Universal Background Check for purchasing a gun

[LukNotLuke]

Really? Post the stats then.

The burden of proof isn't on him, Ishtard.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Really? Post the stats then.

Stats on xfrodobagginsx making pretend it knows what happens when you die? ROFLMAO - we know you can read


That is its whole schtick. And it is a complete lie. And you know it. FFS - It is the thread title of its thread

 

[bellisarius]

Stats on xfrodobagginsx making pretend it knows what happens when you die? ROFLMAO - we know you can read


That is its whole schtick. And it is a complete lie. And you know it. FFS - It is the thread title of its thread

So you got nothing huh?

 

[butters]

how about each (civilian, i suppose) person having the 'right' to own the maximum of 1 rifle and 1 hand gun, with a limited capacity of, say, 6 rounds? 10 would be more than enough for the sorts of situations given as examples of why a person wants to carry a gun. that's not taking away the right to bear arms. who needs more than one of each?

 

[BotanyBoy]

how about each (civilian, i suppose) person having the 'right' to own the maximum of 1 rifle and 1 hand gun,

What's the difference between 1 and 20??

They can really only operate 1 at a time.

with a limited capacity of, say, 6 rounds? 10 would be more than enough for the sorts of situations given as examples of why a person wants to carry a gun.

According to who???

that's not taking away the right to bear arms. who needs more than one of each?

Technically no...but what are you accomplishing other than just being an asshole??

I do.

 

[bellisarius]

AK-47s are banned.

Not really. Hundreds of them out there. You just need a class III license to have one legally and getting a class III isn't a background check, it's a full anal exam.

There are out and out cannons in civilian hands.

 

[Boxlicker101]

how about each (civilian, i suppose) person having the 'right' to own the maximum of 1 rifle and 1 hand gun, with a limited capacity of, say, 6 rounds? 10 would be more than enough for the sorts of situations given as examples of why a person wants to carry a gun. that's not taking away the right to bear arms. who needs more than one of each?

The purpose of the Second A. was to guarantee citizens the right to defend themselves. This would include against violent mobs, such as Antifa. If such a mob were to attack somebody's home or business, that person, with the assistance of younger family members, would be able to defend himself against those who would burn and rob and rape and assault. Those younger members would not be able to own guns themselves, but they would be able to fire the weapons owned by their parents.

ETA: Here is more about what mean:https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/koreatown-twenty-six-years-ago-the-guns-of-the-l-a-riots/


Twenty-six years ago, from April 29 to May 4,1992, much of Los Angeles was ablaze. In the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict, South Central L.A. was consumed by riots and looting. Homes and business were burglarized and destroyed by arson. Law-abiding people and business owners were mugged, beaten and robbed.

The LAPD pulled out and basically told folks in the worst-hit areas that they were on their own. But a small section of Los Angeles known as Koreatown, located just north of South Central, didn’t burn. Why? Because the Korean business owners banded together, exercised their Second Amendment rights and protected their property, their businesses, and their livelihoods. Here are some of the news reports from the riots.

 

[bellisarius]

The purpose of the Second A. was to guarantee citizens the right to defend themselves. This would include against violent mobs, such as Antifa. If such a mob were to attack somebody's home or business, that person, with the assistance of younger family members, would be able to defend himself against those who would burn and rob and rape and assault. Those younger members would not be able to own guns themselves, but they would be able to fire the weapons owned by their parents.

ETA: Here is more about what mean:https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/koreatown-twenty-six-years-ago-the-guns-of-the-l-a-riots/


Twenty-six years ago, from April 29 to May 4,1992, much of Los Angeles was ablaze. In the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict, South Central L.A. was consumed by riots and looting. Homes and business were burglarized and destroyed by arson. Law-abiding people and business owners were mugged, beaten and robbed.

The LAPD pulled out and basically told folks in the worst-hit areas that they were on their own. But a small section of Los Angeles known as Koreatown, located just north of South Central, didn’t burn. Why? Because the Korean business owners banded together, exercised their Second Amendment rights and protected their property, their businesses, and their livelihoods. Here are some of the news reports from the riots.

More than that. The founders were well aware that the biggest threat to liberty were foreign invasions and your own government. Oppression and tyranny. The 2nd amendment is an antidote to both.

