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.
How do we perform a "back ground check" on someone who lived in a hut with a dirt floor, no electricity or running water? The bgc for refugees is a farce.
So is the temporary ban on Muslims that Trump is proposing really a permanent ban? If so, he should say so. Many posts that have defended it have used the fact that it will be temporary..
Last edited by bklynkenny; 08-12-2016 at 11:00 AM..
Reason: Clarification
So what is the difference between a background check and an extensive background check ?
If you're looking for criteria, I don't have any. Just using a relative term. I've gone through a background check that has taken two weeks. I will be going through another soon that others have said typically take a year (for an occupational related license issued by the gov't).
What do we do with those rejected by the background check?
A simple (you would think) and valid question. I used to help out at my friends gun shop. During that time, we had quite a few convicted felons try to buy guns. Some with serious records, many with weapons violations, tied to drugs. You would think that the failed attempt would be forwarded from the State Troopers who perform the check, to local LE. Nope. Even when we contacted the locals, ourselves, about a felon trying to buy a gun, no action was EVER taken.
So, I'm sure these people just went on and procured weapons via illegal means, when they could easily have been stopped in their tracks. Yet, the anti firearms rights clowns, blame the actions of violent criminals on lawful gun owners. Even to the point of shrieking that "the blood of CHILDREN is on our hands".
Yet, its LE that let's violent felons walk. They violate parole, try to buy guns at a gun store, their record pops, and they just walk away to buy illegal guns off the street. And this is the fault of lawful citizens? Who is it that's dropping the ball here?
Out of an estimated 5-10 million AR-15s, even more if we include mechanically equivalent rifles, in America, only 4 have been used in mass shootings. That's statistically a better safety record, by far, than all the Muslims the liberals don't want us to "blame of for the actions of a few."
Yet banning AR-15s is a great idea but ensuring proper vetting before admitting more refugees like Mir Seddique Mateen, Omar Marteen's father, into the country is not!
Could any liberals explain the logic behind this please?
Speaking as someone who does not support an assault weapons ban, are you really comparing human beings to objects here? The principles are not the same at all.
A simple (you would think) and valid question. I used to help out at my friends gun shop. During that time, we had quite a few convicted felons try to buy guns. Some with serious records, many with weapons violations, tied to drugs. You would think that the failed attempt would be forwarded from the State Troopers who perform the check, to local LE. Nope. Even when we contacted the locals, ourselves, about a felon trying to buy a gun, no action was EVER taken.
So, I'm sure these people just went on and procured weapons via illegal means, when they could easily have been stopped in their tracks. Yet, the anti firearms rights clowns, blame the actions of violent criminals on lawful gun owners. Even to the point of shrieking that "the blood of CHILDREN is on our hands".
Yet, its LE that let's violent felons walk. They violate parole, try to buy guns at a gun store, their record pops, and they just walk away to buy illegal guns off the street. And this is the fault of lawful citizens? Who is it that's dropping the ball here?
You! No self-respecting human would even want to purchase a firearm whose sole purpose was to kill another human being.
The government should never allowed its citizens to own firearms in the first place.
So is the temporary ban on Muslims that Trump is proposing really a permanent ban? If so, he should say so. Many posts that have defended it have used the fact that it will be temporary..
Temporary, permanent... doesn't matter. What matters is whether a ban on Muslim immigration from terrorist connected states is the right thing to do. And it is. Maybe later the ban can be lifted, but right now it's the right thing to do. Just ask Europe.
Out of an estimated 5-10 million AR-15s, even more if we include mechanically equivalent rifles, in America, only 4 have been used in mass shootings. That's statistically a better safety record, by far, than all the Muslims the liberals don't want us to "blame of for the actions of a few."
Yet banning AR-15s is a great idea but ensuring proper vetting before admitting more refugees like Mir Seddique Mateen, Omar Marteen's father, into the country is not!
Could any liberals explain the logic behind this please?
Keep the AR and Deport the Muslims .
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.
