[BilboBagend]

Only 7% don't want strict background checks.

Even Republicans want background checks.
Even Gun owners want background checks
Even NRA members want background checks

Only the far fringe radical reactionary elements of our society don't want background checks.

[markjean59]

i agree with that and when you ban guns then only outlaws will have the guns!

[BilboBagend]

No one, no one at all, has proposed banning guns.

[RealJustme]

I am 100% for strick background checks.

But it will never happen because Obama supporters wouldn't be able to buy guns. Background check results are racist because they disclose the background of Obama's supporters. Hell I'd bet 10K if a "real" background check was done on Obama he wouldn't qualify to buy a gun...therefore stop being racist and calling for racist infringements into their past.

[justdoit]

Justme and Markjean59.
Both silly answers and you know they are untrue. Thats a large part of the problem. No one is proposing on banning all guns, and you know it. And background checks are not racist, if they were Justme I would guess all the more reason you would support it. So why the all the outcry? If you don't want a certain type of weapon outlawed, just say it, pretty simple right?
Answer Biblo's question as is, are you willing to support stricter background checks as the NRA is pushing? Are you willing to ban the sale of guns at flea markets, and garage sales, etc. Heck I can go to a gun show and buy a gun from an unlicenced seller,pay pay cash and walk out with it. Last gun show I was at there were people asking the sellers if they were dealers or not as they wanted to only buy from unlicenced saying it was less hassel. Yesterday I was looking for a tool on craigslist , guy said he would trade for guns, is that ok?
Ideas? What are your thoughts, what would you do to keep the mentally unstable from buying weapons?

[Leroy]

I have no problems with BG checks, but they should have to destroy the paperwork, since it currently includes the serial number of the gun, after they sell it to you. The government should not have access, by any means, to how many (if any) guns you have.

[BilboBagend]

Keep the gun registration. Only criminals and those with possible violent intent want guns untraceable. Thus, liar leroy.

[justdoit]

Leroy
When you say you support background checks, would you have a problem if it was expanded? Make it illegal to sell guns without any form of background check, Ie. garage sales/flea markets/craigslist/ unlicenced at gun shows?
And would you expand who would be considered unbalanced enough to even own or buy a weapon. If their seeing a shrink, if their on anti depressents, where is the line drawn? I mean Glen Beck has admitted to drug addiction, and mental illness, even admitted to thoughts of suicide. Should he be denied? If that were the criteria why would a gun owner ever seek help for a mental illness or depression if it ment they had to sell their weapons because of their reaching out for help. And for how long would guns be denied them. Can one be truly cured??? Would you seek mental help if you had depression with the thought that you might fail a background check five years for now?
I can see your point about destroying records of gun ownership. my problem is, we are beyond that. I think big brother already knows more about us than we ever thought possible. Our right of privacy has been trampled to the point that how many guns one owns is the least of the problem.

[Shimmer]

If the government can enact laws confiscating gold as they have done in the past, then they could surely make laws confiscating guns in the future, and having them registered by serial number would only aid in their confiscation. Perhaps there would be a few constitutional hurdles, but with the ability to stack the deck in the Supreme Court... Strict background check and gun registration would do little if anything to prevent gun related crime. The real problem is that criminals would net be getting background checked or register their weapons so all it would do is potentially disarm law abiding citizens.

[elklindo69]

There is nothing wrong with gun registration.

When you register your automobile you have to submit the VIN.

There needs to be more stringent standards and requirements to purchase a gun. A gun is not a toy, it's a lethal weapon. Back in the day when I was in the army, you had to take written and physical exams for you be accepted into the service. Then you went to basic training where they evaluated your physical fitness and soldiering ability. And this was all way before they even handed you an assault rifle for marksmanship training.

And the NRA wants to keep open the gun show loophole? That just doesn't sound right to me.....

[elklindo69]

If the government can enact laws confiscating gold as they have done in the past, then they could surely make laws confiscating guns in the future, and having them registered by serial number would only aid in their confiscation. Perhaps there would be a few constitutional hurdles, but with the ability to stack the deck in the Supreme Court... Strict background check and gun registration would do little if anything to prevent gun related crime. The real problem is that criminals would net be getting background checked or register their weapons so all it would do is potentially disarm law abiding citizens.

