• 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
Goshin said:
I seriously question that figure. I don't consider a CBS poll to necessarily be unbiased and credible either.
Click to expand...

It's just a poll and. Little more. Can't tell us all that much. But I'm fine with background checks, and don't think it equals support for a constitutional amendment.
 
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...

I have said this countless times but I will repeat it once more. A "legal" gun buyer is simply an adult US citizen, that can pass an NICS BG check and may later wish to purchase a gun or ammo. Simply indicating on ALL state issued, photo IDs if that citizen is "GUN OK" after passing a NICS background check would suffice, it also makes it EASY to control (limit) ammo sales as well. This system works for driver's licenses, we do not retest each driver everytime they are stopped while driving, we simply check their ID, to see if they are allowed to drive. This system works for selling alcohol and tobacco, we simply look at the ID to determine if the buyer is of legal age. This system even works for cashing checks, boarding commercial aircraft and registering to vote - we simply look at the person's valid, state issued, photo ID and make informed decisions as to their identity and residence. Why we need to repeat this NICS BG status check at the point of sale, each time, and for ONLY guns is insane. The status can change from GUN OK to not so only after conviction for a felony (or drug charge), being adjudged mentally incompetent or serving a judges restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse; on those rare occasions, simply take away that person's state issued, photo ID and update the NICS database.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
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”.
Click to expand...

I guess this just boils down to certain folks thinking any form of regulation violates the 2nd amendment even if those regulations do not stop folks who are mentally stable from acquiring a weapon. Regardless of criminals and mentally unhealthy people having easy access to weapons that are designed to, and excel at taking away life.
 
sbrettt said:
I guess this just boils down to certain folks thinking any form of regulation violates the 2nd amendment even if those regulations do not stop folks who are mentally stable from acquiring a weapon. Regardless of criminals and mentally unhealthy people having easy access to weapons that are designed to, and excel at taking away life.
Click to expand...

As much as you hate it the mentally ill and felons are covered by the second amendment. Go right ahead and check it again if you want though.
 
Henrin said:
As much as you hate it the mentally ill and felons are covered by the second amendment. Go right ahead and check it again if you want though.
Click to expand...
That doesn't advance the argument. If you or someone you know was a victim of gun violence there's question that your view would change immediately. Either that or you're one the mentally unhealthy who shouldn't have access to a weapon.
 
sbrettt said:
That doesn't advance the argument. If you or someone you know was a victim of gun violence there's question that your view would change immediately. Either that or you're one the mentally unhealthy who shouldn't have access to a weapon.
Click to expand...

There is no way to know if my view would change, but I'm leaning heavily towards no judging it against other things that happened in my life and my views.
 
Last edited:
Dickieboy said:
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?
Click to expand...


I did. I've demonstrated to you that any bipartisan bill that gets passed will have exemptions which make your questions moot.
 
stonewall50 said:
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.
Click to expand...


I didn't ask for more far right opinion, I asked for a credible national poll that proves your opinion on background checks has any more than marginal support among voters.
 
sbrettt said:
That doesn't advance the argument. If you or someone you know was a victim of gun violence there's question that your view would change immediately. Either that or you're one the mentally unhealthy who shouldn't have access to a weapon.
Click to expand...

that's silly. and since I shot my way out of a mugging I have a perspective I doubt you can fathom.


the problem with the schemes that big government fans advance is that they mainly impact law abiding people (which of course is the intent anyway)
 
Catawba said:
I didn't ask for more far right opinion, I asked for a credible national poll that proves your opinion on background checks has any more than marginal support among voters.
Click to expand...

in other words you want the far wrong opinion
 
So you agree that someone dangerous who couldn't buy a gun in a gun shop should be able to easily acquire one at a gun show and go and buy 6,000 rounds on ammo online with paper trail? And please provide your rational if you do. Oh and while we're arguing how to I start a new thread. I want people's ideas on we should do about the suicide epidemic we have in the US that none of the folks in DC seem to offer any solutions to?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I have said this countless times but I will repeat it once more. A "legal" gun buyer is simply an adult US citizen, that can pass an NICS BG check and may later wish to purchase a gun or ammo. Simply indicating on ALL state issued, photo IDs if that citizen is "GUN OK" after passing a NICS background check would suffice, it also makes it EASY to control (limit) ammo sales as well. This system works for driver's licenses, we do not retest each driver everytime they are stopped while driving, we simply check their ID, to see if they are allowed to drive. This system works for selling alcohol and tobacco, we simply look at the ID to determine if the buyer is of legal age. This system even works for cashing checks, boarding commercial aircraft and registering to vote - we simply look at the person's valid, state issued, photo ID and make informed decisions as to their identity and residence. Why we need to repeat this NICS BG status check at the point of sale, each time, and for ONLY guns is insane. The status can change from GUN OK to not so only after conviction for a felony (or drug charge), being adjudged mentally incompetent or serving a judges restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse; on those rare occasions, simply take away that person's state issued, photo ID and update the NICS database.
Click to expand...


Are you thinking your proposal is going to be adopted before the bipartisan bill that is being negotiated now?
 
sbrettt said:
So you agree that someone dangerous who couldn't buy a gun in a gun shop should be able to easily acquire one at a gun show and go and buy 6,000 rounds on ammo online with paper trail? And please provide your rational if you do. Oh and while we're arguing how to I start a new thread. I want people's ideas on we should do about the suicide epidemic we have in the US that none of the folks in DC seem to offer any solutions to?
Click to expand...

why should there be a paper trail? and do you think gun shows have different rules than other places.

