Senate to vote on gun bill tomorrow

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
RR7 said:
Do you think they should be allowed to purchase guns like anyone else?
Click to expand...

If they get caught with the gun, it's 25 years? Sure, they can purchase them.

Once you've committed a felony, you lose some rights. But you can't penalize hundreds of millions of honest people for the acts of a very small number of bad guys.
 
who is being penalized? a background check is not a penalty.
 
RR7 said:
Why really have any laws, then? When people will break them.
Yes, some will steal a gun. Some will not, and instead go with a knife, like the attack mentioned above. Thing is, in that attack, nobody died from the knife wounds. What if he had easy access to a gun?
Click to expand...

According to mook, he would have committed suicide. I'm okay with that.
 
RR7 said:
who is being penalized? a background check is not a penalty.
Click to expand...

It is an infringement on the right to bear arms.

It's sole purpose is to identify and gather information on which citizens own guns.

The sole purpose of gathering info on armed citizens is to make it easier to disarm them.
 
so eliminate all background checks then? anyone who wants can buy guns free and clear. ok.
 
RR7 said:
who is being penalized? a background check is not a penalty.
Click to expand...

According to mook it'such an overwhelming nightmare of an ordeal that a suicidal person would rather live out their tortured existence than go through the hassle of an instant background check.
 
The one thing that anti-gun or pro gun-control people don't seem to understand is that enacting gun laws do not achieve what they think it achieves. Name one major shooting in the past year that would have been prevented by having background checks?

Clackamas? Nope. He stole the gun from a friend.

Newtown? Nope. He stole the guns from his mother.

The only thing that a waiting period or background checks would accomplish is stopping someone from a crime of passion. These shootings that have everyone up in arms are planned, they are not something that is thrown together at the last minute.

Do I care if they put more background checks on purchasing guns? It doesn't affect me, but I'm not the one you should be worried about and that's the whole point. The only people who will be affected by more gun control are the people who actually follow the law. If someone wants to kill people, they will either steal a gun or find another way. I get that people want to feel like they're doing something. They want to feel like they tried to prevent further attacks like Newtown and Clackamas, but these laws won't have any affect on those types of shootings. None whatsoever. We should be putting this energy and effort into better detection and support for mentally ill people, the real problem behind these attacks.
 
RR7 said:
so eliminate all background checks then? anyone who wants can buy guns free and clear. ok.
Click to expand...

Yep. Eliminate all background checks on women seeking abortion, too. Anyone who wants can get one.

(Not free and clear, but freely).
 
Natebishop3 said:
The one thing that anti-gun or pro gun-control people don't seem to understand is that enacting gun laws do not achieve what they think it achieves. Name one major shooting in the past year that would have been prevented by having background checks?

Clackamas? Nope. He stole the gun from a friend.

Newtown? Nope. He stole the guns from his mother.

The only thing that a waiting period or background checks would accomplish is stopping someone from a crime of passion. These shootings that have everyone up in arms are planned, they are not something that is thrown together at the last minute.

Do I care if they put more background checks on purchasing guns? It doesn't affect me, but I'm not the one you should be worried about and that's the whole point. The only people who will be affected by more gun control are the people who actually follow the law. If someone wants to kill people, they will either steal a gun or find another way. I get that people want to feel like they're doing something. They want to feel like they tried to prevent further attacks like Newtown and Clackamas, but these laws won't have any affect on those types of shootings. None whatsoever. We should be putting this energy and effort into better detection and support for mentally ill people, the real problem behind these attacks.
Click to expand...

See the opening post?
 
Your abortion analogy is just stupid Denny. Background checks are designed to stop people, potentially dangerous, from buying a gun. Your background check on abortions prevents what from whom? It's not the same thing, try again.
 
RR7 said:
Your abortion analogy is just stupid Denny. Background checks are designed to stop people, potentially dangerous, from buying a gun. Your background check on abortions prevents what from whom? It's not the same thing, try again.
Click to expand...

That's how they're being sold. In reality, they're an intrusion on peoples' privacy, liberty, and a form of intimidation.

Just as putting any obstacle in the way of a woman seeking an abortion is meant to discourage her in some manner. That's why the analogy is quite good. In both cases, people are seeking to do something (abortion, buy a gun) that's outright legal and a fundamental constitutional right.
 
RR7 said:
Your abortion analogy is just stupid Denny. Background checks are designed to stop people, potentially dangerous, from buying a gun.
Click to expand...

No, they aren't. See my previous post on the sole purpose of background checks.
 
so you don't think there should be any background checks, and anyone who wants can walk in to, say, WalMart and buy a gun and go home with it that day, no questions asked?
 
Natebishop3 said:
I think I even remember reading somewhere that the kid from Newtown actually was rejected when he tried to buy a gun, and he still ended up stealing a gun.
Click to expand...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-m...ught-guns-6000/story?id=16817842#.UWXu7L_x4n0

Suspected Colorado movie theater gunman James Holmes purchased four guns at local shops and more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet in the past 60 days, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates told a news conference this evening.

"All the ammunition he possessed, he possessed legally, all the weapons he possessed, he possessed legally, all the clips he possessed, he possessed legally," an emotional Oates said.

...

An honors student and Ph.D. candidate at a nearby college with a clean arrest record, Holmes allegedly entered the movie auditorium wearing a ballistics helmet, bulletproof vest, bulletproof leggings, gas mask and gloves. He detonated multiple smoke bombs, and then began firing at viewers in the sold-out auditorium, police said today.

