• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Universal background checks

Do you support universal background checks?


  • Total voters
    104

On the whole, the article seemed well-enough written, but this bit jumped out at me,as a rather amazing cluster of ignorance…

Today, the biggest social issue is gun violence, and the Second Amendment right that allows Americans to own all kinds guns, including powerful military style carbines like the Smith & Wessen [sic] M&P15 semi-automatic and Bushmasters used in recent public shootings.

“…powerful military style carbines…”? By definition, isn't a carbine a relatively low-powered rifle, many of which take ammunition that is intended primarily for use in pistols? Certainly,the specific firearms named here are not carbines, being too powerful to be thus classified, although they are still less powerful than a common hunting rifle.
 
On the whole, the article seemed well-enough written, but this bit jumped out at me,as a rather amazing cluster of ignorance…

Today, the biggest social issue is gun violence, and the Second Amendment right that allows Americans to own all kinds guns, including powerful military style carbines like the Smith & Wessen [sic] M&P15 semi-automatic and Bushmasters used in recent public shootings.

“…powerful military style carbines…”? By definition, isn't a carbine a relatively low-powered rifle, many of which take ammunition that is intended primarily for use in pistols? Certainly,the specific firearms named here are not carbines, being too powerful to be thus classified, although they are still less powerful than a common hunting rifle.

Lol. I give them a pass. If they write for "news" or "media" and they aren't a gun magazine I doubt they understand guns. I mean the entire time the media numbskulls called a .223 a high powered rifle I laughed. A .308 is barely considered high powered and the military uses .50 BMG as an anti personnel weapon. A ..223 is hardly high powered.

And a carbine is just a short barreled rifle designed for cavalry use. Anti gun nuts are pretty much defined by their lack of knowledge of the subject. One could fill a book (and they have I'm sure)
 
Repeating the lie over and over and over again will not imbue it with any vestige of truth.

Where's the lie? All the national polls show the same same thing. You on the other hand have yet to post one credible poll that agrees with your position on background checks.
 
Where's the lie? All the national polls show the same same thing. You on the other hand have yet to post one credible poll that agrees with your position on background checks.

The polls show an overwhelming majority of people want armed security in schools.

Obviously you agree, right? Or do you HATE democracy and don't think government should do what the majority want?
 

There is nothing in that story about background checks.



EVEN CNN doesn't understand how to purchase a gun legally. There section on "universal background checks" is HILARIOUS.

'Universal background check:' What does it mean? - CNN.com


From your link, "The term "universal background checks," used by some gun control supporters, is code for closing federal loopholes so that such checks will be conducted at gun shows and other private sales."

"Expanded background checks now enjoy the support of mayors in some of the largest cities in America. The idea has been embraced by gun violence survivor Gabrielle Giffords, a self-described gun owner.

"This may be the single most important gun violence prevention measure that the government could adopt," said Lindsay Nichols, an attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "This loophole means that dangerous criminals and dangerously mentally ill individuals have a most unfettered access to firearms."


No poll in your story there either to suggest there are is any opposition from the public to the expanded background checks except from the far right.
 
The polls show an overwhelming majority of people want armed security in schools.

Obviously you agree, right? Or do you HATE democracy and don't think government should do what the majority want?

One of the proposals from the Task force was to provide money to schools to increase security. It will be up to the schools to determine how best to do that, and I have no problem with that.
 
Many see this as attempt to enact a back door registration or to pave the way for registration in order to ensure compliance with universal background check law.

Let's see the link that proves that "many" voters agree with that statement. All the polls I have seen, show 10% - 15% oppose background checks.
 
Where do you keep coming up with this 90% of US voters. Link please?

Read the thread. Links to several polls are provided.
 
Seventy-four percent of Americans, meanwhile, said that more armed security guards would help prevent mass shootings in public places.

Have the background check administered by a local FFL dealer is what has been proposed.
 
From your link, "The term "universal background checks," used by some gun control supporters, is code for closing federal loopholes so that such checks will be conducted at gun shows and other private sales."

