• 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
NO

Did making marijuana stop people from growing and consuming? People are so stupid when it comes to guns

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.
 
Quite simply (as I have stated repeatedly) until the legislation is written and polled the only one is that which you hang your hat on and is the mere polling of a concept.


Better know as immense public support compared to most public issues.


I predict that if/when the bill gets written AND includes registration your 90% figure will plummet…care to wager?

Whether it gets passed by this congress or the next one, doesn't negate the almost unanimous support from voters to for background checks for all gun buyers.
 
The sample size is too small to solidly make a claim that this reflects the opinion of the American public, but it is certainly enough to refute the lie that you keep repeating over and over again about there being 90% support for these background checks. It's a lie, it has been proven to be such, and if you wish to retain any vestige of credibility, then you will stop repeating it.

That's some reasoning you've got going there! People are so arrogant when they think they are smarter than 90% of voters.

If you ever had any credibility to begin with, then you now have none at all.
 
Last edited:

If you ever had any credibility to begin with, then you now have none at all.



No credibility among the 10% - 15% that oppose background checks................ I am mortally wounded! :lamo
 
No credibility among the 10% - 15% that oppose background checks................ I am mortally wounded! :lamo

20130302_223935.jpg
 


"AllanHampton, American, Arbo, Baralis, Bob Blaylock, Cephus, ChezC3, Dammitboy!, DashingAmerican, DaveFagan, Fisher, Gipper, Goshin, jamesrage, Jerry, joko104, Kal'Stang, LaMidRighter, lizzie, Lukas105, Lutherf, Muhammed, Mycroft, Navy Pride, Pilot, PirateMk1, Porchev, Rocketman, Shadow Serious, SMTA, stonewall50, Thom Paine, Thrilla, TurtleDude"

34 people opposed to background checks! :lamo


:lamo
 
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.
Actually, many people are smarter than 90% of the voters.

Those who cannot comprehend that fact are extremely stupid.
 
Is that the new bumper sticker for the far right? :lamo
No, it's just the absolute truth whether you like it or not.

Now, I'm sure that many here think it is "unfair" for some people to be a lot more intelligent than others, but that does not negate the facts.
 
Clearly, a distinguishing characteristic which separates the far right from the far wrong.

Fortunately, your side—the far wrong—is not nearly so big as you claim it to be.



90% of US voters compared to your 34 people! :lamo
 
Yes, with some safeguards to protect the rights of gun owners.

1. A convicted felon with a single offense is barred from gun ownership for a period of time, not indefinitely, provided there are no more offenses. For example, he's barred for 10 years, after which he may own a gun again provided he stays clean.
2. There should be a few reasonable exceptions, for example, you're giving or selling a gun to a family member whom you obviously know well and know to not have a criminal background. You're not allowed to give or sell to him/her if he is a disqualified felon.
3. Privacy rights should be guaranteed. The background check information may not be used for anything other than determining the eligibility for the gun purchase.
 
What do you think will feasibly be passed that is more restrictive than what 90% of voters have supported, background checks for all gun buyers? If you have been keeping up with the bipartisan bills in Congress you would realize that what is likely to get passed is simply and expansion of the NICS system to include private gun sellers.

So where is the public opposition to expanding background checks? Not even a single solitary national poll? I didn't think so.

Let me try your debate technique...let's see the legislation!
 
Better know as immense public support compared to most public issues.

...let's see the legislation!


Whether it gets passed by this congress or the next one, doesn't negate the almost unanimous support from voters to for background checks for all gun buyers.

...let's see the legislation!
 
Why are some people against universal background checks? What makes this any different than background checks for other reasons?

They are a waste of time. They also unfairly advantage the rich.

The idea of a universal background check is to force me to sell my gun through an FFL dealer, even if I were to sell to my brother. That would cost time and money. The law ASSUMES that people would follow it. The only people that would follow it are you and me, the law abiding citizens. Catawba doesn't grasp that concept.

Anyone already selling guns illegally would continue to do so. Background checks at a retail establishment are one thing. You risk revenue, you have an established location, witnesses, social security numbers, and a million other ways to track someone who breaks the law and sells to a criminal. On top of that no criminals are being prosecuted for trying to purchase guns (and lying on the form is what they would be prosecuted for).

