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.
So you say. I'm not the one who started a thread with a false premise. Carry on.
Prove it to us that you have knowledge and I'd be happy to change my position. The fact remains that most people arguing for gun cocntol has near zero knowledge about guns or gun control.
Why don't we just have one big old ID that has checkboxes for citizenship, driving privileges, voter privileges, gun privileges, pet ownership, and all the other things we need a license for?
I'm actually not really against the idea of combining various things you need a licence for into one card... the main issue I see with that idea is that having to overhaul all the old systems at the same time may complicate the implementation of a new system. It's all academic anyway until someone is seriously proposing the idea on a legislative level.
Having to background check on every single purchase is asinine imo.
I'd support a licensing system similar to driving, hunting, fishing, pilots etc...
Then you only have to do one background check at the start, perhaps pass a basic safety/competency/sanity exam as well, and then you have your licence permanently and the background check just becomes a quick ID check and perhaps a data base lookup (sorta like scanning a drivers licence to buy liquor) to make sure the ID# is valid.
The licence could then be revoked in the case of felony/violent crime convictions or diagnosis of serious mental afflictions like schizophrenia.
This has a few advantages over just doing background checks every single time in that you can:
A) Assume everyone with the licence has had a bare minimum of safety training - A while back I was at the range and 3 dudes walked up with an AK47, laughing and swinging it around - in the process sweeping it across many of the people there - we promptly left, not gonna hang around people who are about to shoot that clearly have no concept of gun safety. These guys were probably felony free and could pass a background check but they are a good example of people who should NOT own guns.
B) Shortcut all background checks after the first one, reducing the amount of crap gun vendors and buyers have to go through to around the same level as buying liquor.
C) Give you something you can hold on to, to be able to immediately display to law enforcement that you are not holding some illegal firearm etc.
D) Can treat concealed carry/automatic weapon/silencer/etc... permits in much the same way as we treat specialized drivers licences, you get the permit you get a new class of licence.
Do you realize how racist this is? Requiring licenses or permits for a right is racist! Just think about how the poor minority would be able to afford, both time and money, this.
Still claiming that "the left has zero knowledge about guns" but you admit you can't prove it?
I agree with you that this blanket statement is indefensible. However, I would note the "appearance" of ignorance by anti-gun folks and Left-leaning media members. For the record, a semi-automatic rifle shoots one bullet at a time and it IS NOT an ASSAULT RIFLE. Second, I can drop and replace a 10 round magazine in under 3 seconds, so the banning of 30 round magazines does NOTHING to prevent mass shootings. All it does is make me buy 3 times the number of magazines.
It's things like this that could reasonably lead one to believe that many anti-gun folks don't know much about guns.
As for me, I live in California, so I'm used to background checks for gun purchases. I suppose I could adopt the "it's none of your effing business" attitude, but it actually doesn't bother me. Recently I had an AR-15 "in jail" awaiting a background check and I was notified that my background check had been "delayed pending additional info". It cleared a few days later, but my first thought was, "Good, they're really checking people out."
As for background checks for ammo purchases, it was the obvious next step. Without ammo, your pistol becomes a really expensive hammer, so it was the obvious next step for the anti-gunners. Personally, I have always felt that if you don't already own all of the ammo you may ever need, you are not paying attention. It reminds me of the time Big 5 sporting goods ran a great sale on 9mm ammo. As I stacked their entire supply (about 4,000 rounds) on the cashier's counter, she asked, "Are you planning a war?"
Prove it to us that you have knowledge and I'd be happy to change my position. The fact remains that most people arguing for gun cocntol has near zero knowledge about guns or gun control.
Guns are not really a terribly hard concept honestly. Point and click interface. I'd guess that way more people have an understanding of guns than people who don't. Operating a firearm is maybe one step over operating a PEZ dispenser in complexity. They both use a similar feed mechanism The simplicity of guns is probably the #1 reason they are such an effective weapon as well as the reason they revolutionized warfare, allowing unskilled peasants to stand on equal footing with warriors that basically spent their whole life training.
The reason you hear idiotic ideas about guns in the news is that they are manipulating you for outrage views.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 11-16-2016 at 04:10 PM..
We have already talked about why background check is ... yet you people still support it.
1. If I am not being charged with any crime, why should I be subject to any background check to prove my innocence? Do we not need the due process of the law?
2. Why are you OK with allowing dangerous people roaming the streets as long as they can't buy a gun from a licensed firearm dealer? Isn't that stupid? People who can't pass background checks should be in prison or hospital not on the street. It's not like they are so stupid that they can't figure out how to rape and murder.
3. OK, even after we go through the background checks just to appease your liberal mind but why don't you lock up those who fail the check? Failing background check while buying firearm is a federal felony but why the conviction rate is less than 0.07%? You got them committing the felony in their own writing and you have their address.
4. Name one criminal who couldn't commit the crime because we have background check.
Please tell me why anybody should support the background check again?
A background check is generally quick, easy and painless. Even with a less than .07% conviction rate you're saying that isn't worth saving one life.
If you seriously can't handle a minor inconvenience at best to save possibly someone else then what kind of person are you?
Oh and your question 3 is impossible to answer, you can't prove a negative.
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.
Second, I can drop and replace a 10 round magazine in under 3 seconds, so the banning of 30 round magazines does NOTHING to prevent mass shootings. All it does is make me buy 3 times the number of magazines. 
The simplicity of guns is probably the #1 reason they are such an effective weapon as well as the reason they revolutionized warfare, allowing unskilled peasants to stand on equal footing with warriors that basically spent their whole life training.