Suicides are higher in gun free Japan
 
TurtleDude said:
that's silly. and since I shot my way out of a mugging I have a perspective I doubt you can fathom.


the problem with the schemes that big government fans advance is that they mainly impact law abiding people (which of course is the intent anyway)
Click to expand...
So you lucked out man. Give me the number of folks who's lives are saved by guns and if it surpasses the 60,000 victims of weapons annually (I'm including suicides) then we can talk about how these policies will affect folks like you verses criminals and people who tragically took their own life.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's silly. and since I shot my way out of a mugging I have a perspective I doubt you can fathom.


the problem with the schemes that big government fans advance is that they mainly impact law abiding people (which of course is the intent anyway)
Click to expand...



Nope, background checks have not prevented tens of millions of law abiding citizens from buying guns.
 
People that want to end their lives will do so regardless of what you do on guns.
 
Catawba said:
Nope, background checks have not prevented tens of millions of law abiding citizens from buying guns.
Click to expand...

that isn't the parameter used to judge a law

they have not decreased crime rates=that is the proper paradigm

and here is the problem

You are a self admitted gun banner
You want to expand background checks

put the pieces together
 
TurtleDude said:
why should there be a paper trail? and do you think gun shows have different rules than other places.

Suicides are higher in gun free Japan
Click to expand...
That's a stupid question. So when a legally bought gun turns up in a murder law enforcement can figure out who sold it to the mf. Japans is about the same as ours and you still haven't touched our 30,000 murders including mass shootings but nice try. :)
 
sbrettt said:
That's a stupid question. So when a legally bought gun turns up in a murder law enforcement can figure out who sold it to the mf. Japans is about the same as ours and you still haven't touched our 30,000 murders including mass shootings but nice try. :)
Click to expand...

And that does exactly what to keep someone from being killed? Explain it to me.
 
sbrettt said:
So you lucked out man. Give me the number of folks who's lives are saved by guns and if it surpasses the 60,000 victims of weapons annually (I'm including suicides) then we can talk about how these policies will affect folks like you verses criminals and people who tragically took their own life.
Click to expand...

many cases of crimes being thwarted by an armed citizen are never reported. Suicides is not relevant. I prefer people who want to off themselves to use a gun. A girl I grew up with became an orphan at 14 because some asshole who wanted to kill himself decided to do it by driving 120 MPH in a pickup the wrong way on I 71 near Cincinnati. The porsche he hit had this girl and her parents in it. She survived, both her parents died but the scumbag suicidal driver lived. the cops should have shot him on the spot and saved the people a hundred thousand in costs putting him back together, providing him counsel etc

I didn't luck out-I was very well trained. and BTW if I didn't have that Smith and Wesson I would have had to kill both of them with the knife I carried as well. You see if you shoot someone on PCP and you have the gun stuck in their gut it tends to knock them down-the guy survived because I called nearby paramedics. With a knife I would have had to keep cutting until neither one of them moved-ie they would have been dead
 
Catawba said:
Are you thinking your proposal is going to be adopted before the bipartisan bill that is being negotiated now?
Click to expand...

No. What is wanted is a registration system and high fees. Currently records must be kept for all BG checks by FFL dealers, that will not "go away". The nonsense that no records are kept, or will be later, is pure fluff. These negotiations are pure puffery. If they had the votes the bill would have been passed long ago. You do not "negotiate" what is 90% popular and easy to pass. Many of the "reasonable" gun control bills are far from reasonable, as the Feinstein bill makes it a crime to have your AW stolen by a "bad guy", it makes it become the owner's fault for not keeping it "unaccessable" to prohibited persons. These congress critters have no clue what systems will work or we would have had one by now. The misson of the gov't is to maximize gov't involvement, preferrably including taxation or "user fees", all else is secondary to them.
 
sbrettt said:
That's a stupid question. So when a legally bought gun turns up in a murder law enforcement can figure out who sold it to the mf. Japans is about the same as ours and you still haven't touched our 30,000 murders including mass shootings but nice try. :)
Click to expand...

are you really so ignorant of how criminals work to think they are going to leave a gun that is tied to them at the scene of a crime
 
sbrettt said:
So you lucked out man. Give me the number of folks who's lives are saved by guns and if it surpasses the 60,000 victims of weapons annually (I'm including suicides) then we can talk about how these policies will affect folks like you verses criminals and people who tragically took their own life.
Click to expand...

That is insane. Do you propose banning or heavily restricting ALL means of accomplishing suicide or only scary guns?
 
American said:
And that does exactly what to keep someone from being killed? Explain it to me.
Click to expand...
Well if criminals aren't able to get guns at guns shows the same way they can't in gun shops then of course we'll see the murder rate go down. It's common sense. In the same way when one day someone threw a rock of an overpass and killed someone we now have barricades on all overpasses. In what way does doing nothing solve anything? And you wouldn't like me if I ran things. The one thing no one in DC mentions is how easy it is lie on a background check. Why don't we improve background checks. Base them around the polygraph so we can root out liars and the mentally unhealthy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom