Gun Control II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
674

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Which crimes would the new back ground checks laws have prevented?
[/quote]

They help to enforce a law that is already in effect.

It is illegal to sell a gun to a person convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, for example. All a universal background check does is mandate that sellers actually find out whether or not the person they’re selling to is someone whom they can legally sell to.

How many crimes will it actually prevent?

I don’t know man. But I think it’s worth trying. And as I posted earlier, background checks, where they’re applied, have since 1998 blocked two million gun sales to criminals/mental institution patients/illegals–and even what I think is an unfairly conservative estimate yields the conclusion that a couple hundred thousand of those sales were effectively stopped right then and there and never became illicit black-market transactions.

By the way man, I do not regularly check that email address, so if you by any chance happen to email me and I don’t respond, lemme know on here.

675

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Hey, look I found 3 cases were background checks worked super good:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18559_162-2697124.html

Oh shit… Wait a second… Look at that. The checks didn’t prevent those… OOOHHHH I get it, there would be so many more if not for the checks… they… passed…[/quote]

That’s the thing, if you happen to be a nut job who hasn’t done anything wrong yet, then you pass. It’s a feel good tactic.
These checks are only going to catch the obvious. They aren’t going to stop a determined psycho. If you want to do a lot of damage and kill a lot of people, there is very little that will stop you from doing that.
Sure you cannot buy a gun, but you can buy fertilizer and gasoline.
Fill up your gas tank, put a bunch of fertilizer in the trunk and in the seats and light a rag in the gas tank and see what happens.

The reason most people don’t kill other people is because they don’t want to. I sure as hell don’t. I don’t want to kill anybody, ever.

676

Either we should have laws against selling weapons to criminals and illegal aliens, or we shouldn’t.

If you believe that we should, then you should not argue that they should not be enforced.

677

Canadian commentators talking about how the registry morphed into confiscation and the various abuses:

678

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Canadian commentators talking about how the registry morphed into confiscation and the various abuses:

And yet we’re not debating a bill or law about confiscation, are we?

No, we’re not.

I’m opposed to confiscation too. I will object if anybody ever were to propose it–and so will about 85 percent of the American electorate.

This is just more “slippery slope” nonsense. Though, to your credit, it is far less intellectually disingenuous and ludicrously melodramatic than your posting a picture of Nazis carrying out an execution in a thread about whether or not freshman college students should be allowed to keep guns in their dorm rooms.

679

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Either we should have laws against selling weapons to criminals and illegal aliens, or we shouldn’t.

If you believe that we should, then you should not argue that they should not be enforced.[/quote]

We have laws like that here, they were never enforced. A law is only as good as it’s enforcement.

"California authorities are empowered to seize weapons owned by convicted felons and people with mental illness, but staff shortages and funding cuts have left a backlog of more than 19,700 people to disarm, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.

Those gun owners have roughly 39,000 firearms, said Stephen Lindley, chief of the Bureau of Firearms for the state Department of Justice, testifying at a joint legislative hearing. His office lacks enough staff to confiscate all the weapons, which are recorded in the state’s Armed Prohibited Persons database, he said."

Don’t believe this bullshit about budget cuts either. We are paying $700 million per year for 30 years for only the interest, for a useless fucking High Speed Rail that no one will use. There is money around to do this if they wanted to, the problem is, THEY DON’T WANT TO DO IT.

680

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Either we should have laws against selling weapons to criminals and illegal aliens, or we shouldn’t.

If you believe that we should, then you should not argue that they should not be enforced.[/quote]

We have laws like that here, they were never enforced. A law is only as good as it’s enforcement.
[/quote]

The background check is the enforcement. You’re arguing my point.

681

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Either we should have laws against selling weapons to criminals and illegal aliens, or we shouldn’t.

If you believe that we should, then you should not argue that they should not be enforced.[/quote]

We have laws like that here, they were never enforced. A law is only as good as it’s enforcement.
[/quote]

The background check is the enforcement. You’re arguing my point.[/quote]

The lack of confiscation is the problem. A background check means nothing if when it comes to deny a gun to someone, you don’t do it.

682

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Either we should have laws against selling weapons to criminals and illegal aliens, or we shouldn’t.

If you believe that we should, then you should not argue that they should not be enforced.[/quote]

We have laws like that here, they were never enforced. A law is only as good as it’s enforcement.
[/quote]

The background check is the enforcement. You’re arguing my point.[/quote]

The lack of confiscation is the problem. A background check means nothing if when it comes to deny a gun to someone, you don’t do it. [/quote]

I’m not sure what you mean.

685

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I think most can agree that the right of the people to keep and bear arms has already been infringed, so I would like to see an amendment passed repealing it.

Let the 28th amendment state something like, “The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. The people no longer have a right to keep and bear arms, though some employed by the government may be allowed the privilege.”

Let’s drop all pretenses that the second amendment is still in effect, and get rid of it. At least make the ignorant aware of what’s going on.

Don’t continue to screw with the second amendment while telling the ignorant amongst your constituency that you are not.

Edit: I would like to add that a clip feeds a magazine, a magazine feeds a weapon. They are different things.[/quote]

It has been infringed to certain degree, but it will never be repealed, ever.[/quote]

It’s been infringed to a great degree. Many free people no longer have a right to keep and bear arms(Felons are bad, scary people. We can’t let them possess firearms. That sure would be scary. Don’t worry about us turning more things into felonies all the time, you’re safe as long as you obey the law-just remember to maintain constant vigilance regarding what is now classified as a felony. You also don’t need to worry about all those felons out in society-they can’t do anything to you because the law says they can’t have weapons. Felons are a funny group. They are too dangerous to trust with weapons because they might then break a law and kill someone, but if you take their right to own a weapon, you can rest assured they won’t break that law).

