Universal background checks... really?

[Nosmo King]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The fucking spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

No, you're right. Background checks won't do the trick. Ban and confiscate assault rifles and mags over 10 rounds. Insist on safety courses and licensing, including a clean mental health evaluation, every five years, for any gun. Clean up the NICS data base so it actually contains the information needed to make an informed decision on a potential buyer's appropriateness for a gun.
Americans are stupid mental cases.

No law, no single provision of a regulation will ever, and has never stopped criminal actions. Speed limits have not eradicated high speed highway accidents. No building codes have ever ended building fires.

But who would argue that speed limits have substantially reduced high speed airomobile accidents? Who would argue that building codes have been totally ineffective in making construction standards higher and therefore safer?

The Gun Culture is retrenching so deeply in the canard that massively popular, common sense gun safety regulations inevitably result in gun confiscation. The 'slippery slope' doctrine.

Those who successfully introduced Prohibition used the same intractable political tact. The most obstinate politics in 20th century American politics. But when faced with overwhelming popular opposition, they held fast until they were utterly smashed. A few compromises would most certainly saved the Prohibition movement.

You can't name any common sense gun regulations....all you put out are gun laws meant to restrict gun access for law abiding gun owners.

Every gun owner is a law abiding citizen right up to the point they pull the trigger.

A background check does not infringe the right to bear arms.

Jayzus! Ya want an ID to cast a vote, but not to get a gun!

 

[Rustic]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The fucking spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

No, you're right. Background checks won't do the trick. Ban and confiscate assault rifles and mags over 10 rounds. Insist on safety courses and licensing, including a clean mental health evaluation, every five years, for any gun. Clean up the NICS data base so it actually contains the information needed to make an informed decision on a potential buyer's appropriateness for a gun.
Americans are stupid mental cases.

No law, no single provision of a regulation will ever, and has never stopped criminal actions. Speed limits have not eradicated high speed highway accidents. No building codes have ever ended building fires.

But who would argue that speed limits have substantially reduced high speed airomobile accidents? Who would argue that building codes have been totally ineffective in making construction standards higher and therefore safer?

The Gun Culture is retrenching so deeply in the canard that massively popular, common sense gun safety regulations inevitably result in gun confiscation. The 'slippery slope' doctrine.

Those who successfully introduced Prohibition used the same intractable political tact. The most obstinate politics in 20th century American politics. But when faced with overwhelming popular opposition, they held fast until they were utterly smashed. A few compromises would most certainly saved the Prohibition movement.

You can't name any common sense gun regulations....all you put out are gun laws meant to restrict gun access for law abiding gun owners.

Every gun owner is a law abiding citizen right up to the point they pull the trigger.

A background check does not infringe the right to bear arms.

Jayzus! Ya want an ID to cast a vote, but not to get a gun!

You don’t understand basic freedoms

 

[2aguy]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The fucking spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

No, you're right. Background checks won't do the trick. Ban and confiscate assault rifles and mags over 10 rounds. Insist on safety courses and licensing, including a clean mental health evaluation, every five years, for any gun. Clean up the NICS data base so it actually contains the information needed to make an informed decision on a potential buyer's appropriateness for a gun.
Americans are stupid mental cases.

No law, no single provision of a regulation will ever, and has never stopped criminal actions. Speed limits have not eradicated high speed highway accidents. No building codes have ever ended building fires.

But who would argue that speed limits have substantially reduced high speed airomobile accidents? Who would argue that building codes have been totally ineffective in making construction standards higher and therefore safer?

The Gun Culture is retrenching so deeply in the canard that massively popular, common sense gun safety regulations inevitably result in gun confiscation. The 'slippery slope' doctrine.

Those who successfully introduced Prohibition used the same intractable political tact. The most obstinate politics in 20th century American politics. But when faced with overwhelming popular opposition, they held fast until they were utterly smashed. A few compromises would most certainly saved the Prohibition movement.

You can't name any common sense gun regulations....all you put out are gun laws meant to restrict gun access for law abiding gun owners.

Every gun owner is a law abiding citizen right up to the point they pull the trigger.

A background check does not infringe the right to bear arms.

Jayzus! Ya want an ID to cast a vote, but not to get a gun!

Yes...a background check does......

The I.D. to vote is to make sure no one is stealing your name and your vote, dumb ass.

And no, normal people do not use their guns for gun crime or gun murder.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64






I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS
One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37 So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40
--------------------------



III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation. Nations and


areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54 that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a

stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62

Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65
“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69
A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed


********

 

[Defiant1]

Rigby seems to be forgetting the "show good reason to own a firearm" part.

This violates the constitution in the same way as a requirement to show a good reason to have an abortion.

How about this. You must show good reason why the cops can't come in your house.

You must show good reason to not testify against yourself.
You must show good reason to vote.

Voting isn't a right. It's a privilege extended to you by the government according to rules created by the government.

 

[Defiant1]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The fucking spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

No, you're right. Background checks won't do the trick. Ban and confiscate assault rifles and mags over 10 rounds. Insist on safety courses and licensing, including a clean mental health evaluation, every five years, for any gun. Clean up the NICS data base so it actually contains the information needed to make an informed decision on a potential buyer's appropriateness for a gun.
Americans are stupid mental cases.

No law, no single provision of a regulation will ever, and has never stopped criminal actions. Speed limits have not eradicated high speed highway accidents. No building codes have ever ended building fires.

But who would argue that speed limits have substantially reduced high speed airomobile accidents? Who would argue that building codes have been totally ineffective in making construction standards higher and therefore safer?

The Gun Culture is retrenching so deeply in the canard that massively popular, common sense gun safety regulations inevitably result in gun confiscation. The 'slippery slope' doctrine.

Those who successfully introduced Prohibition used the same intractable political tact. The most obstinate politics in 20th century American politics. But when faced with overwhelming popular opposition, they held fast until they were utterly smashed. A few compromises would most certainly saved the Prohibition movement.

You can't name any common sense gun regulations....all you put out are gun laws meant to restrict gun access for law abiding gun owners.

Every gun owner is a law abiding citizen right up to the point they pull the trigger.

A background check does not infringe the right to bear arms.

Jayzus! Ya want an ID to cast a vote, but not to get a gun!

Voting isn't a right.

 

[Andylusion]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The fucking spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

I still don't even understand how they think this will do anything.

My brother-in-law met a guy off the side of the highway at a rest stop. He gave some money, and got a gun.

Now how exactly to you pretend to try and enforce a universal background check on that? Ridiculous.

 

[Flash]

[Q

No, you're right. Background checks won't do the trick. Ban and confiscate assault rifles and mags over 10 rounds. Insist on safety courses and licensing, including a clean mental health evaluation, every five years, for any gun. Clean up the NICS data base so it actually contains the information needed to make an informed decision on a potential buyer's appropriateness for a gun.
Americans are stupid mental cases.

You Moon Bats are crazy. You Moon Bats are the stupid mental cases demanding to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.

By the way, Moon Bat here are some stats about those "assault weapons" that you ding bats are so scared of. Out of almost 11K shooting in 2017 only 400 people were killed with rifles. "Assault weapons" are a smaller subset of rifles. Statistically insignificant.

Assault weapons are not the problem. You stupid Moon Bats are the problem

Thanks, great way to show that...

You are da man when it comes to posting facts about the stupidity of gun control. You destroy all these anti gun nuts when you post your real facts.

I am just a mere amateur compared to you.

 

[Nosmo King]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The fucking spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

No, you're right. Background checks won't do the trick. Ban and confiscate assault rifles and mags over 10 rounds. Insist on safety courses and licensing, including a clean mental health evaluation, every five years, for any gun. Clean up the NICS data base so it actually contains the information needed to make an informed decision on a potential buyer's appropriateness for a gun.
Americans are stupid mental cases.

No law, no single provision of a regulation will ever, and has never stopped criminal actions. Speed limits have not eradicated high speed highway accidents. No building codes have ever ended building fires.

But who would argue that speed limits have substantially reduced high speed airomobile accidents? Who would argue that building codes have been totally ineffective in making construction standards higher and therefore safer?

The Gun Culture is retrenching so deeply in the canard that massively popular, common sense gun safety regulations inevitably result in gun confiscation. The 'slippery slope' doctrine.

Those who successfully introduced Prohibition used the same intractable political tact. The most obstinate politics in 20th century American politics. But when faced with overwhelming popular opposition, they held fast until they were utterly smashed. A few compromises would most certainly saved the Prohibition movement.

You can't name any common sense gun regulations....all you put out are gun laws meant to restrict gun access for law abiding gun owners.

Every gun owner is a law abiding citizen right up to the point they pull the trigger.

A background check does not infringe the right to bear arms.

Jayzus! Ya want an ID to cast a vote, but not to get a gun!

Yes...a background check does......

