Background checks for gun purchases?

[rooky1985]

What bans are you talking about? the ban on larger magazines? I have been looking and this issue remains very hot. It remains hot to the point that republicans who conventionaly take a hard line against any gun control at all are softening. This is an indicator. If Obama's plans come to fruition and the rank and file gun owner is not materialy affected then you will see as I have projected, another reductdion in the already waining power of the Republican party - another hard line they have taken that will backfire just as the fiscal cliff fiasco diminished them and just as the debt limit will put them in even more of a mess.

I am talking about the ban on specific weapons. I am on the fence about limiting magazines, with that said, I do not agree with a radical decrease. A 15rd limit would not affect the current weapon platforms, and would provide a more realistic law than 7 rounds IMO. If you do not own semi-auto weopons then I'm sure it is hard to see how proposterous a 7 round limit is. Would the police be subject to a 7 round limit?

 

[NLXSK1]

I am talking about the ban on specific weapons. I am on the fence about limiting magazines, with that said, I do not agree with a radical decrease. A 15rd limit would not affect the current weapon platforms, and would provide a more realistic law than 7 rounds IMO. If you do not own semi-auto weopons then I'm sure it is hard to see how proposterous a 7 round limit is. Would the police be subject to a 7 round limit?

Of course not. But again, you cant buy a 20 oz soft drink in NY, why does a 7 round limit surprise you?

I want to know if the Mayor's bodyguards will be limited to 7 round weapons...

 

[rooky1985]

Of course not. But again, you cant buy a 20 oz soft drink in NY, why does a 7 round limit surprise you?

I want to know if the Mayor's bodyguards will be limited to 7 round weapons...

I should not be surprised NY sucks, and you know the answer to question just like I did. I just hope that some of these more "progressive" states do not follow, 7 rounds is just stupid to me. My very first 22 rifle held more than 7.

 

[NLXSK1]

I should not be surprised NY sucks, and you know the answer to question just like I did. I just hope that some of these more "progressive" states do not follow, 7 rounds is just stupid to me. My very first 22 rifle held more than 7.

It should get overturned by the supreme court but the legal gun owners of NY have only a year to get rid of the guns and there will not be a case brought before that time limit.

This forces current legal gun owners to become criminals in order to retain their safety.

The government does not give a shit about your individual safety, they only care about their own.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Well we certainly agree, you and I have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms, but even that right is, as all other rights, subject to regulation and moderation. That seems to be something that those who, when they think of the Bill of rights, think only of the 2nd, tend to ignore. No rights in the Constitution are absolute and unfettered. What makes anyone believe that the 2nd is an exception?

Only in your progressive playpen, where you experiment with social engineering, could anyone think that.

 

[Mr Neutron]

I hold that property and ownership trumps that portion of the 2nd.... That, is constitutional to my way of thinking.

So, then forcing private businesses to serve people that they do not want to serve is....?

 

[Mr Neutron]

A lot of them contain that sort of language NL

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Your right to speech shall not be abridged- and yet there are places you may not speak (like, for instance, in my place of business), you may not incite to violence although language that incites is a part of free speech. Slander is prohibited in speech, liable is prohibited in our freedom of the press. There are limits as to where we can assemble, how many can assemble and how we are to go about expressing our gievances.

Why do so many believe that it is only the 2nd is limitless in the extreme?
"

If you cause harm through your free speech, you've broken the law. Same with any right. You are free to own firearms as long as you conduct yourself as an adult.... oh, sorry, you don't know what that is like.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Really? yet many have no qualms about "infringing" on the ability of a woman to obtain an abortion.

Do you mean the right to end a life?

Those who balk at a waiting period of several days in order to purchase a firearm have no problem imposing just such a waiting period on a woman's right to an abortion. There are those who are considerably dismayed when any test or "background check" is proposed in order to obtain a firearm but enthusiastically impose requirements of vaginal ultrasound and other invasive procedures if a woman wants to abort.

Yeah, an abortion is hardly invasive.

Rights seem to be valuable to some and not so much to others. Liberty itself is a strangely viewed thing.

Only to those of limited capacity, who don't understand it or don't believe in it.

THose who hold the 2nd as most sacred see the right to ownership as equal in importance yet they don't see one's right to ownership of one's own body as being of mcuh value at all when it comes to another's right to that same thing.

Oh but we do, you are totally wrong... as usual.

 

[Flaming Pie]

Holy shit, is someone honestly complaining about a waiting period for abortions? I didn't think they had those. And if they do, and the woman is SO sure, why would it make a difference?

 

[Flaming Pie]

Now you are reduced to the same old NRA talking points. What happens with the gun worshipers (I don't label you one by the way) is that they take a cue from a discussion and then switch gears in hopes that the original argument will go away. Nowhere have I advocated the confiscation of all firearms from the American Public. Nowhere have I demeaned gun owners by claiming that they are all hunters or that they have no right to self protection. You have brought in "the polite society" but your argument is seriously flawed by recent events. We are the most heavily armed society in the world and yet, school shootings, kindergarden killings, theater mass killings are not the hallmark of a "polite society".

I find it intersting that the right sides with "disadvantaged women and the elderly" when it comes to arming them but when it comes to feeding them and providing them with reasonable and reasonably priced health care, they can go fend for themselves. Strikes me as a bit disingenuous considering that those classes of folk are far more in danger of malnurishment and easily cured diseases than they are of being in a risky positions where they can shoot themselves out of trouble.

I have not known any person to say fuck the elderly. That is why we have food stamps and medicare.

 

[Flaming Pie]

There are those who are considerably dismayed when any test or "background check" is proposed in order to obtain a firearm but enthusiastically impose requirements of vaginal ultrasound and other invasive procedures if a woman wants to abort.

Why is a ultrasound an invasive procedure?

 

[Mr Neutron]

AH! YOU are "comfortable" with the banning of fully automatic weapons and grenades. Why? why have you drawn the line at these things? Isn't removing your ability to defend yourself by any means available your constitutional right?

One more thing, I notice you have been keeping on the subject and you are to be commended but you get nearr to the theoretical with your last statement. "figure out a way to reduce crime...". The gun toters tend to switch to the theoretical when things get close to home, when we begin to talk about children's heads and arms being blown off and rather than contend with that reality they opt to speak of "crime". There are many on the left who see this conversation as a way to "reduce violent crime". They are in the wrong argument. These laws have nothing to do with reducing crime or even violent crime in the conventional sense - they cannot. We will not reduce conventional armed assault or the killling of one or two people at a time in passion or greed. What is being talked about here is the reduction of the ability for crazy people to take dozens of lives simply because of the technology that is easily aquireable currently. That is the reality of he national discussion.

I think the reality is that we are creating these crazies and NOBODY wants to even consider it, let alone deal with it.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Now how is that so different than my wanting to remove your weapons from you in the interest of preserving the life of someone who otherwise might be shot on her school ground.

Gun confiscation, now?

 

[Mr Neutron]

How, exactly do you figure that Obama is "trying to change the 2nd Amendment"?

And I think you will see that the NRA's intransigence and unwillingness to join in attempts to slow this sort of trend will reveal them for what they are - a master lobbying object for the arms industry. This battle will cost them dearly and afford Obama even more political power.

But the NRA IS willing to confront the problem but not with Genius Joe's plan.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Nowhere have I advocated the confiscation of all firearms from the American Public.

Now how is that so different than my wanting to remove your weapons from you in the interest of preserving the life of someone who otherwise might be shot on her school ground.

Hmmmm, sounds like confiscation to me.

 

[Mr Neutron]

We are the most heavily armed society in the world and yet, school shootings, kindergarden killings, theater mass killings are not the hallmark of a "polite society".

They are not the hallmark of this society, either.

 

[Mr Neutron]

I find it intersting that the right sides with "disadvantaged women and the elderly" when it comes to arming them but when it comes to feeding them and providing them with reasonable and reasonably priced health care, they can go fend for themselves. Strikes me as a bit disingenuous considering that those classes of folk are far more in danger of malnurishment and easily cured diseases than they are of being in a risky positions where they can shoot themselves out of trouble.

I find it interesting that you continue to get EVERYTHING wrong. So now, the gun rights advocates want to starve and otherwise let die, women and elderly. Where do you come up with this crap? Idiots are Us?

 

[Mr Neutron]

Why is that radical? how about 12 rounds? 23 rounds? 41 rounds? What will a national background check accomplish what are we checking for? How is a limit of a 5 round clip or magazine a violation of your 2nd amendment rights?

Because it limits my ability to defend myself against the criminal who has a 6 shot mag.

 

[NLXSK1]

Because it limits my ability to defend myself against the criminal who has a 6 shot mag.

Not only that but it lets the criminal know that if he has a 10 shot mag you are going to have to reload... Well, unless you are a criminal....

 

[Mr Neutron]

a 7 round limit does not conflict with the 2nd Amendment

It most certainly does.