(I guess we should turn down Ph.D. candidates? like wtf?)
 
RR7 said:
so you don't think there should be any background checks, and anyone who wants can walk in to, say, WalMart and buy a gun and go home with it that day, no questions asked?
Click to expand...

exactly.
 
Denny Crane said:
That's how they're being sold. In reality, they're an intrusion on peoples' privacy, liberty, and a form of intimidation.

Just as putting any obstacle in the way of a woman seeking an abortion is meant to discourage her in some manner. That's why the analogy is quite good. In both cases, people are seeking to do something (abortion, buy a gun) that's outright legal and a fundamental constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Next thing you know, blacks will want to own land and vote.
 
Denny Crane said:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/colorado-m...ught-guns-6000/story?id=16817842#.UWXu7L_x4n0

Suspected Colorado movie theater gunman James Holmes purchased four guns at local shops and more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet in the past 60 days, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates told a news conference this evening.

"All the ammunition he possessed, he possessed legally, all the weapons he possessed, he possessed legally, all the clips he possessed, he possessed legally," an emotional Oates said.

...

An honors student and Ph.D. candidate at a nearby college with a clean arrest record, Holmes allegedly entered the movie auditorium wearing a ballistics helmet, bulletproof vest, bulletproof leggings, gas mask and gloves. He detonated multiple smoke bombs, and then began firing at viewers in the sold-out auditorium, police said today.

(I guess we should turn down Ph.D. candidates? like wtf?)
Click to expand...

maybe if his therapist who thought he was a threat, and reported him to campus police had also put him on the NICS, he wouldn't have been able to.
 
RR7 said:
maybe if his therapist who thought he was a threat, and reported him to campus police had also put him on the NICS, he wouldn't have been able to.
Click to expand...

Awesome. Let's have citizens spy on other citizens and report any suspicious activity to the SS.
 
MSNBC anchors praise compromise as if it's a good thing. I don't get that, either.

Consider I want to buy your house. So I offer you $100 for it (ridiculous!) and you aren't even interested in selling. So what is a compromise? $200? Someone loses big time. Except the guy who wants to buy the house (the MSNBC crowd and their sycophants).
 
RR7 said:
They require background checks, but then you can still buy them elsewhere without one. So why have them in the first place with a giant loophole readily available?

Do you think felons should be allowed to purchase guns?
Click to expand...

The number of guns sold without checks is tiny compared to those purchased with background checks. None of the killings that have supposedly prompted this urgency for more control would have been prevented by more background checks.

No to selling felons guns. No to felons stealing guns without a background check, and that's how felon's tend to get them.

Go Blazers
 
mook said:
The majority of Americans don't view abortion as "killing." If they did, I think it'd be a strong argument.
Click to expand...

IMO, the majority of Americans females don't view abortion as "killing", or else they wouldn't be able to do it in most cases. (About 40% of US women will have an abortion in their lifetime.

You've got kids, mook. Surely you have seen a sonogram of a third trimester pregnancy. Can you really say with a straight face that that isn't a baby, and if you abort it, it is killing a baby?

I can follow the logic of not killing for a short time after conception and say maybe that's not killing. But once there is a heartbbeat? Come on.

I know five women that admit to having an abortion. They all have serious remorse and regrets about it. I don't think they would have that kind of regret if they truly believe that they only killed a few cells in their body. (I know that is anecdotal, and maybe not represent the majority of women....just my experience.)

For the record, I don't want women to have to submit to background checks, even though I believe it is killing a baby. I just have a really hard time with having the government tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. That's the ONLY reason I can support pro-choice.

Go Blazers
 
oldguy said:
The number of guns sold without checks is tiny compared to those purchased with background checks. None of the killings that have supposedly prompted this urgency for more control would have been prevented by more background checks.

No to selling felons guns. No to felons stealing guns without a background check, and that's how felon's tend to get them.

Go Blazers
Click to expand...

Tiny? I dunno. I think it's a pretty large percentage. Some estimate as high as 40%, but I doubt that. Still, it's greater than like 1-5%.
I understand they might not have stopped past crimes. They might prevent different future ones.
As to no to selling felons guns, how do you not without a background check?
And I'd prefer a felon having to break the law to acquire a gun, increasing the odds of catching them, as opposed to giving them the ability to purchase a gun in the store.
 
RR7 said:
Tiny? I dunno. I think it's a pretty large percentage. Some estimate as high as 40%, but I doubt that. Still, it's greater than like 1-5%.
I understand they might not have stopped past crimes. They might prevent different future ones.
As to no to selling felons guns, how do you not without a background check?
And I'd prefer a felon having to break the law to acquire a gun, increasing the odds of catching them, as opposed to giving them the ability to purchase a gun in the store.
Click to expand...

I would be just fine with the laws we have now, even though the bg checks are an infringement on my rights. There are already laws to deal with felons with guns. If you're worried about that, lobby for a mandatory long term prison sentence for felons when they are caught with a gun.

Stop penalizing law abiding citizens for what criminals and insane people do.

Do you think there should be a background check for knives?

Go Blazers
 
If you're fine with the laws they have, including the background checks, how does having background checks at gun shows really change anything?
Background checks for knives is like opponents of gay marriage saying we should be able to marry farm animals.
 
If you lock up everyone before they commit some crime, it's ok?

Sheesh, that's not even some extreme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top