• 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
I've got no problems with background checks at all.

Seems perfectly reasonable, and responsible.
 
Mine is the 2'nd Amendment is STRICTLY to do with the Militia.

Well at least you have admitted that there is no reason to consider your view any longer or take it seriously. One must jump through the hoops of re-defining words to suggest such things. I wonder if you redefine 'press' as well...
 
Well at least you have admitted that there is no reason to consider your view any longer or take it seriously. One must jump through the hoops of re-defining words to suggest such things. I wonder if you redefine 'press' as well...

And you have a nice day as well.
 
That's your interpretation of the 2'nd Amendment...not mine.

Mine is the 2'nd Amendment is STRICTLY to do with the Militia. So those Americans that are in the miltary/reserves/coast guard should be able to keep their weapons at home and buy them without a background check - everyone else (other then police, security, etc.)? Nope.

And I could care less who or what else interprets the 2'nd Amendment like you.

Imo, mine is right and yours is wrong.


Have a nice day.

I agree, the 2nd amendment was written at a very different time in American history and referred to a very different situation, a time when there was no standing army and every able-bodied, white American man was expected to come to the aid and defense of the nation in times of need and bring their own weapons. They were the militia. Since that time though, we now have a standing army and police forces, people are not only not expected to come to the aid of the country, but are often forbidden to (you try showing up at a riot with a shotgun wanting to help the police and see what happens). Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, which exists to interpret the Constitution, doesn't have the ability to decide that this part or this amendment doesn't apply to the modern world anymore and throw it out, they have to find a way to keep everything in the Constitution relevant, even if it isn't. That's what they get paid for. So they have to keep inventing new relevance, whether it's really there or not.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not against guns by any means, I'm against the mindless reliance on the 2nd amendment as a universal right to own anything that you want to own. I much prefer a rational discussion instead of the fanatical pro-gun side of many conservatives or the fanatical anti-gun side of many liberals.
 
You have no way of knowing is they are 'lying' or not.

'lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
'

Lie - definition of Lie by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


To lie requires intent. Since you cannot possibly know what their inent was (unless they inform you), then there is no possible way you can know if they are lying or not.

They may just be relaying information that is false - without their knowledge that it is false.

Either lying or delusional. It has to be obvious to anyone that there is not anything close to 90% support for any new gun control laws. If there was, then there wouldn't be nearly so much controversy, and if there was, there would be no reason not to pursue a Constitutional Amendment to remove any doubt about the new proposal being Constitutional.

The “universal background check” must surely be the least controversial of all the new proposals. Not only is there not anywhere close to the support for it that it would take to get a Constitutional Amendment ratified to allow it (much less the claimed 90%), but if the poll here on this thread is any reflection, the consensus is almost strong enough the other way that, if necessary, it would probably be relatively easy to get a Constitutional Amendment ratified to prohibit it. Such an Amendment would, of course, be redundant and unnecessary, as the Second Amendment already explicitly prohibits any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, and this unarguably includes making the exercise of this right subject to background checks or other arbitrary government-imposed hoops.

20130225_122615.jpg
 
Earlier in this discussion ttwtt78640 had an idea that everyone when they got their
Drivers license, would have a background check, if you passed, you got field entry on your
license saying YES this person is allowed to buy guns, or NO gun sales allowed.
Within about 6 years every adult, and all new drivers would be checked.
This would also eliminate Government excuses for keeping some background check info.

ttwtt78640 I apologize for my poor stating of your idea!
 
That's your interpretation of the 2'nd Amendment...not mine.

It's not my “interpretation” nor anyone else's. It's what the Second Amendment clearly, explicitly says.

The only people who think there is any need or room to “interpret” the Second Amendment are those who do not agree with it, and do not want it to be obeyed, but are unwilling to go along with the proper amendment process to change the Constitution to correct their disagreement therewith.

Disagreeing with the Constitution is no excuse to disobey it.
 
Last edited:
Earlier in this discussion ttwtt78640 had an idea that everyone when they got their
Drivers license, would have a background check, if you passed, you got field entry on your
license saying YES this person is allowed to buy guns, or NO gun sales allowed.
Within about 6 years every adult, and all new drivers would be checked.
This would also eliminate Government excuses for keeping some background check info.

ttwtt78640 I apologize for my poor stating of your idea!

Anyone wishing to purchase a gun, if UBG became the law, could simply get their ID renewed for a nominal fee, just as you must (may?) do when your address changes. ;)
 
Last edited:
Fixed it for you.

Thank you. Yep. Requiring a valid, state issued, photo ID is only an undue, discriminatory burden (enacted by racists?) to keep minorities down when required for voting (in racist states?); in all other cases, such as buying prescription drugs, alcohol, tobacco, guns or ammo, or when cashing a check or lottery ticket, it is then simply a "reasonable restriction".
 
Roughly ninety percent of Americans support universal background checks. Do you?


So says the New York Times.

And that has been quoted what, 500 times on the forum.