Gen registration is not meant to completely eliminate gun crime. It's a deterrent. There's a reason why your car has a VIN. It's to stop thieves. When you buy a car, what's the first thing you do? Check the VIN. Who would buy a car that doesn't have a legitimate VIN? And you as the owner have to provide the DMV a VIN in order for you to register it.

When it comes to guns, all guns should have traceable serial or identification numbers. And I can guarantee you if guns used in crimes can be traced back to their original owners, then people will be very very very careful about how they will handle their weapons.

[RealJustme]

Justme and Markjean59.
Both silly answers and you know they are untrue. Thats a large part of the problem. No one is proposing on banning all guns, and you know it. And background checks are not racist, if they were Justme I would guess all the more reason you would support it.

Do you have a reading problem? I am 100% for background checks on 100% of gun sales. Criminals have lost their rights to bear arms and it's the criminals killing innocents with guns. Along wih background checks I want protection of personnel information obtained during those background checks including criminal prosecution for anyone who abuses or releases that personnel information.

[justdoit]

Justme
Yep I read your statement about background checks. I should have worded my statement a bit differntly.
What do you say about the questions I asked Leroy.
My problem is. We can't have more control over gun ownership or who is stable enough to own one without giving up more rights of privacy. Somewhere the govt needs a certain control. If you feel the need to own a weapon under the thought or idea that you might need it someday to over throw a tyrant, why do you have no problem letting that same govt get into your rights of privacy for mental issues. Why is one one right more important than another in your mind?
How can the govt have any ability of stoping anyone with mental issues of buying a gun if their (guns) not registered. Problem with that, more govt control? Its kind of a moot issue of putting a mental case in jail after they already killed. Whats the point of background checks then. Somewhere we need to figure out which rights we are willing to give up or reduce in the name of gun ownership.

[Leroy]

Leroy
When you say you support background checks, would you have a problem if it was expanded? Make it illegal to sell guns without any form of background check, Ie. garage sales/flea markets/craigslist/ unlicenced at gun shows?
And would you expand who would be considered unbalanced enough to even own or buy a weapon. If their seeing a shrink, if their on anti depressents, where is the line drawn? I mean Glen Beck has admitted to drug addiction, and mental illness, even admitted to thoughts of suicide. Should he be denied? If that were the criteria why would a gun owner ever seek help for a mental illness or depression if it ment they had to sell their weapons because of their reaching out for help. And for how long would guns be denied them. Can one be truly cured??? Would you seek mental help if you had depression with the thought that you might fail a background check five years for now?
I can see your point about destroying records of gun ownership. my problem is, we are beyond that. I think big brother already knows more about us than we ever thought possible. Our right of privacy has been trampled to the point that how many guns one owns is the least of the problem.

The only reason that the government wants private sale background checks is to track who owns guns so that they can be confiscated, the same with retail sales by FFL - if they were only doing it to keep people that are unstable/criminals from buying guns they would not need the serial number, type, and they would not keep this on file forever.

As for who is unstable - I believe there are many forms of "unstable", but not all of them warrant taking guns, driving, swords, alcohol, knives, cleaning chemicals, baseball bats, from those people. Most health care professionals know who is dangerous, but they play the liberal game of not reporting them - yet they, by law, are supposed to report them, already, no additional law needed - but they don't. So, there are more than enough laws, already, that are not enforced or followed, to stop MOST of the unstable from getting guns or taking them from them. As for how long they should be denied, until they no longer need medical care/treatment, completely off all medicated related to the instability, say for 6 months, and then signed by three treatment professionals. If people actually had a belief, since they don't now, that they could be cured and get their possessions returned, I don't see how it would hinder anyone seeking care - and remember, most people have others around them, so if you're protecting someone that you think is a danger to others, by not reporting them, you are just as guilty of their crimes in my personal view.