The I.D. to vote is to make sure no one is stealing your name and your vote, dumb ass.

And no, normal people do not use their guns for gun crime or gun murder.......

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64






I. VIOLENCE: THE DECISIVENESS OF SOCIAL FACTORS
One reason the extent of gun ownership in a society does not spur the murder rate is that murderers are not spread evenly throughout the population. Analysis of perpetrator studies shows that violent criminals—especially murderers—“almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behav‐ ior.”37 So it would not appreciably raise violence if all law‐ abiding, responsible people had firearms because they are not the ones who rape, rob, or murder.38 By the same token, violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians. As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest,39 individuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use. 40
--------------------------



III. DO ORDINARY PEOPLE MURDER?

The “more guns equal more death” mantra seems plausible only when viewed through the rubric that murders mostly in‐ volve ordinary people who kill because they have access to a firearm when they get angry. If this were true, murder might well increase where people have ready access to firearms, but the available data provides no such correlation. Nations and


areas with more guns per capita do not have higher murder rates than those with fewer guns per capita.53

Nevertheless, critics of gun ownership often argue that a “gun in the closet to protect against burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment of rage . . . . The problem is you and me—law‐abiding folks;”54 that banning handgun posses‐ sion only for those with criminal records will “fail to protect us from the most likely source of handgun murder: ordinary citi‐ zens;”55 that “most gun‐related homicides . . . are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background or who are known to the victims;”56 that “the majority of firearm homicide[s occur] . . . not as the result of criminal activity, but because of arguments between people who know each other;”57 that each year there are thousands of gun murders “by law‐abiding citizens who might have stayed law‐abiding if they had not possessed firearms.”58

These comments appear to rest on no evidence and actually con‐ tradict facts that have so uniformly been established by homicide studies dating back to the 1890s that they have become “crimino‐ logical axioms.”59 Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murder‐ ers are ordinary “law‐abiding citizens.”60

Rather, almost all mur‐ derers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopathology, substance abuse, and other dangerous behaviors. “The vast majority of persons involved in life‐ threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system.”61 “Thus homicide—[whether] of a

stranger or [of] someone known to the offender—‘is usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known . . . as violence prone.’”62

Though only 15% of Americans over the age of 15 have arrest records,63 approximately 90 percent of “adult mur‐ derers have adult records, with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.”64

These national statistics dovetail with data from local nineteenth and twentieth century studies. For example: victims as well as offenders [in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia murders] . . . tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as as‐ sault.”65
“The great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more.”66 Boston police and probation officers in the 1990s agreed that of those juvenile‐perpetrated murders where all the facts were known, virtually all were committed by gang members, though the killing was not necessarily gang‐ directed. 67 One example would be a gang member who stabs his girlfriend to death in a fit of anger.68 Regardless of their arrests for other crimes, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one earlier drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug of‐ fenses.69
A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders committed in that city in the years 2003–2005 found that “[m]ore than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.”70 Baltimore police figures show that “92 percent of murder suspects had [prior] criminal records in 2006.”71 Several of the more recent homicide studies just reviewed


********

Is that what you tell the parents of kindergarteners when they opt for the Kevlar backpack? You speak of basic freedoms as if your freedom to carry a gun without credentials trumps the massive public concern with gun violence.

The time you could rationalize gun murder and suicide by way of actuality tables is over. Not one sane human is in favor of mass shootings as just the inevitable cost of having the gun culture regulate itself. Gun makers, importers and exporters have paid to develop a political interest in making and selling more guns. Mazel tov! A blessing on their house. American capitalism with the receipts to prove it.

But the abuse of their products has resulted in a very popular and bi-partisan plea to reign this in. Hunters, sportsmen and those who opt for a gun as self defense will not be hindered in their choice of weaponry for those purposes.

The canard that a vote for Democrats means confiscation tomorrow is exposed for the intellectually insulting scread it is. I've heard those ads since 1976. Democrats have been elected. But no confiscations.

Your hand is played out. The American people are saying 'Do something'.

 

[Nosmo King]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The fucking spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

No, you're right. Background checks won't do the trick. Ban and confiscate assault rifles and mags over 10 rounds. Insist on safety courses and licensing, including a clean mental health evaluation, every five years, for any gun. Clean up the NICS data base so it actually contains the information needed to make an informed decision on a potential buyer's appropriateness for a gun.
Americans are stupid mental cases.

