine via a background check whether the person who wants to buy your gun is eligible or not?
You're just proving my point. People like you are defending the right of this mental case, even if he had been legally declared ineligible to purchase and possess guns,
to be able to do so.
Wrong. There are already laws against owning a firearm for those declared ineligible due to mental issues.
Are there laws requiring you to determine via a background check whether the person who wants to buy your gun is eligible or not?
Yes, for the purchasing of spoons. Obesity is a major problem in this country that kills far more people than firearms. We must register spoons and require background checks (and weigh in) before anyone buys a spoon, even in a private transaction. We should also limit the capacity of spoons. No high capacity spoons! I mean, how big of a spoon does a person need to eat anyway?
It's for the children!!!
You're just proving my point. People like you are defending the right of this mental case, even if he had been legally declared ineligible to purchase and possess guns,
to be able to do so.
Wrong. There are already laws against owning a firearm for those declared ineligible due to mental issues.
Now, how about supporting background checks for spoons? Do you deny obesity kills?
You're just proving my point. People like you are defending the right of this mental case, even if he had been legally declared ineligible to purchase and possess guns,
to be able to do so.
Wrong. There are already laws against owning a firearm for those declared ineligible due to mental issues.
Now, how about supporting background checks for spoons? Do you deny obesity kills?
Man, you are heartless. Have you ever tried eating ice cream with a fork?
Especially here in Florida.
I don't think "any shrink" should be able to put you on a list. But if a person has a clear documented history of mental illness then that person should not be able to purchase firearms. I think each case needs to be determined on it's own merits and not just paint every mental case with the same brush.
But since you oppose background checks for private transactions, that person would still be able to buy guns.
You are pretending to support something you don't actually support.
Yes, I oppose background checks for private transactions. It's been my experience that most private transactions are among family and friends.
But the bill also included background checks for gifting firearms and/or inheriting firearms.
Wrong. There are already laws against owning a firearm for those declared ineligible due to mental issues.
Are there laws requiring you to determine via a background check whether the person who wants to buy your gun is eligible or not?
The law already holds a person liable if it is found they sold a gun to a person not eligible to own one. How about we enforce that law first before we start making new ones?
Are there laws requiring you to determine via a background check whether the person who wants to buy your gun is eligible or not?
The law already holds a person liable if it is found they sold a gun to a person not eligible to own one. How about we enforce that law first before we start making new ones?
Because prevention and deterrence are designed to work BEFORE someone is shot?
