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.
And the only time the 2nd amendment isn't absolute is when your right to bear arms endangers the safety of others.
MY right to bear arms has never hurt anyone, except for maybe the occasional racoon who insists on returning night after night to tip my can over and spread trash all over my yard.... or maybe a ferrel cat here and there.
Quote:
Background checks?
They don't infringe on anyones rights, I support the idea. The problem is, they aren't enforceable, so they aren't practical.
Quote:
Restrictions on automatic weapons and other gadgets
Automatic weapons are already highly regulated. Joe schmoe from down the street can't go and by an automatic weapon. Try and learn the laws before you preach for more.
Quote:
I'm no safety/gun expert, but I'd imagine that an AK-47 isn't the most effective way to defend your home from burglaries.
Enough said. Who are you to determine what weapon I can most effectively protect my home with?
And you do realise that an "AK-47" has both an auto version and a semi auto version don't you? Auto versions aren't available to the general public.
And the only time the 2nd amendment isn't absolute is when your right to bear arms endangers the safety of others. Whether or not it does under certain circumstances is a question of facts and statistics, not of legal interpretation. Therefore, the "I stand behind my second amendment rights!" mentality doesn't work against...well, any gun control argument I've ever come across.
Background checks? Restrictions on automatic weapons and other gadgets that no law abiding citizen short of a guns collector would ever have a use for? How do these harm innocent civilians? I'm no safety/gun expert, but I'd imagine that an AK-47 isn't the most effective way to defend your home from burglaries.
Finally you said something we agree 100% on. My 2nd amendment protected right to bear arms doesn't in any way endanger the safety of others. It has nothing to do with statistics, it's basic logic.
Nowhere in the original post or title did the OP state MORE laws.
The thread is about gun control, which seem to be against. I support gun control, I don't want mentally ill people owning guns.
Why focus on the gun then? Why not demand your politicians repeal all privacy laws that prevent mental health records from being turned over to the NICS check? Why not demand laws be passed to intitutionalize exceptionally mentally ill people and remove them from society?
They don't infringe on anyones rights, I support the idea. The problem is, they aren't enforceable, so they aren't practical.
They aren't enforceable? What the hell are you talking about? They're about as enforceable as background checks that employers run on prospective workers.
Oh, wait, you'll doubtlessly point out that background checks cannot be 100% free of fraud and evasion, and will therefore conclude that they aren't practical.
They aren't enforceable? What the hell are you talking about? They're about as enforceable as background checks that employers run on prospective workers.
Oh, wait, you'll doubtlessly point out that background checks cannot be 100% free of fraud and evasion, and will therefore conclude that they aren't practical.
There is no way to enforce private party background checks, zero. Anti-gun folks always point out that the "gun show loophole" (which isn't even real, it's just a private party sale) is the biggest source of guns for people who shouldn't have them. If you can't enforce background checks on private party sales you can't close the fictitious "gun show loophole".
There is no way to enforce private party background checks, zero.
How is this any more difficult to enforce than background checks for alcohol and tobacco consumption? Plenty of people evade such checks, but few would argue abolishing such restrictions altogether.
They aren't enforceable? What the hell are you talking about? They're about as enforceable as background checks that employers run on prospective workers.
Oh, wait, you'll doubtlessly point out that background checks cannot be 100% free of fraud and evasion, and will therefore conclude that they aren't practical.
How do you ensure that someone does a background check on a prospective buyer when no one knows who owns guns, how many, or what type? There is no centralized registry, so no way to make sure background checks are done. Here are posts from another thread further explaining it.....
Quote:
Yes, but when someone buys alcohol, there is someone there to check ID and make sure they are old enough. That equates to a viable plan of enforcement does it not? Not so with the failed background check law. Alas, teens still DO get alcohol, but with that law, there are firewalls standing between a teen and that bottle of Vodka they'd like to buy. Passing the background check law would be like passing a law that says I have to check someones ID before I serve them a drink in my home. You can pass all the laws you like, but there would be nothing standing in my way to serve a teen a drink without checking ID first. You can punish me later, but the damage is already done.
These two issues are the same really. You buy alcohol at a store? A clerk checks ID
You buy a gun at a store? a dealer runs the background check
You are not allowed by law to serve a drink to someone underage and there are laws against doing so
You are not allowed to sell a criminal a gun in your home and there are ALREADY laws against doing so.
Quote:
Ok, ok..... tell me how it will work then? If it passed, and I wanted to sell a gun to a two time felon a gun without doing a background check, what would stop me? My guns aren't registered anywhere so it can't be traced back to me, and even if it could, there are already penalties on the books for people who furnish guns to criminals.
How WOULD it work? You explain it to me? No one has bothered to show how it WOULD be effective
Quote:
Are you kidding? It's pretty pbvious isn't it? Passing a Background check law saying I must do a background check on a buyer does not force me to do one in any way, and there are no firewalls between me and my felon buyer. Guns aren't registered so no one knows if I sell you a glock that that gun switched from my hand to yours, and AFTER the transaction has already taken place, it's too late, you can throw me in jail but the damage is already done.
Quote:
So why not pass the law without the registry requirment? Well, because then to enforce it, we'd have to rely on the honor system, and criminals, by their very nature, have no honor and would not follow the law. So we go ahead and pass a law that only people who follow the law and didn't pose any real threat to begin with would follow. What are we left with? A useless law that has no affect on the problem for wich it was enacted to solve, and an undue burden on the law abiding only.
Without a registry, there is no way to know if the seller did a background check on the buyer before he sold them a gun. It's a dead fish.... accept it.
Sometimes 18-wheelers are necessary. Doesn't mean we shouldn't license, register, train and insure.
Actually 18 Wheeler's are not necessary.
There are people who live by train tracks, harbors, people in Alaska that get supplies dropped by aircraft etc.
On top of that an 18 Wheeler is not a Natural right which is enumerated in the Constitution.
I am a strong proponent of training, however I do not believe it should be a restriction on a natural right.
If you're a person who supports strict gun control in any form all the way up to and including complete gun confiscation from civilians, why do you call the police when you need help? When the SHTF why do you call 911?
If you feel that more guns = more death = less safety why do you call people who will show up with multiple guns?
Is it because you believe the police are well trained and civilians are not? If a civilian has the same or better training than the average police officer do you still fear them owning a gun?
You can't have citizens with guns taking the law into their own hands. You'd have endless incidents like the shooting of Trayvon Martin.
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.
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.
