• 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
Surtr said:
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.
Click to expand...
It creates a registry. Every country, every single country who has ever required gun registry, enacted gun confiscation within 3 decades of that registry.

My state has no registration, and we have one of the lowest crime rates in the country.

Crime is tied to the economy and family stability, not access to guns.
 
Jerry said:
It creates a registry. Every country, every single country who has ever required gun registry, enacted gun confiscation within 3 decades of that registry.

My state has no registration, and we have one of the lowest crime rates in the country.

Crime is tied to the economy and family stability, not access to guns.
Click to expand...

Then we're way overdue. The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 required dealers to register for a Federal Firearms License at an annual cost of one dollar, and required that records be maintained of the name and address of all persons who purchased firearms. It also banned the sale of firearms to felons.
 
I support it in principle. In fact I support a gun license. If you have a gun you are allowed to have it, but you need to carry a gun license. To get that gun license, you need to go through training and pass a test.

Sure criminals can get guns anyway, but it will be harder for them to get a gun if only people who know what they are doing have guns. But different from places like Chicago where legal citizens are disarmed, they will still have to worry about someone pulling a gun against them. Also, it will be easier to disarm criminals, because they won't have a license. I believe legal trained civilians should have gun, because police is not always around. I do not believe anyone should have gun. You can't have a car without a license either.

The problem is that my policies can never be implemented, because many liberals are in favour of banning all guns. Having a database on all legal guns in America will help them a lot if a gun ban is implemented. Hence secrecy is needed.
 
Jerry said:
It creates a registry. Every country, every single country who has ever required gun registry, enacted gun confiscation within 3 decades of that registry.

My state has no registration, and we have one of the lowest crime rates in the country.

Crime is tied to the economy and family stability, not access to guns.
Click to expand...



NRA (and Jerry) Misfires on Federal Gun Registry

"The head of the National Rifle Association misfires when he claims the president’s proposal to require background checks for all gun sales will result in a “massive federal registry” of firearms. Current law bars federal agencies from retaining records on those who pass background checks, and nothing in the president’s plan would change that."

FactCheck.org : NRA Misfires on Federal Gun Registry
 
Jerry said:
Not so. Private sales were not required to record arms.
Click to expand...

Licensed dealers were, and I'm willing to bet that licensed dealers sold a great deal more than private sellers. That makes the 30 year rule about 75 years overdue. We aren't other countries, we're the United States. No congress or president will ever be dumb enough to think gun confiscation will ever work.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
If that was really true, then there would be no difficulty at all in getting the Constitution amended in order to supersede the Second Amendment, and to allow the right affirmed therein to be infringed to the degree of requiring these checks as a prerequisite for exercising that right. That no credible effort has been made to propose such an amendment proves that those who claim there is this much support are flat-out lying.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring what's going on with congress right now. Considering over half of republicans believe the earth is 10,000 years old shows they aren't the most rational group. In what way does expanding background checks impede on or supersede the 2nd amendment?
 
sbrettt said:
In what way does expanding background checks impede on or supersede the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...

It clearly would infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms, which is what the Second Amendment explicitly forbids.

By definition, you do not need government's permission to exercise a right, and government has no authority to put needless obstacles in the way of your exercise of a right. If government has any authority to determine who may exercise a right, under what conditions, and to impose any arbitrary requirements, then it is not a right, but a privilege. The Second Amendment does not say anything about a “privilege of the people”.
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Those on the far wrong deny proof which is right in front of their face, claiming that that proof does not exist.
 
Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lol. Clearly you are so biased on this topic you can't decipher simple facts about how much of a joke your legislation idea is, and how it is laughs at by those with bad intent.
 
Catawba said:
Nice strawman!

strawman2.jpg
Click to expand...

Not really. Your position is premised on the idea that you can enforce checks on criminals purchasing guns from private sellers and other criminals. As a consequence of this focus...you aren't concerned about violence or crime...only crime involving guns.
 
There is no issue by which the Federal government does not ask these questions:

1. How can the federal take power from states?
2. How can we make money off it?
3. How can we have more power to decide who we do and don't want to imprison?
4. How can we create more federal jobs including administrative jobs out of it?
5. How can we create more federal police officers?

Thus, this is their response to a mass shooting in a school, which has nothing to do with the shooting but everything with those 5 REAL issues to the federal goverment. Nothing else matters.
 
Catawba said:
NRA (and Jerry) Misfires on Federal Gun Registry

"The head of the National Rifle Association misfires when he claims the president’s proposal to require background checks for all gun sales will result in a “massive federal registry” of firearms. Current law bars federal agencies from retaining records on those who pass background checks, and nothing in the president’s plan would change that."

FactCheck.org : NRA Misfires on Federal Gun Registry
Click to expand...

