Case Shows Why Background Checks are wrong and other lessons.

[Cancel3]

Or, we could actually demand that the people retain the sovereign power of this country by having adequate arms to do so, as was originally intended by the framers and founders. Why is that so hard to imagine?

That is not hard to imagine at all. And I am not, nor have I ever, argued against that right and that power.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

This is, again, assuming that all criminals are gang members or career criminals who could easily get guns off the street, when in fact, half of all people who murder have no previous felony conviction. Seung-Hui Cho definitely wouldn't have known how to get illegal guns.

prove your assertion. It's just as likely he could have spent 3 weeks in different and shady circles and gotten himself a couple of handguns with little problem and probably less money.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That is not hard to imagine at all. And I am not, nor have I ever, argued against that right and that power.

then how do you say you advocate that and then turn around and tell people to stop fighting for machine guns?

 

[Cancel3]

then how do you say you advocate that and then turn around and tell people to stop fighting for machine guns?

Because I don't see machine guns as the issue. I don't see the tiniest background check as the issue.

I do see society having a vested interest in making sure that criminals are not allowed to have guns.

I do see that the fact that a black market exists is not a reason why you forego efforts to stop criminals from being armed.

I don't see a fully automatic machine gun as something the majority of americans are going to think should be available at walmart. And I see that fighting to make sure we can all buy machine guns will defeat us in the long run.

Because that is what the average person will see. It is a perfect example of what has harmed the NRA. A number of years ago they made a lot of noise about machine guns. People forgot all about the good that the NRA did and saw it as a lunatic fringe trying to get Uzis and Thompson submachine guns on the streets.

It may not wash with your idea of what the founding fathers wanted, but it is the REALITY of our world.

 

[uscitizen]

LOL

Yeah most everyone is older than someone else.

 

[Good Luck]

One, please don't presume to speak for me as a pro 2nd amendment advocate.

I said the most vapid 2nd amendment advocates have a vested interest. I never said they all have the intelligence to recognize that vested interest.

Two, background checks do one thing only and that is cause a hassle for law abiding citizens whos name gets confused with someone who does have a record. A criminal knows they will not be able to buy a gun from an FFL and therefore does not even try.

Only a brain dead fool thinks that many criminals would not attempt to purchase firearms from a dealer if they did not need to prove they were legally able to purchase the firearm. Criminals know they cannot buy from an FFL BECAUSE they know they cannot pass the background check.

And there is no "name confusion" involved with back ground checks. They do not depend on names, but rather SSNs. This is not like the issuse of voter registrations, which do not use SSNs. There is no hassle involved. I have purchased a number of rifles over the years since background checks became mandatory, and the longest I was delayed was about 10 minutes. Most transactions took about 10 minutes total, with 3-5 of those minutes devoted to the background check. I have also purchased several handguns since the Clinton era. The waiting period is fucking stupid.

Three, background checks would be completely unnecessary were the gun laws and justice system actually put to the use that they were advertised as.

The current laws which forbid the sale of firearms to convicted felons would be useless without the ability/requirement to check if the individual in question is a felon or not.

All other gun control laws that are not specifically aimed at the possession of firearms by criminals, are mis-aimed at limiting or interfering with legal possession, and should be eliminated from the books.

The bottom line is the use of background checks is not nearly the hassle you make it out to be. Either that or you are incapable of understanding that the mandatory wait period for the purchase of a handgun (which in essence is the central point of your example case) is a completely different issue from background checks.

I have no problem with using reasonable means to assure a criminal is not purchasing a weapon through legal channels. Background checks, which take no more than 10 minutes, are a reasonable means.

 

[Good Luck]

Because I don't see machine guns as the issue. I don't see the tiniest background check as the issue.

I do see society having a vested interest in making sure that criminals are not allowed to have guns.

I do see that the fact that a black market exists is not a reason why you forego efforts to stop criminals from being armed.

I don't see a fully automatic machine gun as something the majority of americans are going to think should be available at walmart. And I see that fighting to make sure we can all buy machine guns will defeat us in the long run.

Because that is what the average person will see. It is a perfect example of what has harmed the NRA. A number of years ago they made a lot of noise about machine guns. People forgot all about the good that the NRA did and saw it as a lunatic fringe trying to get Uzis and Thompson submachine guns on the streets.

It may not wash with your idea of what the founding fathers wanted, but it is the REALITY of our world.

Have you bothered to examine WHY the thought of commonly available full automatic firearms is perceived as the desire of a bunch of wackos? Perhaps because society has, without giving any genuine thought to the matter, but rather blindly accept the attitudes generated by common media presentations, have demonized firearms in general, with a minimal (if any) "tolerance" for hunting rifles and/or "reasonable self-defense" firearms (where "reasonable" is defined well outside the original intent of leaving the People armed).

The fact is no one has any more to fear from the legal availability to law abiding citizens of full auto firearms than they have to fear from the legal possession of any firearm. But the common view is that even the desire for a full auto firearm is the result of a deranged mind. Why is that? Is it truly deranged to recognize the possible need for an armed insurrection against a government gone bad?

For the "going postal" scenario, they actually have considerably less to fear, because the "going postal" nut job will actually have less control over a full auto firearm, resulting in fewer hits as well as running out of ammo much faster. Even an experienced shooter (ie: ex-military, etc.) does not have the control over a full auto weapon they have over a semi-auto weapon.

In short, it is not the NRA, but rather society who is, in reality, being unreasonable on the issue of full auto weaponry.