No law, no single provision of a regulation will ever, and has never stopped criminal actions. Speed limits have not eradicated high speed highway accidents. No building codes have ever ended building fires.

But who would argue that speed limits have substantially reduced high speed airomobile accidents? Who would argue that building codes have been totally ineffective in making construction standards higher and therefore safer?

The Gun Culture is retrenching so deeply in the canard that massively popular, common sense gun safety regulations inevitably result in gun confiscation. The 'slippery slope' doctrine.

Those who successfully introduced Prohibition used the same intractable political tact. The most obstinate politics in 20th century American politics. But when faced with overwhelming popular opposition, they held fast until they were utterly smashed. A few compromises would most certainly saved the Prohibition movement.

You can't name any common sense gun regulations....all you put out are gun laws meant to restrict gun access for law abiding gun owners.

Every gun owner is a law abiding citizen right up to the point they pull the trigger.

A background check does not infringe the right to bear arms.

Jayzus! Ya want an ID to cast a vote, but not to get a gun!

Voting isn't a right.

Would you deny a gun to the same people you would deny the vote?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Rigby seems to be forgetting the "show good reason to own a firearm" part.

This violates the constitution in the same way as a requirement to show a good reason to have an abortion.

How about this. You must show good reason why the cops can't come in your house.

You must show good reason to not testify against yourself.
You must show good reason to vote.

Voting isn't a right.

It is, as much as any other right.
See:
Amendment 14, 15, 19, 24, 26.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The fucking spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

I still don't even understand how they think this will do anything.
My brother-in-law met a guy off the side of the highway at a rest stop. He gave some money, and got a gun.
Now how exactly to you pretend to try and enforce a universal background check on that? Ridiculous.

It can't be enforced without universal registration -- which is the next step.
No one wonders why the anti-gun loons want universal registration.

 

[Defiant1]

No, you're right. Background checks won't do the trick. Ban and confiscate assault rifles and mags over 10 rounds. Insist on safety courses and licensing, including a clean mental health evaluation, every five years, for any gun. Clean up the NICS data base so it actually contains the information needed to make an informed decision on a potential buyer's appropriateness for a gun.
Americans are stupid mental cases.

No law, no single provision of a regulation will ever, and has never stopped criminal actions. Speed limits have not eradicated high speed highway accidents. No building codes have ever ended building fires.

But who would argue that speed limits have substantially reduced high speed airomobile accidents? Who would argue that building codes have been totally ineffective in making construction standards higher and therefore safer?

The Gun Culture is retrenching so deeply in the canard that massively popular, common sense gun safety regulations inevitably result in gun confiscation. The 'slippery slope' doctrine.

Those who successfully introduced Prohibition used the same intractable political tact. The most obstinate politics in 20th century American politics. But when faced with overwhelming popular opposition, they held fast until they were utterly smashed. A few compromises would most certainly saved the Prohibition movement.

You can't name any common sense gun regulations....all you put out are gun laws meant to restrict gun access for law abiding gun owners.

Every gun owner is a law abiding citizen right up to the point they pull the trigger.

A background check does not infringe the right to bear arms.

Jayzus! Ya want an ID to cast a vote, but not to get a gun!

Voting isn't a right.

Would you deny a gun to the same people you would deny the vote?

We do.

Permanent residents can own firearms, but they can't vote.

 

[Nosmo King]

No law, no single provision of a regulation will ever, and has never stopped criminal actions. Speed limits have not eradicated high speed highway accidents. No building codes have ever ended building fires.

But who would argue that speed limits have substantially reduced high speed airomobile accidents? Who would argue that building codes have been totally ineffective in making construction standards higher and therefore safer?

The Gun Culture is retrenching so deeply in the canard that massively popular, common sense gun safety regulations inevitably result in gun confiscation. The 'slippery slope' doctrine.

Those who successfully introduced Prohibition used the same intractable political tact. The most obstinate politics in 20th century American politics. But when faced with overwhelming popular opposition, they held fast until they were utterly smashed. A few compromises would most certainly saved the Prohibition movement.

You can't name any common sense gun regulations....all you put out are gun laws meant to restrict gun access for law abiding gun owners.

Every gun owner is a law abiding citizen right up to the point they pull the trigger.

A background check does not infringe the right to bear arms.

Jayzus! Ya want an ID to cast a vote, but not to get a gun!

Voting isn't a right.

Would you deny a gun to the same people you would deny the vote?

We do.

Permanent residents can own firearms, but they can't vote.

Felons? The mentally frazzled? Would you deny them both guns and votes?

