Why sane people oppose background checks

[NYcarbineer]

Driving is a privilege, not a right, unless you're driving on PRIVATE property.

I think the government has got it wrong on alcohol, too. What I do on my own PRIVATE property for my own PRIVATE consumption is none of your damned business.

With that said, neither of those activities is EXPLICITLY PROTECTED by the US Constitution.

Lousy comparison, Luissa.

Driving is a right. I cannot be denied a driver's license, the right to own a car, and the right to access the public roads

unless I am not qualified.

That is exactly the same right I have to own and use a gun.

Here you go again with that nonsense.


It is common misconception that any person in the United States has a right to drive. There is no such right in the US Constitution. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, and that privilege can be taken away or modified based on certain conduct, including several issues surrounding drunk driving cases. We all have a Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not to drive.

Turning 16 is not the criteria for deserving a driver’s license.

Driving: A privilege, not a right.

There is no such gun right then in the Constitution, since people can be denied gun ownership, based on certain conduct, or by age, etc.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

LaPierre: Fed Call For Background Checks ?Will Be Used To Confiscate Your Guns? « CBS DC

If you read the artcile he said he opposes "universal" background checks because he believes it will lead to registration then confiscation.

When will you idiots ever be honest?

Universal background checks are the ones that don't have huge holes in them that the criminals and the rest of those ineligible to buy guns can stroll through. You idiot.

How can that be when universal background checks don't exist yet? Your idiocy remains intact.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Driving is a right. I cannot be denied a driver's license, the right to own a car, and the right to access the public roads

unless I am not qualified.

That is exactly the same right I have to own and use a gun.

Here you go again with that nonsense.


It is common misconception that any person in the United States has a right to drive. There is no such right in the US Constitution. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, and that privilege can be taken away or modified based on certain conduct, including several issues surrounding drunk driving cases. We all have a Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not to drive.

Turning 16 is not the criteria for deserving a driver’s license.

Driving: A privilege, not a right.

There is no such gun right then in the Constitution, since people can be denied gun ownership, based on certain conduct, or by age, etc.

The right to keep and bear arms... IS in the constitution. Damn you lose more brain cells with each post.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here you go again with that nonsense.


It is common misconception that any person in the United States has a right to drive. There is no such right in the US Constitution. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, and that privilege can be taken away or modified based on certain conduct, including several issues surrounding drunk driving cases. We all have a Constitutional right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but not to drive.

Turning 16 is not the criteria for deserving a driver’s license.

Driving: A privilege, not a right.

There is no such gun right then in the Constitution, since people can be denied gun ownership, based on certain conduct, or by age, etc.

The right to keep and bear arms... IS in the constitution. Damn you lose more brain cells with each post.

Then why has New York State been able to require as many or more conditions for a person to be eligible to own a handgun than it does for a person to own and operate a motor vehicle?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you read the artcile he said he opposes "universal" background checks because he believes it will lead to registration then confiscation.

When will you idiots ever be honest?

Universal background checks are the ones that don't have huge holes in them that the criminals and the rest of those ineligible to buy guns can stroll through. You idiot.

How can that be when universal background checks don't exist yet? Your idiocy remains intact.

People like you don't want universal background checks because you don't want the loopholes that allow criminals to legally obtain guns to be closed.

You want the criminals to be able to get guns.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

There is no such gun right then in the Constitution, since people can be denied gun ownership, based on certain conduct, or by age, etc.

The right to keep and bear arms... IS in the constitution. Damn you lose more brain cells with each post.

Then why has New York State been able to require as many or more conditions for a person to be eligible to own a handgun than it does for a person to own and operate a motor vehicle?

I have no idea what requirements they do or do not have at this moment and I'd be willing to guess neither do you. I do know that outright banning of guns is unconstitutional and has been ruled so by SCOTUS. Now there are limitations on your 2nd amendment rights just as they are on the 1st amendment rights.

I've noticed your moved away from your "driving is a right" argument. Perhaps there is hope for you yet.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Universal background checks are the ones that don't have huge holes in them that the criminals and the rest of those ineligible to buy guns can stroll through. You idiot.

How can that be when universal background checks don't exist yet? Your idiocy remains intact.

People like you don't want universal background checks because you don't want the loopholes that allow criminals to legally obtain guns to be closed.

You want the criminals to be able to get guns.

We already have background checks in place. What the idiots on the left is proposing is beyond stupid. They would make it to where if you gifted your son a rifle or give your mother a weapon for protection you would have to first conduct a background check on them.

Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act—which created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)—all federal firearms licensees are required to conduct a background check for all firearms transactions, even if they sell the firearm at a gun show. This is to make sure that the gun isn’t being sold to a person who is prohibited from purchasing a gun under Section 922(g) or (n) of Title 18 of the United States Code, which would include convicted felons, people who have been adjudicated to be severely mentally ill, and people who have been convicted of a domestic violence offense.

 

[PatrioticPoster]

Or does pointing out that this is happening prove I am paranoid?

The University of Iowa has been quietly sharing federally protected student information with Johnson County law enforcement officials who handle gun permit applications — an arrangement that one national organization calls a “license to snoop.”
The information includes some data on classroom achievement that by law can’t be considered by sheriffs when processing permit-to-carry applications and are normally protected from disclosure by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Mark Braun, chief of staff for U of I President Sally Mason, said that in some cases the information speaks to a student’s perceived status as a “troublemaker,” but could also include information on failing grades or signs of depression or anger.
“This is incredibly alarming,” said Justin Dedecker, a graduate student who sought a gun permit in 2011. “How does my performance in class become an indicator of my mental stability?”

so I don't get it, what does that have to do with opposing background checks? Seems like a more appropriate title for your thread might be "Why sane people oppose unlawful sharing of information"

 

[Wry Catcher]

The idea that no solutions exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength.

People kill people, and guns make the killing of people easy, at a distance and less risky to the killer.

Anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun should have a license to do so. A license which can be suspended or revoked for cause. Such a person should also carry insurance for any harm done to another by their gun(s); private insurance records can be shielded from intrusive government to protect the privacy of honorable citizens.

You have a solution? Could you enlighten the rest of the world and solve something that has stumped us normal intellects for generations?

Wait, that was your solution, my bad. I thought you were being serious.

The press has killed people too, more people that nuts with guns, yet I haven't seen you demand we license newspapers.

I am serious and rational. You post above highlighted by me in no way counters my opinion and is ridiculous. While the written word might impact some people emotionally not one mass murder committed by a rolled newspaper has ever been reported. Is that because the MSM is biased against guns (only a paranoid might believe so, rational sorts not so much).

I have no problem getting a license (notice, I did not exclude retired LEO's from that requirement) and such a a license could be suspended (as in the case of all three shooters in Arizona, Colorado and Connecticut) when a mental health professional affirms in a petition to the court that someone appears to be a danger to themselves or others. Such an allegation would be necessary and sufficient to suspend the license. The trier of fact could then issue a warrant and a search of the persons home, vehicle or other named place and any weapons confiscated.

A full hearing by the trier of fact - judge or jury - would be heard to determine if the license should remain suspended for up to one year or it the license should be revoked for life.

Anyone licensed and arrested for a crime of violence, including but not limited to battery, terrorist threats, stalking, domestic violence, rape, robbery, arson, kidnapping, or committing acts which caused great bodily injury, crimes against children would be denied bail until such a time that a warrant to search their home, car or other possible cache for weapons was exercised and all weapons found be held until the trail on the original information was adjudicated. On a finding of guilt any license held by the offender would be revoked.

Anyone who sold, gave, loaned or permitted a non licensed individual to have in their possession, custody or control a gun would be guilty of a crime. They too would be subject to immediate suspension of their license and if aggravation is determined by the trier of fact they too would have their license revoked.

Anyone who later owned, posessed, or had in their custody and control a gun and found guilty would serve no less than ten years in a state prison.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The idea that no solutions exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength.

People kill people, and guns make the killing of people easy, at a distance and less risky to the killer.

Anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun should have a license to do so. A license which can be suspended or revoked for cause. Such a person should also carry insurance for any harm done to another by their gun(s); private insurance records can be shielded from intrusive government to protect the privacy of honorable citizens.

You have a solution? Could you enlighten the rest of the world and solve something that has stumped us normal intellects for generations?

Wait, that was your solution, my bad. I thought you were being serious.

The press has killed people too, more people that nuts with guns, yet I haven't seen you demand we license newspapers.

I am serious and rational. You post above highlighted by me in no way counters my opinion and is ridiculous. While the written word might impact some people emotionally not one mass murder committed by a rolled newspaper has ever been reported. Is that because the MSM is biased against guns (only a paranoid might believe so, rational sorts not so much).

I have no problem getting a license (notice, I did not exclude retired LEO's from that requirement) and such a a license could be suspended (as in the case of all three shooters in Arizona, Colorado and Connecticut) when a mental health professional affirms in a petition to the court that someone appears to be a danger to themselves or others. Such an allegation would be necessary and sufficient to suspend the license. The trier of fact could then issue a warrant and a search of the persons home, vehicle or other named place and any weapons confiscated.

