81 replies to this topic

[PERM BANNED]

y 

[Smoking Guns]

Dude, I am conservative, but there is a lot of white trash and street thugs at a gun show here in Birmingham, AL. I will tell you that.

[PERM BANNED]

y

[freedom78]

I don't know that there are such statistics, but it's a loophole and we should close it.  If it saves one person from being killed, good enough.

[PERM BANNED]

y 

[freedom78]

That's a dangerous precedent. The right to own a firearm is a right. The millions of illegal Latinos living here have no legal authority to be here and until this week, one week of illegals killed more Americans than Isis ever. Certainly no reason to bring in the Syrian refugees. If it saves one life, good enough.

How far can we take this line of thought? I want to stop single mothers from having children they can't afford. I want to remove anyone who doesn't look like me - I'm sure that'll save lives somehow.

 

No, it's really not a dangerous precedent.  Surely we can distinguish direct murder and the tools of said murder from something as ambiguous and unclassifiable as illegal immigration status.  There are lots of ways to die.  Undoubtedly absorbing refugees will affect lives.  Without a doubt, one of those refugees would eventually be a cause in someone else's death, perhaps through a traffic accident or by feeding their kids too much candy leading to diabetes.  That stuff happens all the time and is unfortunate but largely unintentional.  We can try to limit it, but it's entirely possible for things like that to happen with no clear fault.  

 

Ironically, each example you presented to save lives would actually end lives, by pushing refugees into a war zone, aborting babies, or exterminating all non-Flaggs.   

[Adolf Hitler]

He does have a point freedom. How far does it go? 

 

If hundreds of Syrian refugees were coming to your town and there's a 50-50 shot a handful of them are gonna pull off the massacre of the week, do you still want them there?

 

You're certainly right there are many ways to die. Hell I could choke to death on this yogurt I'm eating right now.

 

Why increase the chances?

 

I agree with you that something has to be done. I think draconian measures will be taken if this gets worse. I'd rather a middle ground be reached before that comes.

[PERM BANNED]

y 

[Adolf Hitler]

 

 

Just as the threat of Syrian refugees blowing up shopping malls once admitted has been incredibly exaggerated,

Is that a dig at me or has info came out about a potential plot of that magnitude?

[freedom78]

And ending gun shows will inevitably prevent someone from getting a gun they'd use to stop themselves or a third party from loss of life or serious injury. If we're going to play the hypothetical game, let's play it. But a lot of people are going to be offended and we're going to end up right where we started. "Saving one life" isn't justification to end a freedom.

Just as the threat of Syrian refugees blowing up shopping malls once admitted has been incredibly exaggerated, so has the effect of gun shows. Every state is different. The most commonly used gun in murders are handguns which can only be purchased in your state of residence. You can't go to Kentucky and buy a handgun. Assault weapons are what are used in these mass shootings and while tragic, their importance or threat is incredibly distorted in the average American's mind.

I'm all for the background checks just as I'm for ensuring imported food meets basic safety standards. But if you're worried about the ecoli outbreak at Chipotle, I'd recommend focusing on the cause of the outbreak rather than arguing we should ban burritos or increase regulation on some form of cattle that no one has shown any connection to the outbreak.

 

I'm not advocating ending a freedom at all.  I'm advocating closing the loophole of sales without background checks.  Perhaps that wasn't clear...I'm guessing it wasn't.

[PERM BANNED]

y 

[PERM BANNED]

y 

[Adolf Hitler]

No dig at you or anyone. You didn't even mention shopping malls did you? 

When that Paris attack happened I mentioned the attack Clancy used in one of his books. The shopping mall scenario might sound far fetched but I think its a legitimate possibility. Might not even happen here. Could just as easily(maybe more easily) happen in Europe or Asia. 

 

In 100% agreement with you on refugees/anchor babies. We cant save everyone. Some pretty bad shit going on in Africa as well but doesn't mean we need to bring em all over here. 

 

 

 

I've been for that wall since Buchanan made a great case for it in the 90s but not really sure how well it would actually work. In the least it would create a funnel where we can actually see who and what is coming in.

[freedom78]

You're perfectly clear. But the same excuses you give against requiring an ID to vote can be used to claim requiring background checks (and the idea and costs that go with them) infringes on Liberty just the same.

 

While I agree with you in principle, I think there are three things worth noting:

 

1) If you can afford a gun then affording the ID or paying for the background check isn't a similar burden.  I still don't believe you should have to pay to exercise your rights, but unless you're a gunsmith, payment is pretty much built into this one.  Even if there is no financial burden for ID/background check, you're still paying sales tax, which could be framed as a state imposed burden on your liberty.  I doubt most see it that way, since we pay sales tax on nearly everything except food.  I mention the sales tax for an obvious reason.  You compared gun background checks to voter ID laws and it's been argued that the latter is a poll tax, which is unconstitutional.  I know we disagree on that point, but my point here is that gun ownership is an inherently economic activity and, while the principle of not paying to make use of your rights is still a strong one, it's weakened by the economic nature of gun ownership.  In other words 

 

2) It doesn't have to cost.  I would support a system similar to that used in those anti-welfare drug testing campaigns, where someone has to front the cost for the drug test but gets that money back if they pass.  Again, that issue is controversial because it's imposing a financial burden on the poor, but if you're buying a gun then that logic isn't quite as sound and is completely meaningless in most cases.  So, if you have a system that is paid for by a combination of fees paid by background check failures and tax dollars, then you've not infringed on anyone's liberty...the only people paying the fee would be those whose past criminal activity (or mental health status) prevents them from availing themselves of the liberty in the first place. 

 

3) This could all vary based on the type of firearm in question.  Again, this is why this is very unlike voting rights.  Voting is a single activity on a single day.  Firearm ownership could encompass thousands of different types and makes of firearms that are designed for different purposes.  The idea of a free background check could be applied to a particular type of firearm (my thought would be handguns, since they're within the scope of the Heller and McDonald rulings), giving all legal purchasers a means to avail themselves of their liberty for "free" (by the way, why do you right wingers always want a free handout?). 

[Smoking Guns]

We can buy guns at academy sports, dicks, etc. they are a lot more strict than a gun show at your local hall for sure.