I'm advocating universal background checks to put up at least one more roadblock to an individual that shouldn't be allowed to possess a firearm.
The only roadblock is to law abiding citizens where a corrupt regime will decide who can and who can't buy weapons based on what? Circumstantial evidence? Vendettas of neighbors who don't like the fact that you legally own firearms? Overzealous politicians? Sorry NO! there is already a background check in place in Wisconsin forpistols and that to me is too much already. Records of firearms have a really long history of leading to government confiscation.
Enforce the gun laws already on the books. Set unchangeable, non-pleabargainable sentences for gun crimes, stop pretending that feel good BS laws that penalize no one but law abiding citizens actually slow gun violence, and sit down with something other than an anti-gun agenda. THEN maybe something serious can be done. But you being a mouthpiece for an administration that has openly said over and over they want stricter gun control is foolish. Your pathetic "I never called for a ban on guns" sounds so familiar...
Odds are, as the shooter was a retired police officer, he would have passed the background check and still been able to make the purchase. So, um, tell me again the REAL purpose of background checks? Nevermind, we already know, registration is the first step to confiscation. It has happened before in this country and will happen again.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
You see SC, this is your tactic, when you know you are getting your a z z handed to you you broaden the topic to try and hide your indefensible position.
Unfortunately, your speculation claim is also a fallacy. Confiscation has already occurred to law abiding, legal gun owners. That fact is irrefutable.Quote:
You don't know if it will accomplish nothing. Your claim of confiscation is also speculation.
Funny how when I listed some of the more wonderful policies of some of the countries around the world you want to emulate you have no comeback. You really should work harder at not making it easy to make you look like the buffoon you are. Sorry, but I am not your little friend on the other topic and I will continue to counter your idiocy on this topic until you are completely exposed for what you are.
What restrictions did I post concerning legal gun owners?
Background checks have been mentioned frequently. This is not a restriction on legal gun owners. It is simply a condition of ownership. We accept conditions on ownership of many items in our lives. I just don't see why guns can't be included. An individual may or may not believe that it will help reduce gun violence, but that does not make it a restriction.
How am I being hypocritical? What moral high ground did I claim? You know nothing about what my behavior does or does not conform to.
I don't see the real harm in background checks. I don't have a real concern that the government will be coming around and confiscating legal guns any time soon, New Orleans notwithstanding. That was one incident almost 10 years ago and it was under very unusual circumstances. I don't condone it; I just don't really believe it will be happening on a regular basis. Or even a sporadic basis.
Part of the problem is the inconsistencies from state to state in both the laws on the books and the enforcement of those laws. New York City cannot prosecute dealers in Virginia who break the laws in Virginia. Virginia doesn't much care that guns are bought there illegally because they are immediately moved to New York. No offense to Virginians or New Yorkers; just using them as an example. Would federal laws aimed at stopping this form of smuggling be objectionable to legal gun owners? If so, why?
Wait, let me guess! Some will say that New York City, and any other place with a gun problem, should fix their own mess. That it's not a gun problem, it's a criminal problem. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Right? That's all well and good until stray bullets start killing children in schools and playgrounds and even in their homes. The gun needs the person and the person needs the gun. Pretty hard to argue that. Yes we should go after criminals. But a multi-pronged approach that includes measures aimed against ILLEGAL guns makes even more sense.
I don't believe that background checks are a form of punishment to gun owners.
I don't believe that anti-smuggling laws are a form of punishment to gun owners.
Watch out Fyredup here come the black helicopters from the government.......thwup thwup thwup.
Do you labor under the belief that you and your friends being armed with your little pea shooters are going to be able to take on the full force of the modern US military?
One of the great disconnects with those who have that mindset is that they believe their guns will protect them from a tyrant with access to the US military. Then they also demand the US military be funded to the point where it is equivalent to the next 20 nations combined.
Keep dreaming that your little band of merry marauders will be willing and able to stand up to a military machine that has fighter planes, armed drone technology, and nuclear submarines.