Gun Purchase Without Background Check | What's Your Stance?

That was definitely a failure of the people in the system, but current laws should have stopped this guy. Unfortunately the current laws weren't enforced in that case.

 

The Constitution does not stipulate that we need a well regulated militia, only that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state. 10 USC 311 states as one of the classes of militia as "(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. "

 

he was able to do it because the state lost his paperwork. he passed background checks while building his collection.

 

you should know, Obama had BATF buying the cartels guns for years.

 

If someone can't be trusted with a gun, maybe just maybe they shouldn't be trusted to roam free in our society. Is that such a novel concept?

If we will never be able to trust a criminal with a gun for the rest of his life, perhaps he should never be released from prison. If we cannot trust illegal aliens with guns, perhaps they should be deported immediately. If there are people who are so dangerous they cannot be trusted with a gun, I do not want them roaming around free in our society.

 

I'm on the fence (kinda-sorta)...

I truly wish that I could trust the feds to do this, but their consistent record of incompetence and corruption precludes this possibility. If the feds get this authority, the most likely outcome will be more people dying from nuts and criminals. Who will the liberals blame then?

I'd rather have everyone armed.

 

What difference does it make if the cartels are getting their guns from the BATF or good ol' American entrepeneurs? Do you feel you have to monopolize everything?

 

Yep and Yep. On the other hand, the NRA wants to make it so that the system never gets a chance to stop guys like this.

 

Pure BS. Got a link to that?

 

/that's bullcrap....

 

$20 tax. Let's put a $20 surcharge on cable TV subscribers for access to CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC to cut down on brainwashing.

 

Since most people who tune in to those shows, along with Faux News and most of 'talk radio', are already brainwashed and merely looking reaffirmation and emotional reinforcement of their own biases, a tax wouldn't cut down on that.

Re the OP, requiring proof of completion of firearms training and safety courses, like how to keep children from getting hold of them in your home, before purchase is no problem for me. The background checks could be done at that point, during the training course. It should be a Federal issue, and states left out of any interference in the process other than criminal record and mental history checks. Means testing is also desirable, since low income people should have the same opportunities for self-defense as middle and upper class types, and allowed a subsidy or issued a voucher for acquiring military firearms that are being decommissioned.

So, no, I have no problem with background checks, but I also think the Federal government should facilitate firearms ownership, as per the 'militia' clause in the Constitution, while individuals can freely choose not to own them if they so desire. I also have no problem with the Federal government having the right to 'deputize' gun owners for civil defense and emergency reasons as it sees fit re that same militia clause.

 

Don't understand your Constitution eh? What part of the Constitution would give the federal government the right to dictate these things within a State or have you ignored States rights and the Federal Commerce clause?

 

This is an opinion thread, and that is my opinion. If you want to babble and play semantic games with the general hypocrisy and farces of American legal history and the fatuousness of the Rehnquist Court and cognitive dissonances of Clarence Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts re their contradictory rulings and opinions on commerce clause cases like the 'States' Rights' farce re gun control and Federal marijuana laws involving denying the rights of states like California to legalize pot, to name just one contradiction, feel free to start a thread on it. Your own understanding of legal history and its inconsistencies is obviously more flawed than mine. I don't happen to be a fan of the 'States' Rights' scam; it's been so abused and warped it's become nothing but a hindrance and another layer of government, an unnecessary one that became obsolete as a practical matter with the coming of steam ships, railroads, and the telegraph.

 

You are right. Opinion does not have to deal in the real world or facts. Feel free to mentally masturbate some more.

 

What's to link? Righties oppose background checks.

 

Yep, that's what it is. A rollicking free-for-all of a farce.

 

Nah, it's not bullcrap. There are more people resisting background checks than are trying to take away your guns.

Couldn't help but notice your avatar. One of my favorite movies.

 

If there were laws on the books in Minnesota, it's my guess that the Reps refused to fund the enforcement part. Not sure, but chances are good.

 

Try this - Republicans in Minnesota probably blocked funding for paperwork and enforcement. That's the usual scenario, ain't it; pass legislation to appease the majority, refuse to fund to appease the donors.

 

What majority? ....so with an accusation such as this, but surely, of course, you have one to three links to support any of this BS. Or are your thoughts based on being a gun expert?
subjects................always wishing for a king to lead them, telling them how to wipe their rear ends.............

 

in my view the background check is a proper move. it is a peculiarity of our sick society - there's a strong possibility that some lunatic or offender can arm himself.

 

ya mean like Feinstien, or Schummer or Reid, or Obama.................yer (*)(*)(*)(*)ed right

 

yes (*)(*)(*)(*)ed right, which one of them slaughtered 26 people in an elementary school?

 

Which law stopped that slaughter? What law will?