A full hearing by the trier of fact - judge or jury - would be heard to determine if the license should remain suspended for up to one year or it the license should be revoked for life.

Anyone licensed and arrested for a crime of violence, including but not limited to battery, terrorist threats, stalking, domestic violence, rape, robbery, arson, kidnapping, or committing acts which caused great bodily injury, crimes against children would be denied bail until such a time that a warrant to search their home, car or other possible cache for weapons was exercised and all weapons found be held until the trail on the original information was adjudicated. On a finding of guilt any license held by the offender would be revoked.

Anyone who sold, gave, loaned or permitted a non licensed individual to have in their possession, custody or control a gun would be guilty of a crime. They too would be subject to immediate suspension of their license and if aggravation is determined by the trier of fact they too would have their license revoked.

Anyone who later owned, posessed, or had in their custody and control a gun and found guilty would serve no less than ten years in a state prison.

Keep dreaming.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You have a solution? Could you enlighten the rest of the world and solve something that has stumped us normal intellects for generations?

Wait, that was your solution, my bad. I thought you were being serious.

The press has killed people too, more people that nuts with guns, yet I haven't seen you demand we license newspapers.

I am serious and rational. You post above highlighted by me in no way counters my opinion and is ridiculous. While the written word might impact some people emotionally not one mass murder committed by a rolled newspaper has ever been reported. Is that because the MSM is biased against guns (only a paranoid might believe so, rational sorts not so much).

I have no problem getting a license (notice, I did not exclude retired LEO's from that requirement) and such a a license could be suspended (as in the case of all three shooters in Arizona, Colorado and Connecticut) when a mental health professional affirms in a petition to the court that someone appears to be a danger to themselves or others. Such an allegation would be necessary and sufficient to suspend the license. The trier of fact could then issue a warrant and a search of the persons home, vehicle or other named place and any weapons confiscated.

A full hearing by the trier of fact - judge or jury - would be heard to determine if the license should remain suspended for up to one year or it the license should be revoked for life.

Anyone licensed and arrested for a crime of violence, including but not limited to battery, terrorist threats, stalking, domestic violence, rape, robbery, arson, kidnapping, or committing acts which caused great bodily injury, crimes against children would be denied bail until such a time that a warrant to search their home, car or other possible cache for weapons was exercised and all weapons found be held until the trail on the original information was adjudicated. On a finding of guilt any license held by the offender would be revoked.

Anyone who sold, gave, loaned or permitted a non licensed individual to have in their possession, custody or control a gun would be guilty of a crime. They too would be subject to immediate suspension of their license and if aggravation is determined by the trier of fact they too would have their license revoked.

Anyone who later owned, posessed, or had in their custody and control a gun and found guilty would serve no less than ten years in a state prison.

Keep dreaming.

I will keep posting, here and elsewhere, and hope that the nightmare all parents faced when confronted by the evil done at Sandy Hook Elementary is heard in the halls of legislatures all across our nation and in The Congress.

Do you have other thoughtless comments to add? A personal attack on my intellect, a comparison between my ideas and those of Hitler or Stalin?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bump

 

[NYcarbineer]

How can that be when universal background checks don't exist yet? Your idiocy remains intact.

People like you don't want universal background checks because you don't want the loopholes that allow criminals to legally obtain guns to be closed.

You want the criminals to be able to get guns.

We already have background checks in place. What the idiots on the left is proposing is beyond stupid. They would make it to where if you gifted your son a rifle or give your mother a weapon for protection you would have to first conduct a background check on them.

Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act—which created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)—all federal firearms licensees are required to conduct a background check for all firearms transactions, even if they sell the firearm at a gun show. This is to make sure that the gun isn’t being sold to a person who is prohibited from purchasing a gun under Section 922(g) or (n) of Title 18 of the United States Code, which would include convicted felons, people who have been adjudicated to be severely mentally ill, and people who have been convicted of a domestic violence offense.

What if Adam Lanza had been ruled mentally unfit to have firearms?

Under your rules, his mother could have given her arsenal to him anyway.

 

[Erand7899]

I am serious and rational. You post above highlighted by me in no way counters my opinion and is ridiculous. While the written word might impact some people emotionally not one mass murder committed by a rolled newspaper has ever been reported. Is that because the MSM is biased against guns (only a paranoid might believe so, rational sorts not so much).