Prior to Pearl Harbor the Japanese high command were discussing various strategies should the attack prove successful. The Army staff seriously proposed an invasion of the West coast. Yamamoto, who had spent a great deal of time in the US said to them (paraphrasing), "You are fools to consider such an action. For if you were to invade America you will find a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Now you must ask yourselves why do the leftists, and the more radical they are the more strident they are, want to disarm the citizenry? Is it concern for your safety, or theirs? Because in my estimation there is no way they can get away with their agenda if the citizenry is armed and I believe that they know that as well. They don't give a rats ass about you, only about their own power.

 

[LukNotLuke]

Now you must ask yourselves why do the leftists, and the more radical they are the more strident they are, want to disarm the citizenry? Is it concern for your safety, or theirs? Because in my estimation there is no way they can get away with their agenda if the citizenry is armed and I believe that they know that as well. They don't give a rats ass about you, only about their own power.

It's because you ignorant dumbfuck gun nuts cannot even manage to keep your guns away from your children who then go massacre other children. It's because you ignorant dumbfucks allow the mentally challenged like SpazBot2K to walk into a gun show and pick one up.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

A lot of GB regulars are in absentia.

Pussies.

https://miro.medium.com/max/1276/1*9UEMkgCJBPv3C_D1mXcCqw.jpeg

 

[BoyNextDoor]

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

You guys sure do like to wet your pants over guns.

 

[Hal9000_]

There already is a background check.

Banning crazy people is the answer.

If all guns went away tomorrow, crazy people would still find ways to mass murder.

 

[KeithD]

If all guns went away tomorrow, crazy people would still find ways to mass murder.

But not as conveniently as they now can. This is really a lame excuse not to cut back on civilian access to assault weapons. A really lame excuse.

 

[Hal9000_]

But not as conveniently as they now can. This is really a lame excuse not to cut back on civilian access to assault weapons. A really lame excuse.

The thread is about background checks. Not "assault" weapons. Whatever those are. How are "universal background checks" different than the checks in place now? "Brady Bill" comes to mind.

As usual, you think criminals care about laws. And crazy people will not be able to have access to weapons because of your rules.

How's that philosophy working out with illegal drugs?

 

[KeithD]

The thread is about background checks. Not "assault" weapons. Whatever those are. How are "universal background checks" different than the checks in place now? "Brady Bill" comes to mind.

As usual, you think criminals care about laws. And crazy people will not be able to have access to weapons because of your rules.

How's that philosophy working out with illegal drugs?

Fewer people will have access to assault weapons and more effort can go to going after the criminals. Lame excuses because you just don't care if people are dying. With luck you'll be the one in the wrong place next time. Darwinism in action.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Your voting options are rather limited.


You do know that there are already background checks, or do you not purchase guns?

Maybe you're so shallow that you're just impressed by the name.

Universal Background Check

Does that mean checking outside of the solar system?

 

[SpeareChucker]

Fewer people will have access to assault weapons and more effort can go to going after the criminals. Lame excuses because you just don't care if people are dying. With luck you'll be the one in the wrong place next time. Darwinism in action.

You have no idea as to what "an assault weapon" is...

 

[BotanyBoy]

But not as conveniently as they now can. This is really a lame excuse not to cut back on civilian access to assault weapons. A really lame excuse.

And what about their "not assault weapon" counterparts that are semi-Auto of the same caliber?

Like this *NOT assault weapon* AR15??
https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/frs_15_2-tfb.jpg


Uh oh.....better run away Keith, your ignorance is showing.

 

[icanhelp1]

Not really. Hundreds of them out there. You just need a class III license to have one legally and getting a class III isn't a background check, it's a full anal exam.

There are out and out cannons in civilian hands.

Cut me some slack with the over correcting. There is a ban on fully automatic weapons in the US. I understand with a class III license you can purchase a machine gun but the ban is still a statute.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Cut me some slack with the over correcting. There is a ban on fully automatic weapons in the US. I understand with a class III license you can purchase a machine gun but the ban is still a statute.

If you can get a licence and own it, it's not banned.

 

[JohnnySavage]

You can pass whatever legislation you want, and create hoops for law abiding citizens to jump through to exercise their Constitutional rights. Such will have zero impact on the guns I own, or the guns my neighbors own, or the 300 million other guns already out there.

These mass shootings are horrible, and I wish I knew how to stop them. But the fact is, gun violence is going down, not up. You have a far greater chance of being killed by a drunk driver than an asshole that wants to get on the news by going on a shooting spree.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Amen.

 

[Biggs_Darklighter]

Guns are scary. Probably because they're black, long and hard.

 

[SpeareChucker]

And they say Trump is a racist...