The main feature they're talking about on MSNBC, and that they've been talking about most places I see for a while now, is instant background checks. These checks are supposedly supported by 84% of the people in some poll that those who'd trample on 2nd amendment gun rights like to cite. I don't get it. I can't think of any incident, particularly the ones that supposedly require action against 2nd amendment rights, that instant checks would have made any difference at all. Do explain.
There is no explaination. If the anti-gun crowd can't take the guns in one fell swoop, they will take whatever they can get every time there is an incident that plays on people's emotions. How many people were injured in the knife attack yesterday? 14? Should we start requiring instant backgroud checks before you can purchase a knife? Limit the length of knives? I will continue to vote against any politician that represents me when they vote to infringe on my 2nd amendment rights. Because they don't represent me for shit. And, I don't give a crap whether they are a D or an R. w/e Go Blazers
Nothing to really get, the opposition is so great and the other potential fixes for this issues are so unrealistic, from both pro and con crowd. This is the perfect political compromise, do nothing except pass a bill with Gun in the headline so everyone can be happy and politicians can pat themselves on the back.... till the next kindergarten shoot out at least.
The logic escapes me, frankly. Unlike abortion rights, gun rights are specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Yet if you were to have some sort of background check on women before they could have an abortion, even if the check took 5 minutes, the outcry would be deafening. And yeah, you can make the comparison between the two for this purpose. I'm pro choice, FWIW.
Cry me a fucking river if you have to get checked out before owing a gun. It may not catch a bunch of people, but even if it keeps guns out of the occasional persons hand who would do ill with a gun, then it's worth it.
You say it doesn't catch anyone, and that's just false. Did it catch people that carried out recent gun attacks? No. Can you list me how many people were turned down from buying a gun because of a background check? They stop people for different reasons for purchasing guns, and you can't say how many if any of them would have done something violent had they purchased one. As for infringing on rights laid out in the constitution, we have freedom of the press and freedom of speech. We have laws that limit that freedom. Rightfully so in some situations, I'd say. You can't just print whatever you want without consequences. I can't say I have a bomb in an airport, I can't yell fire in a crowded theater, etc. Are you opposed to these awful limits on our freedom as well? They made the laws 200 years ago. It's ok to accept that they didn't get it perfect 200 years ago. But yes, god forbid we background check to make sure criminals are not trying to purchase guns, because it hurts YOUR right to bear arms.
You can't say that anyone stopped would have murdered anyone with the guns they tried to purchase. The presumption is with the individual's innocence. What is clear is there are checks and people get guns and kill children at a school anyway. Say you pass a check and buy a gun and then a bad guy steals it from your house during a burglary. How are you going to check that? http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4534 says 232,400 guns are stolen each year. You can print whatever you want. The consequences are civil 99.999% of the time (wikileaks is an exception because it's considered treason).
I think it might have more impact than some might think. A great example might be found in organ donor rates. In countries where you have to opt-in to donate your organs, the rates are fantastically lower than in countries where you have to opt-out of being a donor: Obviously, this is quite a different piece of legislation. But I think you can see the point--a seemingly minor shift in legislation can have significant impact in real-world outcomes. Personally, I doubt we'll ever see a headline where a mass shooting was prevented by background checks. But it seems pretty likely that some percentage of deranged people will be deterred by even a minor inconvenience, whether they are actually caught in the check or just deterred by a paranoid fear of the check. As an avid gun owner, I find that acceptable enough of a reason to support background checks. I can see how a reasonable person could disagree with that, though.
You do get it that they already do require background checks, right? They make up these new laws after some nutjob kills someone. But the laws made in response to the incident don't have anything to do with what happened. I like Denny's anaolgy. No background checks to kill babies. Lots more babies killed than people shot with guns. Why aren't you same anti-gunners clamoring for background checks and registration for any woman that requests an abortion? How would anyone make a case that isn't hypocritical? Go Blazers
To be clear, my analogy was intended to point out that obstructing a person's Natural Right to "whatever" isn't a good thing under any circumstance.
Do you think there should be background checks on women before they are allowed to kill their babies? I'm really coming around to that. Once that law is in place, I think all women of child bearing years should have to submit to government pregnacy testing every six months. That way Big Brother can make sure that nobody gets an abortion without the background check. Go Blazers
I get that. What I'm asking is why people that think it's fine to slowly erode one kind of rights don't press eroding the rights of people doing a lot more killing. Go Blazers
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?
The majority of Americans don't view abortion as "killing." If they did, I think it'd be a strong argument.