Now. How would someone police a private sale? If I just decide screw the law, and I trade my brother a handgun for a dirt bike.....well who is going to know? He isn't a criminal. There is no record of that gun. I didn't sell it to him (technically). And if I were a criminal who hasnt been caught yet: that gun could have been stolen already. Or I just report my gun stolen after I sell it...and boom I am now a victim.

The whole concept is misleading. It is ignorant of how enforcement works, and it is ignorant of how criminals work. It only punishes law abiding citizens and forces us to jump through yet another hoop despite the overwhelming evidence that the problem is not with guns, and the overwhelming evidence that the laws in place are not enforced.
 
Yes, with some safeguards to protect the rights of gun owners.

1. A convicted felon with a single offense is barred from gun ownership for a period of time, not indefinitely, provided there are no more offenses. For example, he's barred for 10 years, after which he may own a gun again provided he stays clean.
2. There should be a few reasonable exceptions, for example, you're giving or selling a gun to a family member whom you obviously know well and know to not have a criminal background. You're not allowed to give or sell to him/her if he is a disqualified felon.
3. Privacy rights should be guaranteed. The background check information may not be used for anything other than determining the eligibility for the gun purchase.

The problem is that with rule 3 there is no guarantee. There is no privacy either.
 
90% of US voters compared to your 34 people! :lamo

Hm. Forbes doesn't seem to think you are accurate.

Has Public Opinion Really Changed Regarding Gun Control? - Forbes

That is gun control of course. Now let's combine that with the ambuguity of the question of "universal 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

On top of the horrendous misinformation in this article...there is also the fact that MOST gun show sellers are licensed dealers required to do background checks. The "legal loophole" talk is a hilarious joke. The fact is that this panic stricken concept of "universal background checks" is a poor excuse for a registry for banishment that anti-gun nutters are salivating over. You have clearly demonstrated your lack of a willingness to understand or even read up on this stuff, so I am aware that my posting is irrelevant. You will invariably post something call me a far right 10%er...but you should honestly consider the irrelevance of background checks on private citizens who have never violated the law. That is who you desire to target. That is also who you are impacting. You won't impact criminals.

But at least there is no legislation for this. And a majority of Americans will suppot the shooting down any attempt at the legislation.
 
Yes, with some safeguards to protect the rights of gun owners.

1. A convicted felon with a single offense is barred from gun ownership for a period of time, not indefinitely, provided there are no more offenses. For example, he's barred for 10 years, after which he may own a gun again provided he stays clean.
2. There should be a few reasonable exceptions, for example, you're giving or selling a gun to a family member whom you obviously know well and know to not have a criminal background. You're not allowed to give or sell to him/her if he is a disqualified felon.
3. Privacy rights should be guaranteed. The background check information may not be used for anything other than determining the eligibility for the gun purchase.


Most 2nd amendment rights advocates do not trust the government to do 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. A no records keeping rule can be put into this bill, but it will not prevent some anti-2nd amendment politicians months or years from now repealing that, nor will it prevent a anti-2nd amendment politician at the state level mandating that records be kept at the state level.
 
90% of US voters compared to your 34 people! :lamo

Where do you keep coming up with this 90% of US voters. Link please?
 
I already responded to this question in another thread (there seem to be a LOT of these :mrgreen:). I don't think there is anything wrong with background checks. I think that is reasonable. I don't know how a private owner would be able to perform an adequate background check on a potential buyer though.

What is your solution to that problem?
 
Seventy-four percent of Americans, meanwhile, said that more armed security guards would help prevent mass shootings in public places.

Oh, thanks for posting that. Now I know where the "90%" number is coming from.

It should be noted that this poll only included 1110 people, which is why polls are not always accurate. I also read the 74% number on page 2. Good find. :)
 
Let me try your debate technique...let's see the legislation!

...let's see the legislation!




...let's see the legislation!

No, this is...let's see the legislation!

Not legislation.

To legitimately override what is in the Constitution as it now stands requires a constitutional amendment.

Let's see the amendment.

If there was really the 85% to 90% support for the proposed background check that the far wrong keeps claiming, then there would certainly be a credible effort underway to ratify an amendment to allow it, if not a finished, ratified amendment already in effect. There is no such amendment, there is no credible effort to produce such an amendment, because there is nowhere near the support that it would take to even begin the process.
 
Back
Top Bottom