I have no problem getting a license (notice, I did not exclude retired LEO's from that requirement) and such a a license could be suspended (as in the case of all three shooters in Arizona, Colorado and Connecticut) when a mental health professional affirms in a petition to the court that someone appears to be a danger to themselves or others. Such an allegation would be necessary and sufficient to suspend the license. The trier of fact could then issue a warrant and a search of the persons home, vehicle or other named place and any weapons confiscated.

A full hearing by the trier of fact - judge or jury - would be heard to determine if the license should remain suspended for up to one year or it the license should be revoked for life.

Anyone licensed and arrested for a crime of violence, including but not limited to battery, terrorist threats, stalking, domestic violence, rape, robbery, arson, kidnapping, or committing acts which caused great bodily injury, crimes against children would be denied bail until such a time that a warrant to search their home, car or other possible cache for weapons was exercised and all weapons found be held until the trail on the original information was adjudicated. On a finding of guilt any license held by the offender would be revoked.

Anyone who sold, gave, loaned or permitted a non licensed individual to have in their possession, custody or control a gun would be guilty of a crime. They too would be subject to immediate suspension of their license and if aggravation is determined by the trier of fact they too would have their license revoked.

Anyone who later owned, posessed, or had in their custody and control a gun and found guilty would serve no less than ten years in a state prison.

Keep dreaming.

I will keep posting, here and elsewhere, and hope that the nightmare all parents faced when confronted by the evil done at Sandy Hook Elementary is heard in the halls of legislatures all across our nation and in The Congress.

Do you have other thoughtless comments to add? A personal attack on my intellect, a comparison between my ideas and those of Hitler or Stalin?

The nightmare at Sandy Hook Elementary school cannot be repealed through any efforts on your part. Nor, has anything proposed by you, or others, offered any reasonable assurance that another Sandy Hook will not occur in the future.

Emotion driven solutions are almost always bad solutions. We are a free society, and there is absolutely no way to guarantee personal safety in a free society, without destroying the free society in the process.

Children are killed everyday around this country, by car wrecks, drownings, shootings, fires, etc., and the parents of those killed at Sandy Hook do not feel any worse over losing their child than the parents of any of the others killed on a daily basis.

Restrictions on the rights of Americans need to be studied and discussed in the cold, hard light of reason and fact, and not be based on your emotion over a horrible event.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Do you make that same argument when it come to your rights operating a motor vehicle?
How about drinking alcohol or selling alcohol?

Driving is a privilege, not a right, unless you're driving on PRIVATE property.

I think the government has got it wrong on alcohol, too. What I do on my own PRIVATE property for my own PRIVATE consumption is none of your damned business.

With that said, neither of those activities is EXPLICITLY PROTECTED by the US Constitution.

Lousy comparison, Luissa.

Driving is a right. I cannot be denied a driver's license, the right to own a car, and the right to access the public roads

unless I am not qualified.

That is exactly the same right I have to own and use a gun.

No, that's a lie.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The idea that no solutions exists never occurs to them, and in this lies their strength.

People kill people, and guns make the killing of people easy, at a distance and less risky to the killer.

Anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a gun should have a license to do so. A license which can be suspended or revoked for cause. Such a person should also carry insurance for any harm done to another by their gun(s); private insurance records can be shielded from intrusive government to protect the privacy of honorable citizens.

You have a solution? Could you enlighten the rest of the world and solve something that has stumped us normal intellects for generations?

Wait, that was your solution, my bad. I thought you were being serious.

The press has killed people too, more people that nuts with guns, yet I haven't seen you demand we license newspapers.

I am serious and rational. You post above highlighted by me in no way counters my opinion and is ridiculous. While the written word might impact some people emotionally not one mass murder committed by a rolled newspaper has ever been reported. Is that because the MSM is biased against guns (only a paranoid might believe so, rational sorts not so much).

I have no problem getting a license (notice, I did not exclude retired LEO's from that requirement) and such a a license could be suspended (as in the case of all three shooters in Arizona, Colorado and Connecticut) when a mental health professional affirms in a petition to the court that someone appears to be a danger to themselves or others. Such an allegation would be necessary and sufficient to suspend the license. The trier of fact could then issue a warrant and a search of the persons home, vehicle or other named place and any weapons confiscated.

A full hearing by the trier of fact - judge or jury - would be heard to determine if the license should remain suspended for up to one year or it the license should be revoked for life.

Anyone licensed and arrested for a crime of violence, including but not limited to battery, terrorist threats, stalking, domestic violence, rape, robbery, arson, kidnapping, or committing acts which caused great bodily injury, crimes against children would be denied bail until such a time that a warrant to search their home, car or other possible cache for weapons was exercised and all weapons found be held until the trail on the original information was adjudicated. On a finding of guilt any license held by the offender would be revoked.

