Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-21-2013, 04:53 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,262,817 times
Reputation: 3444

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cap1717 View Post
then how come a "law" even one that exempted private parties from requireing background checks for gun transfers, was voted down by a "minority" of republican (and a few democratic) senators? Because it was not a "super majority". . . . . . .seems like that was a pretty lax way to enforce background checks, and yet it was overridden by those in debt to the NRA!
Why has no state implemented a universal background check system?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-21-2013, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Phoenix
2,616 posts, read 2,398,603 times
Reputation: 2416
They will get my bomb when they pry my cold dead hands from it (which may or may not be attached to my arms)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2013, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,807 posts, read 4,275,649 times
Reputation: 3984
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap1717 View Post
No, O.P. you have that wrong. We are asking for background checks on gun OWNERS, not GUNS!
That "maybe" what you are asking for now. However, you were asking to ban guns to begin with. When that failed and you found out it wouldn't go through, you changed your tactics to a "mere background check." Now, once those background checks fail to stop the violence, you will be asking for gun bans again.

At least be honest about what it is you want, you will gain more public support. By the way, I'm not against background checks, nor am I against sensible gun control measures. At the sametime, I'd like to see what laws are already in place enforced.

What I AM against is banning guns. Gun bans will not work in this country. The cat is out of the bag.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2013, 05:26 PM
 
26,497 posts, read 15,074,947 times
Reputation: 14644
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
A bomb goes off, they blame the bombers... A gun goes off and they blame the gun?


Is this the logic we are told to accept?
Do they really think we are ALL fools?


They need to make a list of bombs to ban!
I think people blame easy access to guns, lack of proper back ground checks, and etc...not the metal tool itself. Likewise, if we had bomb stores and bomb shows there would be the exact same push for bombs as there is for gun regulation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2013, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
11,143 posts, read 10,711,121 times
Reputation: 9799
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
I think people blame easy access to guns, lack of proper back ground checks, and etc...not the metal tool itself. Likewise, if we had bomb stores and bomb shows there would be the exact same push for bombs as there is for gun regulation.
And if people were serious about saving lives, we'd be banning everything under the sun. Gun bans aren't about safety, they are about control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2013, 05:42 PM
 
26,497 posts, read 15,074,947 times
Reputation: 14644
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom View Post
And if people were serious about saving lives, we'd be banning everything under the sun. Gun bans aren't about safety, they are about control.
Why can't it be about both control and safety?

Is it practical or even possible to "ban everything under the sun?"

I think very few people want to throw out the 2nd Amendment. But, like we have limits on the 1st Amendment, we have limits on the 2nd Amendment. Only an insane person would think that a private person should be able to own a nuke. What we are really arguing about is where we draw that line while we keep the 2nd Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2013, 06:22 PM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,734,548 times
Reputation: 13868



Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2013, 06:28 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,936,232 times
Reputation: 3416
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679 View Post
Why has no state implemented a universal background check system?
Why should they when there is already a federal background check in place that only needs to be enforced when it is violated by a felon..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2013, 06:33 PM
 
11,768 posts, read 10,262,817 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
Why should they when there is already a federal background check in place that only needs to be enforced when it is violated by a felon..
That doesn't make sense...

I can buy a gun from a private individual without a background check. If a universal background check is a good idea and is workable why has no state implemented one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2013, 06:35 PM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,936,232 times
Reputation: 3416
Quote:
Originally Posted by cap1717 View Post
then how come a "law" even one that exempted private parties from requireing background checks for gun transfers, was voted down by a "minority" of republican (and a few democratic) senators? Because it was not a "super majority". . . . . . .seems like that was a pretty lax way to enforce background checks, and yet it was overridden by those in debt to the NRA!
Mainly because it had the potential for the government to set up a data base on gun ownership. The government doesn't need to know what guns anyone owns.... They don't even need to know what kind of gun I am buying. It's enough for them to know and enforce the background checks that are currently on the books. Given the fact that these laws are on the books now and aren't enforced by the AG's office, what makes you think new laws would be? Do you REALLY trust your government not to pry into your private life with regards to gun ownership? Ask anyone who came from a country that had mandatory gun registration what came after that... Personally, I don't trust my government to do anything without violating my rights. You may take your rights more lightly..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:41 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top