 

[Defiant1]

You can't name any common sense gun regulations....all you put out are gun laws meant to restrict gun access for law abiding gun owners.

Every gun owner is a law abiding citizen right up to the point they pull the trigger.

A background check does not infringe the right to bear arms.

Jayzus! Ya want an ID to cast a vote, but not to get a gun!

Voting isn't a right.

Would you deny a gun to the same people you would deny the vote?

We do.

Permanent residents can own firearms, but they can't vote.

Felons? The mentally frazzled? Would you deny them both guns and votes?

Not permanently.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The fucking spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

All our rights have limitations. You think you can just marry 10 year old girls and sacrifice bald eagles because of freedom of religion. ?

Lol
Quit falling down the well...
Marring 10-year-old girls is illegal and not an right, sacrificing bold eagles is illegal and not a right.

Gun Control is never been about guns, it’s always been about control.

You can't pick and choose.

This conversation is stupid.

Though it mainly stems from thinking of rights as a permission rather than inherent to self-owning agents, and demonstrable through individual autonomy. Your rights only end where those of another self-owning agent begins.

You can't marry a 10-year-old, not because the Government says you can't, but because a 10-year-old can't consent, due to not being developed enough to understand what they're consenting to. This would make the action unethical.

Sacrificing a Bald Eagle is not comparable in any way, much like marrying a 10-year-old, to owning a fire arm. Sacrificing a Bald Eagle is not unethical, as they are not self-owning agents. Making it illegal does not make it wrong.

Neither of these are comparable to owning a firearm, as owning a firearm is passive. Owning property is not unethical. Preventing someone from owning a firearm or stealing it, however, is an active position which infringes on the property rights of another individual.

Note: I only quoted Daryl's pointless non-argument of a post because I didn't feel like looking for Timmy's post, it just isn't worth the effort.

Like I said, you can't have it both ways. It's is or it isn't.

 

[Nosmo King]

Every gun owner is a law abiding citizen right up to the point they pull the trigger.

A background check does not infringe the right to bear arms.

Jayzus! Ya want an ID to cast a vote, but not to get a gun!

Voting isn't a right.

Would you deny a gun to the same people you would deny the vote?

We do.

Permanent residents can own firearms, but they can't vote.

Felons? The mentally frazzled? Would you deny them both guns and votes?

Not permanently.

How would you determine who should be denied guns and votes?

 

[Defiant1]

Voting isn't a right.

Would you deny a gun to the same people you would deny the vote?

We do.

Permanent residents can own firearms, but they can't vote.

Felons? The mentally frazzled? Would you deny them both guns and votes?

Not permanently.

How would you determine who should be denied guns and votes?

A person who has completely paid their debt to society should have their rights restored.

A person who has previously been adjudicated mentally incompetent should be able to have the ruling reviewed and reversed is competency has been restored.

Why do you want to pick and choose who can protect their lives and property?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Voting isn't a right.

Would you deny a gun to the same people you would deny the vote?

We do.

Permanent residents can own firearms, but they can't vote.

Felons? The mentally frazzled? Would you deny them both guns and votes?

Not permanently.

How would you determine who should be denied guns and votes?

Simple for their group. Anyone that agrees with them will have those rights. Anyone that does not should be denied those privileges.

 

[Defiant1]

Voting isn't a right.

Would you deny a gun to the same people you would deny the vote?

We do.

Permanent residents can own firearms, but they can't vote.

Felons? The mentally frazzled? Would you deny them both guns and votes?

Not permanently.

How would you determine who should be denied guns and votes?

And let me just add, I don't think a person who we don't want owning a gun or voting should be walking the streets freely.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Would you deny a gun to the same people you would deny the vote?

We do.

Permanent residents can own firearms, but they can't vote.

Felons? The mentally frazzled? Would you deny them both guns and votes?

Not permanently.

How would you determine who should be denied guns and votes?

A person who has completely paid their debt to society should have their rights restored.

A person who has previously been adjudicated mentally incompetent should be able to have the ruling reviewed and reversed is competency has been restored.

Why do you want to pick and choose who can protect their lives and property?

I agree unless that person has been deemed violent. In that case, they should NEVER be afforded the use of a firearm. If they use a firearm in the committing of a crime, they lose all rights, period once they are convicted for life. With the exception of Prisoners Rights, that is. But for those that are NOT violent crimes and no weapons or physical force has been used, I would agree. And for those that are deem sane (many Vets fall into this category) I would also agree.