Why is it that when I resist the government restricting my rights I am called a "gun nut"? That's typical politician speak. You sound like Andrew Cuomo calling people extremists. And why is it that people for gun control always ignore the "shall not be infringed" part?
I'm just curious as to what extensive background checks accomplish other than giving some douchebag corrupt politicians the power to decide whether or not law abiding citizens are allowed to exercise their right to bear arms? They certainly wouldn't stop a fucking nut case like Adam Lanza from breaking yet another law.
You're right. It probably wouldn't stop people like Adam Lanza. But it WOULD make it more difficult for many people like him to do what he did. I have no problem with law abiding citizens wanting to or being able to own whatever guns they want. But we - as law abiding citizens - have to pass tests to be able to drive vehicles. We are required to have insurance on those vehicles. Unless you think that this is truly a precursor to some kind of government takeover, I really don't see what the issue is.
So if someone breaks into your car parked in your driveway, drives down the road chugging a fifth of Jack and mows down a class full of kindergarteners, don't drop the soap. Hey, it's your logic...not mine. It all boils down to this: Criminals do not follow the law. Period.
Maybe it wouldn't stop Adam Lanza or the Colorado nut but it might stop the random guy who shoots and kills his wife because he is mad at her, or the guy who gets shot because he cut somebody off in traffic. Victims of gun violence don't just die in mass shootings. Something else that is being left out of those on the right who are happy about this failure is that your right to conceal in other states would have been expanded so in return for that background check that migt prevent John Nutcase from buying a firearm at a gun show the law abiding citizen could have had more freedom to carry out of state.
How so? The government doesn't have any ulterior motives in granting or not granting or revoking a drivers license. Driving is also a privilege, not a right. I don't trust our government. I think it's extremely bloated and run by a bunch of corrupt, money and power hungry pigs who don't have "the people" in their best interest. I think they're extremely inefficient and can't even handle the most basic responsibilities of governing like balancing a budget. I don't trust our future politicians either. I don't know why anyone would trust either.
The biggest problem we have with guns in this country, by far, is gang bangers in inner cities. That's pretty consistent around the world btw. The random guy who shoots and kills his wife is a very small issue in the grand scheme. Granted, no one ever wants to see something like that happen but again - the many are not responsible for the wrong doings of the few. Also, how do extensive background checks stop that guy? More freedom is great, but not at the expense of giving the government the right to pick and choose who is able to exercise our rights. At that point it's no longer a right, it's a privilege. If you're comfortable with the government taking away one right, why wouldn't they take more?
Cynicism, certainly when taken past a certain point, becomes an excuse for inaction. Why bother? - seems to be the thinking. Or more accurately the rationalization. So, shocking, there are some in government who misuse their power. That means we should all just throw up our hands and give up on seeking any effective social agencies and policies? Cynicism about government plays into the hands of those who have private power, and who want to keep it and extend it. The people who run the NRA are not the least bit concerned about the lives of average people. They are in effect lobbyists for the gun manufacturers. I have yet to hear a single persuasive argument from gun lovers as to how background checks impinge in any significant way on their legitimate rights and interests. Or why the law should not be drawn short of allowing ammo magazines past a certain point. Machine guns have been illegal for decades. Why not assault weapons? There are no good answers. All you get is some bs slop that amounts to fear of the government. Again, all serving the interests of certain illegitimate private groups. As if only the government can hurt you. What nonsense. We live in a democracy. If you don't like the idea of majority rule and that the good of the people as a whole should prevail, go live on an island somewhere else. Sure, there are civil rights and liberties, but none of them are absolute. Not freedom of speech, or fourth amendment rights, or any of them. And that should include the second amendment. "I hate politicians!" Well, I don't think much of people who use cynicism about government to excuse doing nothing about attempts to limit gun violence. It is a nonsensical charade that needs to stop.
Just going to take the time to point out yet again that nowhere in the actual text of the 2nd amendment does the word "guns" appear. Even the most unhinged squirrel-eating gun nut presumably concedes that not every piece of ordnance and hardware should be made available without restriction to the general public. You can't go out and by a tank or an MX missile. So, either the 2nd Amendment limits your right to keep and bear arms to those arms widely available in the 18th century, or it has by custom and interpretation been deemed to allow restrictions on the right.
A gun is designed to kill. If you can't keep your gun secure from a criminal you simply shouldn't have one. Additional liability has to be proved. Citizens can actually make rational decisions on liability and aren't likely to make you pay if your gun was stolen although if your gun wasn't secured they could still find you partially liable which seems pretty reasonable.: None criminals take guns hunting and drink, none criminals keep guns in their houses and don't secure them from small children, none criminals think about suicide occasionally and when a gun is available are much more likely to end their life without the possibility of intervention. None criminals get angry and have moments of rage. None criminal gun owners kill people all the time once and become criminals.
I guess you are one of those who blame spoons for people being fat. Virtually ANYTHING can be a deadly weapon, in the wrong hands. Maybe we need golf club, crowbar, and chainsaw control legislation too. I'm pretty sure one could kill with any of the aforementioned without issue. What's the difference between someone smashing through the window of your locked vehicle in my scenario and a home intruder smashing through the window of my locked gun cabinet, stealing one of my firearms, and committing a crime? Am I to be held liable in your eyes? Do you see the problem with your logic? Everyone acts like the hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country are letting their two year olds play with their loaded Glocks. The reality is that the percentage of accidents in relation to the percentage of gun ownership is miniscule. There are a few bad apples in every bunch.
I'm pretty sure if you saw off a tree limb with a chain saw and it killed your neighbor you would be liable. As far as your personal theft scenario, I'm perfectly comfortable that a jury would find you either liable or not based on reason, evidence and extenuating circumstances. There are bound to be at least half the jury that own guns and maybe a few of them have had their guns "Stolen" and used in a crime.
Technically we live in a republic but admittedly we are run more like a representative democracy. And our representatives have spoken on this issue. They voted against it - lol! I have yet to see a good argument FOR the extensive background checks. I have yet to see one person make a good argument that these checks would cut down on anything. You all just say it will cut down on things but don't back it up with anything. Statistics show repeatedly that gun control doesn't work. So let's implement more control on law abiding citizens. I reject the idea that we need to make a compelling argument against new legislation. The compelling argument should be required for new legislation. If you cannot make a compelling argument than we don't need more government controls. Please explain what you believe an "assault weapon" is. If you're referring to what people have coined "assault rifles", note that gun crimes with ALL rifles are a very small fraction of all gun crimes. This information is readily available on the fbi.gov website. You want to address the gun violence problem in America? Show me a solution to stop the gun crime with hand guns in inner cities. THAT's where the overwhelming majority of gun crime is occurring. Pointing at "assault weapons" and background checks is the real charade because they don't fix the real problem and no one has ever made a realistic argument proving they will. Because there isn't one. The POINT of the 2nd amendment is to protect us from a government that becomes oppressive. If we ever come to a point where we need to overthrow such a government we would be best left with what little gun rights we have left. We'd be fighting a major uphill battle against the firepower the government currently has. You want to lessen our firepower? Are you fucking nuts? I strongly dislike the current government but I hardly find them oppressive. That doesn't mean some future leader(s) couldn't be that way.
Name the last President, Senator or House member who didn't peacefully leave office after losing an election.
I'm not worried about the last one, I'm worried about the next one. Our forefathers protected us from them. When was the last time a criminal registered his gun?
