Why sane people oppose background checks

[Quantum Windbag]

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).

The fact that I made this thread about sane people should have been a warning for you to keep out.

When I said that the press was killed I was not referring to imaginary events that fit your limited understanding of the real world, I was referring to historical fact. Media reports have resulted in the deaths of troops on maneuvers, riots that killed both civilians and police, and attacks on US assets that resulted in the death of government employees.

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.

Yet, once again, you are not worried about licensing the press. Is that because you actually agree with me that imposing arbitrary restrictions on rights is stupid?

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.

Fuck that.

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.

That is even dumber than the previous paragraph, and must have caused permanent damage to your brain just typing it.

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.

I can definitely see evidence of the extensive brain damage.

Tell me something, how would a non licensed individual learn to use a gun if no one could let him actually use one? Do you think they learn by osmosis?

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.

I highly recommend you see a doctor ASAP, I predict you will have serious problems remembering how to breathe very soon.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

All the evidence points to the fact that Mrs Lanza was a responsible gun owner before she was murdered. Considering that the law in Connecticut requires that gins be stored in such a way that minors cannot get their hands on them, and that Adam Lanza was a minor in the house while there were guns present, most sane people would assume that the guns were stored safely.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Unpaid child support.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I care that people have lost children or not, but that is not a reason to take away the rights of free people. Anyone that argues anything different is not only unqualified to talk about anything, they are batshit crazy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

In your opinion, as a callous conservative you ought to know. IMO she must have known better (suicide by crazy son?).

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

All the evidence points to the fact that Mrs Lanza was a responsible gun owner before she was murdered. Considering that the law in Connecticut requires that gins be stored in such a way that minors cannot get their hands on them, and that Adam Lanza was a minor in the house while there were guns present, most sane people would assume that the guns were stored safely.

LOL, you might so assume. Sane people understand her kid killed her, hence, the guns were not safely stored.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

In your opinion, as a callous conservative you ought to know. IMO she must have known better (suicide by crazy son?).

I defer to your opinion, since you know crazy from the inside.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

All the evidence points to the fact that Mrs Lanza was a responsible gun owner before she was murdered. Considering that the law in Connecticut requires that gins be stored in such a way that minors cannot get their hands on them, and that Adam Lanza was a minor in the house while there were guns present, most sane people would assume that the guns were stored safely.

LOL, you might so assume. Sane people understand her kid killed her, hence, the guns were not safely stored.

She was in the process of having him committed because she was afraid of him, yet left her guns laying on the coffee table so it would be easy for him to get them.

Got it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

All the evidence points to the fact that Mrs Lanza was a responsible gun owner before she was murdered. Considering that the law in Connecticut requires that gins be stored in such a way that minors cannot get their hands on them, and that Adam Lanza was a minor in the house while there were guns present, most sane people would assume that the guns were stored safely.

LOL, you might so assume. Sane people understand her kid killed her, hence, the guns were not safely stored.

She was in the process of having him committed because she was afraid of him, yet left her guns laying on the coffee table so it would be easy for him to get them.

Got it.

Beat ya too it, see above (suicide by crazy son?).

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, no one has yet provided an argument against Licensing for gun owners as I posted above. It no more infringes on the Second than a bomb threat abridges speech in the First.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

What part of "shall not be infringed" aren't you getting?

What part of "well regulated" aren't you getting?

the definition of 'well-regulated' in 1787 is entirely different from that definition today. At the time of it's writing you could swap 'provisioned' for 'regulated' and be more correct that what you propose today.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

Donald S. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sally R. REED, California Department of Motor Vehicles;  Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals - 1999
MILLER v. REED, No.?97-17006., May 24, 1999 - US 9th Circuit | FindLaw

"Typically, if a right is going to be limited, restricted or revoked, there must be 'due process' – the right to a hearing – and there must be a good basis for the revocation or restriction,” Lykins said. “The privilege to drive is a benefit that is extended based upon certain requirements being satisfied."

“While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.”

 

[GuyPinestra]

This explains why the NRA is against it.

Please show me where the NRA has opposed background checks.

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

You really should READ the links you post...

“This so-called background check is aimed at one thing — registering your guns,” he said. “When another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns … Imagine right now your name on a massive government list.” - See more at: LaPierre: Fed Call For Background Checks ?Will Be Used To Confiscate Your Guns? « CBS DC

 

[hazlnut]

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?”

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...gives-private-student-data-to-Johnson-sheriff

You're claiming the University of Iowa broke federal law. A very serious federal law.

Prove it, or admit this is just another pathetic hack piece. Admit this is all bullshit.

Prove University of Iowa broke federal law or STFU.

 

[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.

Donald S. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sally R. REED, California Department of Motor Vehicles;  Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals - 1999
MILLER v. REED, No.?97-17006., May 24, 1999 - US 9th Circuit | FindLaw

"Typically, if a right is going to be limited, restricted or revoked, there must be 'due process' – the right to a hearing – and there must be a good basis for the revocation or restriction,” Lykins said. “The privilege to drive is a benefit that is extended based upon certain requirements being satisfied."

“While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.”

There's no difference between that and the right to own and use a gun.

Try to get a pistol permit and a driver's license in New York State and see which one is easier.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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?

Because you idiot liberals up there have ALLOWED them to usurp that right.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Please show me where the NRA has opposed background checks.

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

You really should READ the links you post...

“This so-called background check is aimed at one thing — registering your guns,” he said. “When another tragic opportunity presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns … Imagine right now your name on a massive government list.” - See more at: LaPierre: Fed Call For Background Checks ?Will Be Used To Confiscate Your Guns? « CBS DC

That's nonsense from LaPierre.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Because you idiot liberals up there have ALLOWED them to usurp that right.

It's constitutional.

If you want, for example, illegals to walk into your local Walmart and buy an AR-15 no questions asked, that's your problem.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

My brother and I shared an apartment back in the 80's and we got into a typical brother's fight while drinking on Saturday night. We were arrested and charged with domestic violence. Thankfully after 8 hours in the hoosegow we were released, and when we went to court the judge dismissed the charges.

Had we pled guilty or been convicted I would not be able to legally own a gun today.

Do you think this is appropriate?

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

Donald S. MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sally R. REED, California Department of Motor Vehicles;  Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Defendants-Appellees 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals - 1999
MILLER v. REED, No.?97-17006., May 24, 1999 - US 9th Circuit | FindLaw

"Typically, if a right is going to be limited, restricted or revoked, there must be 'due process' – the right to a hearing – and there must be a good basis for the revocation or restriction,” Lykins said. “The privilege to drive is a benefit that is extended based upon certain requirements being satisfied."

“While the 'right of travel' is a fundamental right, the privilege to operate a motor vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules,” Lykins said. “If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person’s privilege.”

There's no difference between that and the right to own and use a gun.

Try to get a pistol permit and a driver's license in New York State and see which one is easier.

I wouldn't live in that fucked up excuse for a state.

Not my problem.