The majority of the militia can no longer possess the same arms as the military without jumping through hoops(Why? Someone please explain why people have to jump through hoops to possess selective fire weapons.).

I know the second amendment won’t be repealed. Even when nobody besides the government can legally possess any sort of weapon, the ignorant will still talk of their right to keep and bear arms. We will learn, “We did not have the most powerful military in the world at that time. The second amendment was never intended to arm citizens forever. Remember that guy that killed his neighbors’ three year old child with a muzzleloader last year? We obviously can’t allow citizens to possess such weapons.” All the government would have to do is teach that in its schools and continue to have its subjects say the Pledge of Allegiance and encourage them to stand for the Star Spangled Banner at every event. This country will never not be free, no matter how tyrannical its government gets.

I don’t care how scared we are, it’s not worth giving the government the power to do worse to us than any criminal or loony-tune.

686

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Either we should have laws against selling weapons to criminals and illegal aliens, or we shouldn’t…

[/quote]

We already have these laws and have for many, many years. If you didn’t know this you don’t belong in this debate.
[/quote]

Again, you cut my post in half and complained about the half that you quoted because it omitted the half that you cut out.

Take a look at my last few posts and figure out my point.

Actually, no, I’ll help you:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
They help to enforce a law that is already in effect.

It is illegal to sell a gun to a person convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison, for example. All a universal background check does is mandate that sellers actually find out whether or not the person they’re selling to is someone whom they can legally sell to.
[/quote]

And then, my next post, of which you quoted exactly half, said:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
Either we should have laws against selling weapons to criminals and illegal aliens, or we shouldn’t.

If you believe that we should, then you should not argue that they should not be enforced.[/quote]

You know exactly what point is being made here, and you know perfectly well that I know whether or not it’s illegal to sell to criminals. I said it six posts ago.

So why exactly am I being forced to explain this?

Edited

687

[quote]NickViar wrote:
The second amendment was never intended to arm citizens forever.
[/quote]
huh?

Again, huh?

688

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Canadian commentators talking about how the registry morphed into confiscation and the various abuses:

[/quote]

I believe you are absolutely correct. Otherwise, what’s the point of a registry? If you know Joe Smith owns a gun what does it matter, unless you intend on depriving him of that right. Technically, the purchase transactions are records, you don’t need a registry. The registry idea is nothing more than a mark. It’s nothing more than a pink triangle or a Star of David.

Like I said earlier, all this talk of further infringement on weapons rights has succeeded in doing is arming the shit out of the populous. Guns and ammo are hard to find right now, because the manufactures cannot keep up with demand. Way to go obama, America is now more armed than ever. Idiot.

690

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
The second amendment was never intended to arm citizens forever.
[/quote]
huh?

Again, huh?[/quote]

You may have misinterpreted what I wrote. I meant(actually, I think I said) that those are the types of things Americans will eventually be taught if we don’t reverse course. I can’t imagine the people who blindly follow their leader/s ever starting to believe they are not free, so long as the government tells them they are.

691

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
The second amendment was never intended to arm citizens forever.
[/quote]
huh?

Again, huh?[/quote]

You may have misinterpreted what I wrote. I meant(actually, I think I said) that those are the types of things Americans will eventually be taught if we don’t reverse course. I can’t imagine the people who blindly follow their leader/s ever starting to believe they are not free, so long as the government tells them they are.
[/quote]

Well, like with all things, we parents need to have the final word and teach and keep the fight alive. I think the battle over the 2nd amendment has serious implications on our freedom overall as a people. If we allow the government to disarm the populous, it will be a more tyrannical it’s inevitable. The government needs to have a healthy fear of the people.

I don’t mind sensible gun laws designed by and large to try and keep guns out of the most dangerous people’s hands. But in the end a determined person will kill and do damage.
It’s a fight and we have to keep fighting to keep the 2nd amendment from being infringe upon. Like the whole assault weapons ban is ridiculous. It doesn’t matter if you get your head blow off with a hand gun or an assault rifle, you’re just as dead. You take one weapon option, you just choose another.

I wonder if any mass murdering freak sat there and thought “Well damn,I was going to shoot up a school today, but since I cannot legally buy a AK-47, I guess I’ll just watch Oprah.”

692

[quote]pat wrote:
I think the battle over the 2nd amendment has serious implications on our freedom overall as a people.
[/quote]

For the record, I agree unequivocally. I am just about certain that at some time in the future, the answer to the question of whether or not this or that family/community/people will survive or perish will depend entirely upon whether or not they own and know how to handle weapons. Nobody with a rudimentary understanding of history can believe that life as it is in the contemporary United States will continue unchanged indefinitely. Governments and circumstances change, sometimes very quickly.

To take an extreme example, the leap from how the world is today to how the world is in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road is not really all that long if you really sit down and think about it. This is especially so for somebody like me–an agnostic who doesn’t believe in a God interested in human affairs–because, as far as we’re concerned, there really is nothing protecting us from calamity but chance and luck, and chance and luck have shown themselves in the past to be decidedly unreliable.

But none of this has any bearing on my conviction that if we think it’s a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally insane, for example, then we may as well actually make sure that gun dealers are checking to see whether or not a prospective buyer was involuntarily institutionalized in the recent past, or is an illegal alien, or a convicted rapist, or a deadbeat ex-husband whose wife has a restraining order against him because he’s threatened to kill her a dozen times.

Will it be effective? Most of the time, half the time, mostly not (all of the time and never are the only manifestly wrong answers, by the way). But as I explained earlier in this thread, if just one in ten of the sales blocked by background-check failures since 1998 did not end up taking place even on the black market, that’s 200,000 guns not being handled by illegals immigrants/criminals/crazies right now. That’s a good thing, and at essentially no cost to the responsible, legal gun-owner.