[blakesq]

yeah! who cares if those 1000 people were green party members living in san francisco! it was a POLL!

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Here's a poll with 1000 people with an 86/13 split in favor of stricter background checks.

Guns

You have no creditability here. Scat.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by blakesq

yeah! who cares if those 1000 people were green party members living in san francisco! it was a POLL!

I can assure they weren't. A reputable polling agency conducted the poll.

This "polling dissonance" really worked well for the right wing in the last election. Right, President Romney?

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Here's a poll with 1000 people with an 86/13 split in favor of stricter background checks.

Guns

You have no creditability here. Scat.

You have contradicting polls there (oddly enough, the most pro-gun control polls come from the most left leaning media sources). It would also be interesting to see where the people polled live (a poll conducted in a place like NYC will differ in results from most other parts of the U.S.).

At the top of that page, there is hardly major support for making gun laws stricter, and support for gun control has been dropping steadily, only 49 percent want stricter laws, 38 percent stay the same, 10 percent less strict, and some refused to make a real answer.

[basehead617]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

The SCOTUS covered this in detail. The militia consists of all able bodied citizen. Note the "right of the people" in the second amendment.

Even Scalia has said that limits on who can and cannot own a gun are constitutional.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by basehead617

Even Scalia has said that limits on who can and cannot own a gun are constitutional.

Somehow they always forget to remind you about that part...

[blakesq]

and somehow liberals forget what the 2nd amendment actually says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Originally Posted by mlassoff

Somehow they always forget to remind you about that part...

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by basehead617

Even Scalia has said that limits on who can and cannot own a gun are constitutional.

Banning violent felons from owning guns isn't the same as making felons out of friends who loan each other guns, which is what that bill would have done.

A private sale is also not interstate commerce.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Banning violent felons from owning guns isn't the same as making felons out of friends who loan each other guns, which is what that bill would have done.

A private sale is also not interstate commerce.

And if you're friend is a felon, or mentally ill, it should be a felony.

I can't believe anyone would argue with the concept of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

[arctichomesteader]

Originally Posted by mlassoff

And if you're friend is a felon, or mentally ill, it should be a felon.

I can't believe anyone would argue with the concept of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

You're creating a strawman. No one is arguing against keeping guns out of the hands of violent felons and the dangerously insane. Banning private sales is an unconstitutional attack on privacy, the second amendment and is not interstate commerce the feds have jurisdiction over. Moreover, no one intent on killing someone is going to run down to an FFL to have a background check run on a gun they steal.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

You're creating a strawman. No one is arguing against keeping guns out of the hands of violent felons and the dangerously insane.

With all due respect if you don't support expansion of background checks, that's exactly what you're doing.

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Banning private sales is an unconstitutional attack

No it's not. The Supreme Court has always held that guns and gun sales may be regulated.

Originally Posted by arctichomesteader

Moreover, no one intent on killing someone is going to run down to an FFL to have a background check run on a gun they steal.

So why a law against homicide? Selling Narcotics? Highjacking Airplanes? If someone is intent they're going to do it anyway, right? This specious and stupid argument needs to go away.