What's wrong with having background checks for gun ownership?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert_Sock said:
attn.com/stories/8813/president-obama-addresses-gun-control?utm_source=beingliberal&utm_medium=fbpost&utm_campaign=influencer

Obama said that the U.S. needs “common sense” gun laws that allow citizens to own guns but also prevent the wrong people from getting access to them. He said that the only way to reach that balance is to have better conversations about gun laws that don’t result in arguments about the “destruction of the Second Amendment.”
Click to expand...
Why is it so incredibly easy for a gun to find a criminal? There is far too much easy availability of criminals on the street.
 
exnihilo said:
The point was that when politicians or courts says that requiring identification is an unfair burden for voting, which is not a right, then obviously requiring identification to purchase or own a weapon is an unfair burden.
Click to expand...
That is a good point, and actually this was an issue in my state recently, many people were upset about the ID requirement to vote and they did away with it after that, but it does seem like the same could be used in purchasing a weapon too.

BUt you really only need to show ID if you buy a gun from a retailer or shop…if I go on craigslist or other local classified, and have cash in hand, no ID required, I saw this first hand when I helped a friend sell some things when he was moving into a nursing home, I put his 3 handguns on a local classified and the guy came and bought them after price was agreed on, We had no idea who he was, it was a cash sale and he was out the door.

People also trade guns for things a lot too, I see many many ads where people will take guns in trade for cars, trucks, boats, etc. These are all ‘handshake type deals’, no ID, no paperwork, etc.
 
If the guy in Florida didn’t have a background check, then hands up all those who thinks it wouldn’t have made any difference.

Then hands up all those who think gays should be encouraged to carry.

Then hands up all those who think that bloody assault weapons are really handy things to have around.
 
Rau said:
The rape culture we hear about on US college campuses is about more than testosterone. A small can of mace might be a better safeguard though.
Click to expand...
It’s about alcohol and a changing perception of consent and drunk sex.
 
Rau said:
There you go again, elevating things written in your constitution to something far above the mere decision of men.

I am at least glad you acknowledge here that the people may review and change the constitution. I am surprised that there is constant discussion of law changes in the US, but not, as far as I am aware, a movement to have a discussion about the gun provisions in the Constitution, what it means given historical context, and whether it truly serves the people well now. Perhaps too many Americans are inclined to view the Constitution as sacrosanct and fail to reason it’s true nature.
Click to expand...
Yes, in the USA, the USC **is **sacrosanct.

Unlike the other Anglospheric nations, in the USA, the Constitution is the bedrock of government. You don’t chip away at the foundations without grave reason.

And nobody likes to give up or abridge a “right”, even if it is one they would never choose to exercise. To do that, after all, is in a sense to become less free.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
Yes, in the USA, the USC **is **sacrosanct.

Unlike the other Anglospheric nations, in the USA, the Constitution is the bedrock of government. You don’t chip away at the foundations without grave reason.

And nobody likes to give up or abridge a “right”, even if it is one they would never choose to exercise. To do that, after all, is in a sense to become less free.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
👍

Jon
 
Bradski said:
If the guy in Florida didn’t have a background check, then hands up all those who thinks it wouldn’t have made any difference.

Then hands up all those who think gays should be encouraged to carry.

Then hands up all those who think that bloody assault weapons are really handy things to have around.
Click to expand...
1- it may have delayed, but would not have stopped this radical Islamic terrorist
2- yes, considering the the possible infiltration of more radical Islamists onto American soil.
But more than that, because they are Americans who should exercise their
constitutionally protected civil right
3- define assault weapon. Semiautomatic weapons are not assault weapons.

Jon
 
While I am not a fan of the armed society, I do think more understanding of the issues is needed.

“Assault weapon” is not a type of gun per se. It is a buzzword used to attack the ownership of certain weapons that share superficial design characteristics with military-grade ones.

Genuine select-fire weapons of the military type have been heavily regulated for decades. They are not readily available for legal purchase in this country.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
…Genuine select-fire weapons of the military type have been heavily regulated for decades. They are not readily available for legal purchase in this country.
Click to expand...
Is that inconsistent with the right granted in the constitution?
 
Rau said:
It sounds like an infringement to me. Maybe Jon can explain why it’s not?
Click to expand...
It is t an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, unlike the recent ninth circuit court decision. That decision is a bold, overt attempt to undermine this basic human and civil right by these anti- constitution jurists.

How would that particular decision fare in your country?

Jon
 
JonNC said:
No. I think it is consistent.
Click to expand...
Why is that? Please explain? Didn’t the constitution so words to the effect that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

So limiting the type of gun does not infringe the right? :confused:

Shouldn’t the people be allowed guns to the same standard as the government, as a means to protect themselves from a government turned tyrannical?
 
GEddie said:
While I am not a fan of the armed society, I do think more understanding of the issues is needed.
Click to expand...
I gotta say, those most insistent about this right to have guns seem pretty comfortable, indeed favourable, to the idea of an armed society.
 
Rau said:
Why is that? Please explain? Didn’t the constitution so words to the effect that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?

So limiting the type of gun does not infringe the right? :confused:

Shouldn’t the people be allowed guns to the same standard as the government, as a means to protect themselves from a government turned tyrannical?
Click to expand...
I will dialogue in good faith when you answer my question in post 278. I think it inconsistent not to be transparent

Jon
 
Bradski said:
If the guy in Florida didn’t have a background check, then hands up all those who thinks it wouldn’t have made any difference.

Then hands up all those who think gays should be encouraged to carry.

Then hands up all those who think that bloody assault weapons are really handy things to have around.
Click to expand...
Apparently, this Islamic terrorist had not only passed a background check, but he also had a security guard license.
breitbart.com

Jon
 
GEddie said:
Yes, in the USA, the USC **is **sacrosanct.

Unlike the other Anglospheric nations, in the USA, the Constitution is the bedrock of government. You don’t chip away at the foundations without grave reason.
Click to expand...
The constitution is fundamental to defining (among other things) the limits of government in most if not all of the anglosphere. This does not mean that all provisions of a Constitution are equally important and relevant to that aim or to other aspects of the common good.

The Constitution is man-made. Put together by men at a point in time to best meet the needs as they understood them at the time. To view such a document as sacrosanct might be a very personal and deeply held conviction, but it lacks objective foundation.

It is no more unreasonable “in principle” to chip away at rights therein (such as gun ownership) than it would be to shore up that particular right to ensure the government does not limit the type of gun the people may own (which I note has happened in the US). Note I say “in principle”.
And nobody likes to give up or abridge a “right”, even if it is one they would never choose to exercise. To do that, after all, is in a sense to become less free.
Click to expand...
The test for a society is what best serves the common good, not what allows individuals the maximum freedom.
 
JonNC said:
I will dialogue in good faith when you answer my question in post 278. I think it inconsistent not to be transparent
Click to expand...
I have assumed you have been dialoguing in good faith from the start, just as I have done. The thread is about the US context is it not? I see zero inconsistency in a poster not bringing his country of residence into the discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top