Universal background checks Dems' top priority

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What about universal background checks and waiting periods before being allowed to register to vote? As long as we’re ignoring constitutional rights. Bad voting hurts more people than guns ever will.
 
Last edited:
I can’t vote since ‘an unlawful act against basic rights’ isn’t an option.
 
No. Schumer is a career taxpayer leech who has always wanted to ban guns. Facts and the constitution don’t matter to him.
 
Think he means it?
I’m all for better background checks, not sure what “tougher” means though.

I think Trump is pandering at the moment, just like Schumer.

Honestly can’t imagine what mental health screens might look like. Would need to see the detail; maybe it’s the test Trump took recently, maybe not.
 
40.png
Luke6_37:
Think he means it?
I’m all for better background checks, not sure what “tougher” means though.

I think Trump is pandering at the moment, just like Schumer.

Honestly can’t imagine what mental health screens might look like. Would need to see the detail; maybe it’s the test Trump took recently, maybe not.
Montreal Cognitive Assessment. It’s a 10-minute quiz, administered by a doctor, that requires patients to perform simple tasks like draw a clock, identify some pictures of animals, and repeat words and phrases correctly.
I didn’t dare try it - what if I failed? 😱
 
Honestly can’t imagine what mental health screens might look like. Would need to see the detail; maybe it’s the test Trump took recently, maybe not.
It is done in Canada, and the background checks take into account criminal and mental health records, as well as any domestic violence records. Of course, it does mean a national database (which does exist to some extent in the US), but it’s also going to mean, when it concerns mental health, just what conditions should be a red flag. Obviously no one is going to want a paranoid schizophrenic getting their hands on a gun, but what about someone with Type 2 Bipolar whose symptoms have never been that severe and are managed well by medication? At that point, you suddenly have doctors and other health care professionals becoming gatekeepers, and is that a role they are going to be comfortable with, or even fully understand what needs to be done?

Canada has had gun control legislation in one form or another for a while, and at one point even had the long gun registry, which has now been eliminated. And it does have restricted and banned weapons as well. But then again, Canada doesn’t have the Second Amendment, so gun control is at least legislatively a lot easier (though, as the long gun registry debacle showed, no less controversial).

And even if everyone agrees background checks need to be stiffened up, it still means all the moving parts have to work. It’s anecdotal, but even I, up here in gun control Canuckistan, have seen at least one person whose personal details I know well enough handed back his guns by the police after a family altercation, and said to my wife “I cannot believe they’re giving that nut his guns back.” Maybe you can reduce the mass shootings a bit, but you and I have already discussed this, and I think we both agree, availability isn’t real the core of the problem. It’s the wider culture; Hollywood with its gun fetishism, the irresponsible way the media reports gun violence, it’s the cultural aspects of the gun that need to be changed.

And then there’s the logistics. Anyone who just thinks if somehow magically the 2nd Amendment is repealed tomorrow morning, the millions of guns out there are just going to start getting dropped off at the local police station are living in a pretty rosy fevered dream.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
What if we expand the TSA style security to gun stores? You’ll be searched and probed coming in and out. It’ll take two hours to get in and out of the store. They can rob you of personal belongings at any point… Nobody will ever buy a gun again.
 
Keep praying then. The gun grabbers have one major flaw in their plan:

Gun owners have guns, and we will kill for our right to keep them.
Ah yes, you want to institute gun restrictions? We will kill you.

Good demonstration of America’s very healthy gun culture.
 
40.png
ChunkMonk:
Keep praying then. The gun grabbers have one major flaw in their plan:

Gun owners have guns, and we will kill for our right to keep them.
Ah yes, you want to institute gun restrictions? We will kill you.

Good demonstration of America’s very healthy gun culture.
Changing the goalposts. You said a ban, not ‘restrictions’. Restrictions are unconstitutional and eventually would rise to the level of tyrannical, but as they stand now we can still use the political process to fight the overreach.

A blanket ban would be too far, however, and would be a de facto abdication by the government of their authority and thus the American would have the duty to engage in violent resistance.
 
Here’s another one retweeted from the same source:


Retweeted by
Antonio Spadaro
@antoniospadaro
Director of Civiltà Cattolica @CivCatt, Consultor at Pontifical @VaticanCultura, in the Board of Directors @Georgetown Univ., on Twitter since May 2007. Jesuit.

Absolutely heartwarming to know that the good guys are on my side.
 
Restrictions are unconstitutional and eventually would rise to the level of tyrannical, but as they stand now we can still use the political process to fight the overreach
Restrictions are unconstitutional? All restrictions?

From Heller:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
[…]
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
[…]
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top