Laws can be changed.Another few more mass shootings and all the anti-2nd amendment trash will demand that records be kept in order to ensure complaiance with the universal background check.Plus this does not prevent state agencies from retaining records.
 
stonewall50 (Replying to Catawba) said:
Not really. Your position is premised on the idea that you can enforce checks on criminals purchasing guns from private sellers and other criminals. As a consequence of this focus...you aren't concerned about violence or crime...only crime involving guns.
Click to expand...

Not even that. Nothing he's advocated would have any effect on crime, other than to increase it by making “criminals” out of honest, law-abiding citizens who insist on exercising their legitimate Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

It isn't about crime or safety at all, but about far wrong statism—about establishing government as our master instead of our servant.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
Those on the far wrong deny proof which is right in front of their face, claiming that that proof does not exist.
Click to expand...

I've been waiting and waiting for you to provide even one poll by a reputable polling organization that shows any significant public opposition to background checks for all gun buyers, and you've provided none, zero, zip, nada!
 
stonewall50 said:
Lol. Clearly you are so biased on this topic you can't decipher simple facts about how much of a joke your legislation idea is, and how it is laughs at by those with bad intent.
Click to expand...

An opinion shared only by the far right, which represent less than 15% of voters, according to all the national polls.
 
jamesrage said:
Laws can be changed.Another few more mass shootings and all the anti-2nd amendment trash will demand that records be kept in order to ensure complaiance with the universal background check.Plus this does not prevent state agencies from retaining records.
Click to expand...

The far right can wring their hands all they want but it doesn't change the fact than no registry is required by the expanded background checks proposed by the Task Force. 85% of gun owners do not share this paranoia by the far right.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
…while the far wrong just keeps repeating the same disproven lies over and over and over again, as if by so doing, they can make the lies come true.
Click to expand...

Your opinion vs all the credible polling organizations! :cool:
 
Catawba said:
The far right can wring their hands all they want but it doesn't change the fact than no registry is required by the expanded background checks proposed by the Task Force. 85% of gun owners do not share this paranoia by the far right.
Click to expand...

Ok, no registry is required. Consider this scenario; I own MANY firearms some of which I inherited from grandparents who purchased them prior to any record keeping. Essentially these are on no record anywhere. If UBC’s are enacted how will me selling them or bequeathing them be enforced? If I sell one of these ‘unidentified’ firearms to my neighbor and he gets into an altercation with it then informs LEO’s that I sold it to him, I can merely deny it as it is his word against mine. Did I break the new UBC law? Sure but how will I be prosecuted wo/proof? Essentially what good is an unenforceable law?
 
Catawba said:
An opinion shared only by the far right, which represent less than 15% of voters, according to all the national polls.
Click to expand...

I doubt they have a poll that covers everything I said.
 
Dickieboy said:
Ok, no registry is required. Consider this scenario; I own MANY firearms some of which I inherited from grandparents who purchased them prior to any record keeping. Essentially these are on no record anywhere. If UBC’s are enacted how will me selling them or bequeathing them be enforced? If I sell one of these ‘unidentified’ firearms to my neighbor and he gets into an altercation with it then informs LEO’s that I sold it to him, I can merely deny it as it is his word against mine. Did I break the new UBC law? Sure but how will I be prosecuted wo/proof? Essentially what good is an unenforceable law?
Click to expand...


"The key point that everyone should understand is that Democrats and gun control groups very likely will accept the exemptions and safeguards that will probably end up in the bill. The main goal of Dems and the left is solely to expand the background check system to include virtually all private sales within the law’s current framework, which explicitly guards against the creation of any gun registry."

Bipartisan deal close on expanded background checks
 
stonewall50 said:
I doubt they have a poll that covers everything I said.
Click to expand...

You only have to find a credible poll that backs up your contention that more than a marginal percentage of voters oppose background checks for all gun buyers.
 
Catawba said:
You only have to find a credible poll that backs up your contention that more than a marginal percentage of voters oppose background checks for all gun buyers.
Click to expand...

You mean pointing out ambiguously worded poll questions, and poor sample size, or selected polling locations doesn't count? Hm? As with any "opinion" about law...show me a law that makes it through congress and I might care what a poll says. Btw polls are poor representation of opinions. You can only have a small selection of opinions that are not representative of your true opinion...or only represent a shadow of it. You trade quantity with quality if you like. I will stick with legislation and cold hard facts on the subject. And as usual I laugh at your enthusiasm for a completely unenforceable joke of a concept of legislation.
 
Catawba said:
"The key point that everyone should understand is that Democrats and gun control groups very likely will accept the exemptions and safeguards that will probably end up in the bill. The main goal of Dems and the left is solely to expand the background check system to include virtually all private sales within the law’s current framework, which explicitly guards against the creation of any gun registry."

Bipartisan deal close on expanded background checks
Click to expand...

1. You didn't respond to my questions.

2. Didn't we discuss this article 2 WEEKS AGO when it was published? Has something changed or are you merely retreading a refuted source?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom