DO you agree with the president on meaningful background checks.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
jimmymccready
Verified User
Some Trump supporters will disagree on back ground checks, yes.
What about you?
No, what Trump calls "meaningful" will be defined "meaningful" by the NRA, meaning the minimal they will accept
Politically, Trump and the GOP realize Americans want to see something done on guns, especially suburban voters, so their going thru the motions. In the end, they will either find a way to blame Democrats for no action, or, pass some useless legislation Trump will herald as the "greatest in history"
So you think he can come up with something watered down enough to please the NRA and make it look like he did something?
Absolutely, Trump has already rewritten what supposedly were conservative republican principles, if he tells them to shit in the woods they would ask for how long
He will come out saying whatever is done is tremendous and all the lemmings will be believe him even if it directly contradicts a position they strongly professed three months ago
Which were already proposed a number of times in the past and Mitch killed
Besides, they are next to useless, first you got to establish who is unfit to posses a gun, legalities abound, and then, you have to confiscate guns an identified person might already own, which would make great PR for the NRA. If you go down that road you have to be ready to administer the law 100%, which ain't going happen
Would "meaningful" background checks have stopped any of these shootings?
What is your solution to this rising problem?
Keep in mind, my generation didn't do this shit.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no background checks. your move.
they can work, and they can go after the sick fucks who post online garbage of hate.
O r the relative who sees them go to the dark side.
Recall the 2nd is an individual right, and is very difficult to pass Constitutional gun control
But in this case there is evidence of an exigent situation,and I think SCOTUS would back it
Face it, anything Trump would propose, you leftists would be screaming "RACIST." It's all you know...
Sure, as I just noted, red flag laws is a good example, they sound like positive action but in reality have little effect, how many previous mass shooters had documented histories of mental illness? You got to identify who can't receive guns and also confiscate guns from those identified after the fact
Interesting, no one in this exchange even mentioned the notion of race until you did, which usually is the case when it comes to interjecting racism into issues, says a lot on its own
SmarterthanYou
rebel
guaranteed uncivil war. guaranteed.
Again. What's your solution?
I wrote this to someone yesterday. What do you think?
I'd like to see the guns treated like a combination of the purchase of cold medicine at the pharmacy, and a driver's license. You have to show ID, get a background check; that info goes into a national database accessible to law enforcement and certified mental health professionals (MDs, PhDs, clinical psychologists, certified family/marriage counselors who must apply and be approved). Then you have to show that you qualify to use the firearm and store it properly; a written and practical test would be required. So would liability insurance in case you're careless and it's stolen and used in a crime. Every couple of years you have to renew your license and a check of that database is done at that time. If there is reason to believe that you are a danger, that info is entered into the database and red-flagged. If proven accurate, law enforcement will be empowered to temporarily remove your firearms until a hearing that shows that you're not dangerous and in compliance. We'd have to come up with a way that the owner wouldn't be unnecessarily burdened with court costs since owning the firearm IS a right.
I'd like to see the guns treated like a combination of the purchase of cold medicine at the pharmacy, and a driver's license. You have to show ID, get a background check; that info goes into a national database accessible to law enforcement and certified mental health professionals (MDs, PhDs, clinical psychologists, certified family/marriage counselors who must apply and be approved). Then you have to show that you qualify to use the firearm and store it properly; a written and practical test would be required. So would liability insurance in case you're careless and it's stolen and used in a crime. Every couple of years you have to renew your license and a check of that database is done at that time. If there is reason to believe that you are a danger, that info is entered into the database and red-flagged. If proven accurate, law enforcement will be empowered to temporarily remove your firearms until a hearing that shows that you're not dangerous and in compliance. We'd have to come up with a way that the owner wouldn't be unnecessarily burdened with court costs since owning the firearm IS a right.
it depends on how the law is written -it's not a panacea, but if it stopped a mass shooting it would be worth it.
If you ID a person with evidence of psych probs, or whatever criteria ( like the parents who call the cops a bunch of times - I think the Parkland ,Fl shooter fit that criteria