"Expanded background checks now enjoy the support of mayors in some of the largest cities in America. The idea has been embraced by gun violence survivor Gabrielle Giffords, a self-described gun owner.

"This may be the single most important gun violence prevention measure that the government could adopt," said Lindsay Nichols, an attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "This loophole means that dangerous criminals and dangerously mentally ill individuals have a most unfettered access to firearms."


No poll in your story there either to suggest there are is any opposition from the public to the expanded background checks except from the far right.


ONCE AGAIN, cite any crime committed with a firearm that would have not occured if the law required universal background checks.

The gun shop industry wants universal background checks because they charge a fee. Government wants them if it can also charge a fee. What it comes down to is a claim the solution is to 1.) increase profits to gun shops and 2.) create a new tax.

No suprises that it will come down to how to get money out of this and little more.
 
Can you tell me how legislation determines public support?

No, can you tell me how the public supports legislation that isn't written?
 
Not a single one of you can present a national poll showing any kind of significant opposition to background checks for all gun buyers.
Criminals don't run background checks on other criminals.
 
ONCE AGAIN, cite any crime committed with a firearm that would have not occured if the law required universal background checks.


Once again, that is not the purpose of expanding background checks. The purpose is reduce the accessibility of cheap guns to criminals in the 40 states where people with criminal records, or a mental derangement, can buy guns at gun shows by private sellers or advertised online by private sellers without a background check.

The gun shop industry wants universal background checks because they charge a fee. Government wants them if it can also charge a fee. What it comes down to is a claim the solution is to 1.) increase profits to gun shops and 2.) create a new tax.

No suprises that it will come down to how to get money out of this and little more.


A new theory by the few on the far right that oppose background checks! :)
 
No, can you tell me how the public supports legislation that isn't written?

What the public supports is the expanding background checks to all gun buyers, and whatever is passed in this congress will be less restrictive than that. That has been my claim, that an overwhelming majority of voters support expanding background checks to all gun buyers.

No one yet has disproved that public support.
 
Once again, that is not the purpose of expanding background checks. The purpose is reduce the accessibility of cheap guns to criminals in the 40 states where people with criminal records, or a mental derangement, can buy guns at gun shows by private sellers or advertised online by private sellers without a background check.
So as long as they use a bomb or a knife, you're ok with that. Got it.
 
So as long as they use a bomb or a knife, you're ok with that. Got it.

Nice strawman!

strawman2.jpg
 
Might as well do away with all laws than if they serve no purpose. People still murder so why have a law against it. That's some reasoning you've got going there! People are so arrogant when they think they are smarter than 90% of voters.

I think you are in the wrong thread, this is a non drug induced thread
 
What the public supports is the expanding background checks to all gun buyers, and whatever is passed in this congress will be less restrictive than that. That has been my claim, that an overwhelming majority of voters support expanding background checks to all gun buyers.

No one yet has disproved that public support.

And that is the point, imo.

Every large poll I have seen says the public overwhelmingly want this.
 
And that is the point, imo.

Every large poll I have seen says the public overwhelmingly want this.

Exactly! Even a majority of gun owners support it!!!
 
Let's see the link that proves that "many" voters agree with that statement. All the polls I have seen, show 10% - 15% oppose background checks.
I could care less what the majority of CBS and New York times viewers and readers believe.
 
I could care less what the majority of CBS and New York times viewers and readers believe.


All the national polls show the same thing, which is why none of the far right on this forum has been a able to produce a single poll that says otherwise.
 
Roughly ninety percent of Americans support universal background checks. Do you?

You know what? After thinking about it for a while, I can't think of any reason why there shouldn't be a background check for all firearm purchases. It covers the ass of the seller (most private sellers will run a background check anyway), it will end the incessant bitching over gun shows, and it makes it just that much more difficult for the wrong people to get guns, while doing absolutely nothing to prohibit law abiding citizens from acquiring firearms.

So **** it, do the damn thing. It does more good than harm.
 
Back
Top Bottom