Anyone who sold, gave, loaned or permitted a non licensed individual to have in their possession, custody or control a gun would be guilty of a crime. They too would be subject to immediate suspension of their license and if aggravation is determined by the trier of fact they too would have their license revoked.

Anyone who later owned, posessed, or had in their custody and control a gun and found guilty would serve no less than ten years in a state prison.

So, let's recap. You want to make teaching a minor to safely handle a gun to be a felony. Are you fucking HIGH?!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Driving is a privilege, not a right, unless you're driving on PRIVATE property.

I think the government has got it wrong on alcohol, too. What I do on my own PRIVATE property for my own PRIVATE consumption is none of your damned business.

With that said, neither of those activities is EXPLICITLY PROTECTED by the US Constitution.

Lousy comparison, Luissa.

Driving is a right. I cannot be denied a driver's license, the right to own a car, and the right to access the public roads

unless I am not qualified.

That is exactly the same right I have to own and use a gun.

No, that's a lie.

lol, and your say-so is worth what?

Name the circumstances under which someone's right to drive can be limited or taken away altogether that do not have a comparable circumstance in gun ownership.

 

[Wry Catcher]

People like you don't want universal background checks because you don't want the loopholes that allow criminals to legally obtain guns to be closed.

You want the criminals to be able to get guns.

We already have background checks in place. What the idiots on the left is proposing is beyond stupid. They would make it to where if you gifted your son a rifle or give your mother a weapon for protection you would have to first conduct a background check on them.

Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act—which created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)—all federal firearms licensees are required to conduct a background check for all firearms transactions, even if they sell the firearm at a gun show. This is to make sure that the gun isn’t being sold to a person who is prohibited from purchasing a gun under Section 922(g) or (n) of Title 18 of the United States Code, which would include convicted felons, people who have been adjudicated to be severely mentally ill, and people who have been convicted of a domestic violence offense.

What if Adam Lanza had been ruled mentally unfit to have firearms?

Under your rules, his mother could have given her arsenal to him anyway.

True. If she had them secured in a gun safe, as any reasonable/responsible person should do, he might not have been able to obtain the weapons from home and have come to the attention of the authorities as he struggled to obtain the weapons he used.

It's all conjecture, though doing something is better than doing nothing; waiting for the next 'breaking news' isn't rational. There exists a middle ground which all sane people would agree upon.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Keep dreaming.

I will keep posting, here and elsewhere, and hope that the nightmare all parents faced when confronted by the evil done at Sandy Hook Elementary is heard in the halls of legislatures all across our nation and in The Congress.

Do you have other thoughtless comments to add? A personal attack on my intellect, a comparison between my ideas and those of Hitler or Stalin?

The nightmare at Sandy Hook Elementary school cannot be repealed through any efforts on your part. Nor, has anything proposed by you, or others, offered any reasonable assurance that another Sandy Hook will not occur in the future.

Emotion driven solutions are almost always bad solutions. We are a free society, and there is absolutely no way to guarantee personal safety in a free society, without destroying the free society in the process.

Children are killed everyday around this country, by car wrecks, drownings, shootings, fires, etc., and the parents of those killed at Sandy Hook do not feel any worse over losing their child than the parents of any of the others killed on a daily basis.

Restrictions on the rights of Americans need to be studied and discussed in the cold, hard light of reason and fact, and not be based on your emotion over a horrible event.

If you have not lost a child your opinion here is worthless. Don't speak for others; don't suggest that reason is the foundation of your argument. Read the posts of those who disagree with us who support some Federal Regulations/Controls of guns, their posts are angry, sometimes vulgar and usually include a personal attack on the author.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

People like you don't want universal background checks because you don't want the loopholes that allow criminals to legally obtain guns to be closed.

You want the criminals to be able to get guns.

We already have background checks in place. What the idiots on the left is proposing is beyond stupid. They would make it to where if you gifted your son a rifle or give your mother a weapon for protection you would have to first conduct a background check on them.

Under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act—which created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)—all federal firearms licensees are required to conduct a background check for all firearms transactions, even if they sell the firearm at a gun show. This is to make sure that the gun isn’t being sold to a person who is prohibited from purchasing a gun under Section 922(g) or (n) of Title 18 of the United States Code, which would include convicted felons, people who have been adjudicated to be severely mentally ill, and people who have been convicted of a domestic violence offense.

What if Adam Lanza had been ruled mentally unfit to have firearms?

Under your rules, his mother could have given her arsenal to him anyway.

Given that he killed his mother your post seems to be in very poor taste.