• 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!

Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

Are ANY government regulations of the 2nd Amendment acceptable?


  • Total voters
    70
No...The debate is now much simpler than that:

We have already agreed that a background check is reasonable....

So...


How much time is reasonable for a background check??


Will you answer that question?

I don't care anymore.

Have a good night.
 
I thank you for giving a straight answer to a simple question!

I really don't understand why the others wont answer me??

Thank you!


You were answered repeatedly, and were being deliberately disingenous in pretending otherwise, in an effort to be annoying. That's called trolling, my little cloven-hooved imp.
 
I thank you for giving a straight answer to a simple question!

I really don't understand why the others wont answer me??

Thank you!

I think they did.

The bit about "a background check normally takes about 20 mins, always less than an hour".
 
I would say "nice try" but it wasn't.

You couldn't possibly have failed to understand that I was telling you that a background check typically takes 20 minutes, and therefore a week is not reasonable.

OK...so are you saying that a 20 minute background check would be a reasonable amount of time to perform?
 
I think they did.

The bit about "a background check normally takes about 20 mins, always less than an hour".

So do we have somewhat of a consensus here that 20 minutes for a background check would be a reasonable amount of time?
 
So do we have somewhat of a consensus here that 20 minutes for a background check would be a reasonable amount of time?

No.

They were telling you that a background check actually takes that amount of time currently. "Reasonable" had nothing to do with it.
 
No.

They were telling you that a background check actually takes that amount of time currently. "Reasonable" had nothing to do with it.


So everyone agrees that a background check is reasonable but no one is willing to say how long a time period they would consider reasonable???

Why??
 
So everyone agrees that a background check is reasonable but no one is willing to say how long a time period they would consider reasonable???

Why??

You are being preposterous. No, everyone did not, necessarily, agree that a background check was reasonable. Everyone has been too busy trying to get you to admit that you've been told repeatedly how long a background check takes, and to stop being deliberately disingenuous for your own amusement.

You're obviously not going to argue honestly, so bye now. :2wave:
 
I really don't understand what the time limit problem is. If you all say 20 minutes....FINE.

Or......

Is the real problem that some of you really don't feel any background check is reasonable & therefore won't commit yourselves to putting a time limit on it?
 
You are being preposterous. No, everyone did not, necessarily, agree that a background check was reasonable. Everyone has been too busy trying to get you to admit that you've been told repeatedly how long a background check takes, and to stop being deliberately disingenuous for your own amusement.

You're obviously not going to argue honestly, so bye now. :2wave:


Look...if you are saying I'm taking my ball & going home....fine...& have a nice night.

If you are changing your mind about background checks being OK...then let's be honest & say so.
 
If it weren't for private firearms we wouldn't have America, so how's that for a "benefit to society" :2razz:

With lots and lots of help from the French, Spanish, and Dutch...

you know, those "socialist" countries with nationalized healthcare that's better and cheaper than our system.

...maybe they can again help us, this time in a battle over corporate tyranny? :mrgreen:
 
I'm going to end now because some of you guys have moved the goal posts & now don't want to play anymore.
If anyone cares to discuss this seriously again, I'll be around.

I'll stick with my original opinion:

1. Background checks are reasonable to weed out felons & pedophile.
2. 1 week is a reasonable amount of time to have to wait for this background check to be performed.
 
Last edited:
I really don't understand what the time limit problem is. If you all say 20 minutes....FINE.

Or......

Is the real problem that some of you really don't feel any background check is reasonable & therefore won't commit yourselves to putting a time limit on it?

ARGGGGG!!!!!

Now:

According to several posters in this thread, a background check takes between 20-60 minutes to complete. If they are correct, then it is a fact. Not debatable.

Thus, one must conclude that a reasonable amount of time for a background check is the amount of time it takes to complete said background check.

Simple.

If you cannot understand this, you are either intentionally pretending to be extremely obtuse, or are currently under an altered state of mind for one reason or another. Or you are actually quite stupid. Previous discussions indicate that you are not stupid. So the first two possibilities are most likely.

As to opinion on the question of “Should there be a background check requirement or not”, I do not know their answers.
 
ARGGGGG!!!!!

Now:

According to several posters in this thread, a background check takes between 20-60 minutes to complete. If they are correct, then it is a fact. Not debatable.

Thus, one must conclude that a reasonable amount of time for a background check is the amount of time it takes to complete said background check.

Simple.

If you cannot understand this, you are either intentionally pretending to be extremely obtuse, or are currently under an altered state of mind for one reason or another. Or you are actually quite stupid. Previous discussions indicate that you are not stupid. So the first two possibilities are most likely.

As to opinion on the question of “Should there be a background check requirement or not”, I do not know their answers.

I understand & even will say I accept the 20-60 minute background check as reasonable.

I think the real problem we are running into here is not the amnount of time but this:

As to opinion on the question of “Should there be a background check requirement or not”, I do not know their answers.

What is YOUR answer to that question?
& do you think I'm right or wrong about that being the real problem with the others?
 
Last edited:
What is YOUR answer to that question?
& do you think I'm right or wrong about that being the real problem with the others?

I think, if a background check only takes 20-60 mins, than it is at least somewhat reasonable. I haven't really thought about it.

As to your second question, I cannot read minds, and have no idea.
 
I am against background checks. The government has no business imposing preconditions to rights.
 
I am against background checks. The government has no business imposing preconditions to rights.

Ah.......At least we finally get an honest statement!:applaud

(& no personal attack deemed necessary)
 
Last edited:
I am against background checks. The government has no business imposing preconditions to rights.

And how will you feel when...a school full of children is massacred by some institutionally insane man, because he could get a gun anywhere, anytime???
 
With lots and lots of help from the French, Spanish, and Dutch...

Actually, we didn't get all that much help from the French and no help from the Spanish, or Dutch, but believe whatever revisionist history you want.


And how will you feel when...a school full of children is massacred by some institutionally insane man, because he could get a gun anywhere, anytime???


That guy isn't going to go legally purchase a brand spanking new gun for that, for one. For two, if he has a clean record and he goes to purchase a brand spanking new gun for that purpose, the background check screwed the pooch. Yes?
 
(BTW, I am again amazed that you didn't know NICS doesn't take a week?).


Missed this the first time through.....Are we back to "You're a liar & never were a LEO argument?

especially after this from yesterday??
Thanks, I'd say that pretty much settles that.

I think I owe a certain Devil an apology.
 
Missed this the first time through.....Are we back to "You're a liar & never were a LEO argument?

He did not say anything even close.

Nice ad-hom though. :roll:

Pot meet kettle
 
And how will you feel when...a school full of children is massacred by some institutionally insane man, because he could get a gun anywhere, anytime???

If criminals do not obey the law in the first place then why would they obey anti-2nd amendment laws? If the guy has no record then what good does a back ground check do any ways? And if the guy does have a record why would he go the legal route to purchase a firearm?
 
And how will you feel when...a school full of children is massacred by some institutionally insane man, because he could get a gun anywhere, anytime???
Appeal to emotion fallacy. Fail.
 
And how will you feel when...a school full of children is massacred by some institutionally insane man, because he could get a gun anywhere, anytime???


Sweet!

How will you feel when a person goes to a school and shoots up the place? err.. oh.. wait.. it's already happened. :( :(

k... How will you feel when a person goes nuts and shoots everyone in a federal building? oh... err... uh.. yeah... those damn gun free zones.

k... lets see.. how will you feel when a person goes nuts and shoots up an NRA convention, or gun show? OH.. you won't.. cause it won't happen.. WHY? Because the ****ing ***** that'd shoot up other places where people are disarmed wouldn't dare shoot up a place where he'll be met with equal force in return.

How hard is that to grasp?

Actually, we didn't get all that much help from the French and no help from the Spanish, or Dutch, but believe whatever revisionist history you want.



That guy isn't going to go legally purchase a brand spanking new gun for that, for one. For two, if he has a clean record and he goes to purchase a brand spanking new gun for that purpose, the background check screwed the pooch. Yes?

It's pointless arguing with the hoplophobes.
 
Back
Top Bottom