[markjean59]

they ARE proposing banning guns

[justdoit]

MarkJean59
Lets see here
How many guns do we have in our society, how many types are sold right now. And of those guns what "percentage" do you feel they are they proposing to put controls on? Just wondering?
They outlawed "Black Talon" bullets maybe 15-20 years ago if I remember. So using your line, "they DID ban bullets. Are you still able to buy bullets And are you unable to shoot? Did you feel your 2nd amendent rights were infringed upon when they took "Talon" bullets off the market to the general public?

[Leroy]

MarkJean59
Lets see here
How many guns do we have in our society, how many types are sold right now. And of those guns what "percentage" do you feel they are they proposing to put controls on? Just wondering?
They outlawed "Black Talon" bullets maybe 15-20 years ago if I remember. So using your line, "they DID ban bullets. Are you still able to buy bullets And are you unable to shoot? Did you feel your 2nd amendent rights were infringed upon when they took "Talon" bullets off the market to the general public?

Justdoit - they are doing as Hitler did and as the UK did, they are moving in steps that won't cause a revolution at first, but the goal is to remove all guns from all citizens so that the government doesn't have to fear the citizens.

By your line, we should all be using flintlocks or just bows, since you don't believe the second amendment is about controlling the government as our founding fathers so stated.

[BilboBagend]

liar leroy does reveal his uncontrolled malevolence and radical reactionary crazy in so many posts.

[Leroy]

liar leroy does reveal his uncontrolled malevolence and radical reactionary crazy in so many posts.

Another post, trolling, from dildumb, saying nothing, spewing hate, not addressing the subject.

[elklindo69]

MarkJean59
Lets see here
How many guns do we have in our society, how many types are sold right now. And of those guns what "percentage" do you feel they are they proposing to put controls on? Just wondering?
They outlawed "Black Talon" bullets maybe 15-20 years ago if I remember. So using your line, "they DID ban bullets. Are you still able to buy bullets And are you unable to shoot? Did you feel your 2nd amendent rights were infringed upon when they took "Talon" bullets off the market to the general public?

Justdoit - they are doing as Hitler did and as the UK did, they are moving in steps that won't cause a revolution at first, but the goal is to remove all guns from all citizens so that the government doesn't have to fear the citizens.

By your line, we should all be using flintlocks or just bows, since you don't believe the second amendment is about controlling the government as our founding fathers so stated.

So are you claiming that the people who created the constitution gave the federal government the power to eliminate insurgencies, and on the other hand they created the 2nd amendment so individual states would have the right to take down the government?????????????

That's moronic and absurd...............

[RealJustme]

So are you claiming that the people who created the constitution gave the federal government the power to eliminate insurgencies, and on the other hand they created the 2nd amendment so individual states would have the right to take down the government?????????????

Who cares, the right to keep and bear arms is codified in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The text of the amendment reads: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Dude, that's all that matters, everything else is chatter.

[Leroy]

So are you claiming that the people who created the constitution gave the federal government the power to eliminate insurgencies, and on the other hand they created the 2nd amendment so individual states would have the right to take down the government?????????????

That's moronic and absurd...............

Actually, that's correct - the Founding Fathers were fully of the need for National Defense and the reason they were aware of it was fleeing an Oppressive/Fascist Government - they wrote the 2nd to allow the PEOPLE to overthrow the government if it became, as all do, oppressive. Oh, and it wasn't about "Individual States" it was clearly about the people.

The moronic thing is you not understanding that.

[Dogzilla]

I want me a tank, a bazooka, and an F-16. I wanna be prepared when my government comes for me.

[DarknLadyJedi]

For some strange reason people want to believe that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th Amendments all apply to individuals but the 2nd does not.

The 10th allows "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[BilboBagend]

There is no challenge to the 2nd Amendment nor the right to have reasonable weapons. There has never been are right under the Constitution to have any weapon you want. There has never been under the Constitution a prohibition on regulating weapons. Most American's rights are NOT enumerated, yet government has consistently restricted those rights for tyrannical moral reasons. There are legitimate issues in government overreach. This is not one of those times. There is clear legitimate need to restrict and regulate access to some weapons and to track gun ownership for the safety of the American population. There is also an illegitimate organized effort to not have a rational conversation or any rational legitimate regulation of weapons. As always, look to the economics and who profits by the sale of high power weapons to crazies.

[Leroy]

There is no challenge to the 2nd Amendment nor the right to have reasonable weapons.

You're wrong and your first line proves it - there is not hint of "reasonable weapons" listed in the 2nd Amendment or any language referencing it from the founding fathers.

So, by your own post, the Challenge to the 2nd Amendment is that you want to limit it to what YOU believe are "reasonable weapons", missing that the 2nd Amendment is not and was never about personal defense or hunting, it was about the intent for the PEOPLE to overthrow a fascist/oppressive government if needed. You can't do that today with muskets.

[BilboBagend]

There are only 4 groups of people SERIOUSLY talking about banning guns: 1) the far fringe wacko crazy right, 2) the far fringe wacko crazy left, the corrupt gun industry and it's professional lobbies like the NRA, 4) the professional politicians sucking on the hind teat of the gun lobbies and industries.

The rest of us want reasonable and rational regulation and accessibility to rational and reasonable weapons and the ability to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of crazy people. Thus the concern of some here as group 1), a tiny portion of the population, are prime candidates for restrictions.

[Leroy]

There are only 4 groups of people SERIOUSLY talking about banning guns: 1) the far fringe wacko crazy right, 2) the far fringe wacko crazy left, the corrupt gun industry and it's professional lobbies like the NRA, 4) the professional politicians sucking on the hind teat of the gun lobbies and industries.

The rest of us want reasonable and rational regulation and accessibility to rational and reasonable weapons and the ability to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of crazy people. Thus the concern of some here as group 1), a tiny portion of the population, are prime candidates for restrictions.

What "reasonable and rational regulations and accessibility to reasonable weapons" would you suggest would be approved to overthrow a fascist/oppressive government as intended by the 2nd Amendment?

[BilboBagend]

Sorry liar leroy, your personal fringe fantasies are not part of our culture nor are they part of our Constitution. Your view is supported by everyone except 92% of Americans, all the Presidents, all the SCOTUS members and all rational honest people.

No matter how often you repeat your fantasies they are simply are not supported by the Comstitution or any rational review of history.

[Leroy]

Sorry liar leroy, your personal fringe fantasies are not part of our culture nor are they part of our Constitution. Your view is supported by everyone except 92% of Americans, all the Presidents, all the SCOTUS members and all rational honest people.

No matter how often you repeat your fantasies they are simply are not supported by the Comstitution or any rational review of history.

I see that you're running away again - A background check, stricter or not, doesn't have a thing to do with limiting what guns you can buy, assault or not, if it's only a background check as suggested.

So, again, what do you believe the intent of the 2nd Amendment was if you don't believe what the founding fathers wrote about it?

[RealJustme]

The NAACP has claimed that our current background checks are racists since the checks disportionately report negative information on blacks by a ratio of 8 to 1. A new more objective holistic system headed up by Attorney General Holder is under review to correct this inequity.

[Leroy]

I wonder if they will waive Positive ID for gun checks for minorities because of how is oppresses and disenfranchises them?

[BilboBagend]

Connecticut police say that they would have been unable to stop the shooter at Newtown, CT. The type of weapon would have rendered their bulletproof vests ineffective.

Thus the only actions that would have prevented the mass massacre of innocent children would have been background checks, restrictions on weapons, ammunition, and large capacity magazines.

[Leroy]

Connecticut police say that they would have been unable to stop the shooter at Newtown, CT. The type of weapon would have rendered their bulletproof vests ineffective.

Thus the only actions that would have prevented the mass massacre of innocent children would have been background checks, restrictions on weapons, ammunition, and large capacity magazines.

The police are morons if they actually say that.

First, the police would not have been at the school, so what they say is meaningless.

Second, a shooter that knows people have no defense has nothing to fear - as in almost every mass killing.

Anyone shooting at the killer would have, at the very least, distracted him from killing kids, and would most likely have killed him (the killer) before he reached more than a few people.

Notice how the police show that they are not willing to risk their lives for others - it's actually in their Union rules, they don't have to risk their lives for you, and they can get in trouble for it, they are there to write reports about what has already happened.

Background checks, restrictions, laws, magazine limits, all that BS would not have prevented this from happening - the only thing that could have LIMITED it (since you can't prevent it completely) is another person that could shoot/kill the killer. THAT'S THE COMPLETE TRUTH AND FACT.

[RealJustme]

Thus the only actions that would have prevented the mass massacre of innocent children would have been background checks, restrictions on weapons, ammunition, and large capacity magazines.

Actually the only thing that would have stopped the mental case from killing was intervention "before" he finally went postal. All the signs were there, the school failed, they knew he was a threat and took no measures, the parents failed, they knew he was a bomb waiting to go off and the liberals who protected the mental case's privacy failed. What would have stopped this was better security at the school, parents actively involved in either getting him help or committed and law enforcement made aware of his mental issues.

[Leroy]

Connecticut police say that they would have been unable to stop the shooter at Newtown, CT. The type of weapon would have rendered their bulletproof vests ineffective.

Thus the only actions that would have prevented the mass massacre of innocent children would have been background checks, restrictions on weapons, ammunition, and large capacity magazines.

I just did a comprehensive google search and can't find the police stating anything of the sort about vests, nothing.

[Leroy]

Actually the only thing that would have stopped the mental case from killing was intervention "before" he finally went postal. All the signs were there, the school failed, they knew he was a threat and took no measures, the parents failed, they knew he was a bomb waiting to go off and the liberals who protected the mental case's privacy failed. What would have stopped this was better security at the school, parents actively involved in either getting him help or committed and law enforcement made aware of his mental issues.

Just like the politician that was waving an AK around in the House, he was convicted of multiple acts of violence, but he was still able to get his hands on guns because the system was abused and they didn't report him to the national database that was already in existence.

Even the killer at the University a few years ago, he was known to be unstable, ordered into treatment, but the Judge (a Democrat) didn't follow through and have him added to the database - so he was able to legally buy guns because a liberal judge failed to do the job he was elected to do.

What about Obama giving guns to drug dealers/cartels and terrorists to kill Americans so that he can use the deaths as an excuse to ban guns in the USA... nothing will ever come of that.

[BilboBagend]

We all know who the morons are, liar leroy for one, not the police.

[Leroy]

A majority of Americans believe that politicians are exploiting the Sandy Hook tragedy for political gain, according to a new Reason/Rupe poll.

The poll found that 52 percent of Americans believe that elected officials are exploiting the tragedy for political gain, including 71 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Independents. [...]

The poll also showed that 51 percent of Americans believed that they should be allowed to own assault weapons. Only 44 percent said that “assault weapons” should be prohibited.

[justdoit]

How could that poll be taken seriously when 2/3 of the same respondents gave varied and different answers as to what an "assult weapon" even was?

As to Sandy Hook, yea I can buy that, I mean how many believe ANYThING done or said in Washington is NOT done or said for politcial gain. They are not trusted, and well earned.

[Leroy]

How could that poll be taken seriously when 2/3 of the same respondents gave varied and different answers as to what an "assult weapon" even was?

If you include all of their ideas of what an "Assault" weapon is, they still don't want them banned. Since none of the Civilian owned weapons, without a special Permit, are actually "Assault" weapons by definition, it would seem that the only thing the government wants is to disarm the citizens to make them victims and to keep them from changing the fascist government we now have.

[sillydaddy]

The citizens in Sandy Hook failed to protect their families and now they stand silent while Obama decorates his podium with their children's deaths and makes his plans to take from me the means to protect mine.

[justdoit]

OK Sillydaddy
Lets take your thoughts to the next level.
Give us a couple sentences, a sceanero , a short story of you protecting your family with the weapons their trying to control, or ban if you will.
I just don't see it. A guy breaks in at 2 am and what, ya grab the .223 with a 30 round mag and start to firing, thank god ya got 30 rounds to get er done. Or maybe your at work, your wife gets home with groceries and the little one. 3-4 guys drive up, stop in front of the house. As she sees them she grabs her semi auto with a 30 round clip, bandolier of extra clips, steps out on her porch and lets them hoodlums know her mind, "make my day assholes" she exclaims with the look of a cornered lionesse protecting her cub!

Ok I got carried away, but seriously give us a couple of examples of how these weapons (ones that were in the brady bill as an example) will personlly protect your home that a shotgun, or .38 can't.

[BilboBagend]

Sarah Muller testifies to Congress on behalf of assault weapons. She gives examples of women defending themselves from attack. None of the defenses are with assault weapons or large capacity ammunition. Prime example used a shot gun. She insists assault weapons are needed by women to defend themselves from attack, though she proves they do not need assault weapons or large capacity ammunition. She goes back to the tired old lie about 2nd Amendment rights and has nothing more.

[RealJustme]

I just don't see it. A guy breaks in at 2 am and what, ya grab the .223 with a 30 round mag and start to firing, thank god ya got 30 rounds to get er done.

Great point. Imagine running out of ammo, the gun is worthless. It's like starting a road trip with just a quarter tank of gas across a remote area you're not familiar with, it's always better to have more than enough than maybe having enough. Just because some politician tells you a quarter of tank is more than enough, that's a bold lie, how would they know it would be enough in every situation?

[justdoit]

Yep Full tank
Lets try this
28 bullets get fired in the space of 22 seconds. One hits the 18 year old bad guy in the arm as he was looking for a dvd player and a couple beers. He escapes but is caught when he goes to the hospitial claiming he was attacked by a gay rapest. 16 bullets goes through various walls and windows. One enters his daughters room but only kills a stuffed animal. Another 2 go through 2 walls, enters a neighbors house where one is found embedded in a wall stud while the other kills his neighbors new refrigerator. Another well placed bullet shot at 2 am in the pitch dark of the guys house goes through his own car window in the driveway. The rest are never found.
But the guys walls, ceiling, and floor require numerous patches and paint. The guy needs to change his pajamas as he craped in them, firing 28 bullets at someone he never sees only hears.
He wonders how many clips of .223 ammunition he could have bought while he is writing a check for his first payment to his laywer who is defending him from 3 neighbors suing him, claiming he wrongly tried to kill them. His new car window and trim is another 500 bucks in insurance deductable, while his house is $1000. But he saved his family with that 30 round magazine.
The best home defence is indeed 30 rounds fired at 2800 ft per sec at 3 well placed shots every 2 seconds, in the dark, at a noise.
Or am I reading more into your answer than I should have RealJustme

[BilboBagend]

I think conservative and Republican leaders have an extremely valid point in blaming our culture of violence. Violent movies and games are certainly a big stimulus for the susceptible and confuse and empower the paranoid. However, one equally has to blame the media that prey non these same paranoid schizophrenic leaning types. Faux news, conservative talk radio, the Conservative and Republican leaderships are all feeding this frenzy of violence by taking advantage of and milking these susceptible people and feeding their fantasies with implausible delusions and encouraging moves to violent solutions to their irrational fantasies. All for personal economic and political gain at the expense of the American people.

[Leroy]

Dildo, why don't you ask a real woman, not one that is anti-gun, what she would want for home protection:

1) AR-15 with a 30 round mag, short barrel
2) Revolver, 38 Special, 6 rounds
3) Shotgun, 12ga, #7 shot, 3-5 rounds - some states only allow 3 rounds
4) Pistol, such as a 9mm, 17 rounds in mag

I can't see limiting any women to any single choice, but I can assure you that of the women I know, the 6 shot revolver would be their last choice.

Most would start with a couple 9mm hidden around the house, a shotgun in a closet, but, would have no problem with the AR being the replacement for the shotgun for home defense.

The bigger question, that liberals/democrats and other anti-gun types seem to be missing, why do they think they have a right to limit law-abiding citizens ability to defend themselves from criminals that are not limited to any specific choice of weapon?

[Leroy]

If you search online, you'll find stories, for decades, where children and women, defended their lives, their families, using an AR-15 or other fake labeled Assault Weapon.

[BilboBagend]

Go ahead. The person selected to present this defense of assault weapons had no such examples. It speaks loudly either for her dishonesty or her incompetence. Much like you, liar leroy.