Where is the quoting:

The poll also indicates, however, that the public agrees with the NRA's proposal to protect schools with armed guards, with roughly three-quarters of respondents saying they would help prevent mass shootings to at least some degree, and only a quarter saying they would do little or nothing to help.

Where is our great leader on 75% of people want the government to protect the children they require parents to turn over to the government?

Obama doesn't care about children. Rather, he hopes that somehow background checks my protect him beyond the massive security he already has.

Background checks would not have prevented 1 mass school shooting.
 
It's not my “interpretation” nor anyone else's. It's what the Second Amendment clearly, explicitly says.

The only people who think there is any need or room to “interpret” the Second Amendment are those who do not agree with it, and do not want it to be obeyed, but are unwilling to go along with the proper amendment process to change the Constitution to correct their disagreement therewith.

Disagreeing with the Constitution is no excuse to disobey it.
'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

The text is clearly about the militia - which is why the word was put near the beginning of the text. I suppose they started the text with 'Militia' for fun? It is there because that is what they are discussing.


Now take a wild guess if a) I care much if you agree or not; and b) if I feel like wasting my time discussing something that you obviously have your mind made up on?

If you said 'yes' to both questions?

Bingo!


Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I am one of the 90% that supports universal background checks!
 
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.

Ouch, I almost busted a gut laughing, politicians who are doing what the people want them to do :lamo

Hell would almost have to freeze over before even universal background checks would be put to the vote and being voted on/passed in this US congress (and possibly even this US senate). Senators are scared to death to anger or get on the wrong side of the NRA.
 
Ouch, I almost busted a gut laughing, politicians who are doing what the people want them to do :lamo

Can you, or anyone else, recall any other proposed legislation in the last decade that had this much public support?
 

The text is clearly about the militia - which is why the word was put near the beginning of the text. I suppose they started the text with 'Militia' for fun? It is there because that is what they are discussing.


Look up the uniform code, it's in several threads in the gun section. It is the current law of the land. It says the militia is pretty much ever able bodied person...

Shall you move on to another falsehood now?
 
Can you, or anyone else, recall any other proposed legislation in the last decade that had this much public support?

Nope, but the chances that it will pass through THIS republican controlled congress is small IMHO.
 
Nope, but the chances that it will pass through THIS republican controlled congress is small IMHO.

I am more optimistic, especially with more and more Republicans in Congress expressing their support of background checks. John McCain just joined other GOP senators supporting a bipartisan bill for expanded background checks. On the House side, your Congressional namesake, Peter King just recently went public with his support.

"A coalition of House Republicans is willing to thwart the National Rifle Association’s opposition to broadening background checks for U.S. gun purchases. Representatives Patrick Meehan and Michael Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania are among Republicans expressing openness to expanding the background-check system, including mandatory screening of buyers at gun shows. “We need to consider any option that will keep people safe,” Fitzpatrick said in an interview. "

"Representative Peter King of New York is another Republican who has said he supports universal background checks."

"The coalition of House Republicans is probably no larger than 40, according to advocates of tighter gun restrictions, though it may grow once such measures advance in Congress."

Gun Buyer Background Check Best Chance for New Limits - Bloomberg


John McCain: Background Checks Will Get Broad Support In Senate
 
Well, catawba chimed in. I was waiting for him, haymarket, justabubba, and some of the other oppressive, authoritarian uber-statists to come in here and demand the erosion of freedoms, one at a time.

The first string has been pulled.
 
Well, catawba chimed in. I was waiting for him, haymarket, justabubba, and some of the other oppressive, authoritarian uber-statists to come in here and demand the erosion of freedoms, one at a time.

The first string has been pulled.


As many have noticed, it is only the far right opposed to background checks for gun sales. Did you miss the OP?
 
As many have noticed, it is only the far right opposed to background checks for gun sales. Did you miss the OP?

There are already BGCs for gun sales...
 
As many have noticed, it is only the far right opposed to background checks for gun sales. Did you miss the OP?

Yeah, the 10% of far-rights who don't have even basic cable.

Too bad they weren't hyper-left statists. They could be milking all that free taxpayer money for cable, cigarettes, malt liquor...
 
Look up the uniform code, it's in several threads in the gun section. It is the current law of the land. It says the militia is pretty much ever able bodied person...

I could care less who is eligible for military service. I only care about those who are actually in the military (regular and reserves).

If you have no military training, then you have no business being considered part of the nation's armed forces.

The 2nd Amendment refers to the militia (today's armed forces/reserves).

If you are in the armed forces/reserves (plus cops and the like) then you should be able to buy a gun without a background check.

If not, you should not.


Shall you move on to another falsehood now

A falsehood is a lie. Are you accusing me of lying?

Yes or no?


If the answer is 'yes' - you better provide proof that I lied or this discussion is over.

I don't waste my time with juvenile morons who throw baseless accusations around without cause.

If you want to call me names - let's head to the Dungeon and have at it properly.



Have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
I could care less who is eligible for military service. I only care about those who are actually in the military (regular and reserves).

You are off base... AGAIN. Since you won't do your own homework...

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

It's the law, deal with it. You are WRONG.
 
Back
Top Bottom