Gun ownership poll

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Not a single person has said, implied, or intimated that the mentally deranged, convicted violent offenders etc. have an unrestricted right to firearms.

I am continually amused that it keeps coming back to arguing things that are irrelevant or fictional. Background checks are already the law (nobody has yet been able to post specifically what they mean by strengthening them after they learn this), assault rifles have not been available for teens to buy since 1986 when the registry closed and it became a serious federal crime, and nobody is advocating arming mental patients and prisoners. It is easier, of course, to argue against fantasy positions of what people wish somebody else had said, but it is a silly straw man.

People have, in fact, already answered the question about the need to strengthen the background check process. They are routinely not done in time to stop a sale. They should be done.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna36391

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna36391

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

People have, in fact, already answered the question about the need to strengthen the background check process. They are routinely not done in time to stop a sale. They should be done.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna36391

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna36391

Actually running them doesn’t require “strengthening” the law. The FBI can simply run them through NICS; an automated system, as is in its name. The FBI doing its job under the law doesn’t require a new law, it’s already there.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Actually running them doesn’t require “strengthening” the law. The FBI can simply run them through NICS; an automated system, as is in its name. The FBI doing its job under the law doesn’t require a new law, it’s already there.

If the law says there has to be a background check before a gun sale happens and that is not being done, the law clearly needs to be enforced better. Instead of arguing against the semantics of it do you agree with that at least?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

If the law says there has to be a background check before a gun sale happens and that is not being done, the law clearly needs to be enforced better. Instead of arguing against the semantics of it do you agree with that at least?

It’s not semantics; some of the participants simply do not know the laws and propose bizarre or vague things as a result. There has been talk of strengthening them, without defining what that means. The law gives the state plenty of time to do it. It’s an automated check in an instant system. They can do them if they wanted too. The laws allows them too. There is nothing to change there. If you’d like for the FBI to be competent, that is an entirely separate matter than anything I said.

Do I think it needs to be done better? This has been answered several times. Background checks clearly are not in accord with the Constitution (you do not need the state to approve your mouth to practice free speech, you do not need the state to give you permission after they look into you to have a right to not incriminate yourself, etc.), but background checks don’t really bother me. Personally I don’t think it makes much of a real difference whether the FBI is incompetent or not in this regard. Background checks do not seem to work at their goal. The vast majority of them are performed with seemingly little to no impact. It is a quixotic quest to create a Utopia where people are only murdered with older technology tools that are more palatable to a political faction. That ship sailed before 1776.

[ALR-bishop]

Welcome to the board Desi. You mentioned baseball cards, what do you collect ?