How Do Background Checks Prevent Normal Citizens From Getting Guns?

So what I stated about your opinion that there should be no regulations or background checks to own guns, ANY guns, was true, since you do not deny it. Don't speak to me of logic when you display no abilty to understand what is logical and what is not.

 

You have a bad habit of speaking for me, please stop. Show me my opinion on gun control on this thread....it was you who inserted a opinion for me. Oh and Casper, I have no obligation to you.

My statement is I support 2A in its entirety as with all Amendments until Congress says otherwise. Can we have background check on all Amendments or are you just requesting we single out a right not granted by Government? If so what makes you so special to pick and choose for us simpletons?

I find the progressive stance on 2a is arrogant...and will remind them when they cross the line.

 

Simpletons, don't demean yourself, it is unsightly. Pssst, I support the 2A, you are assuming something your do not know again, but that does not mean we should have no regulations, which I notice you still do say you would be ok with, that says all I need to know. Have fun now, moving on to something a little more intelligent in the way of discussion.

 

I would agree with you, but our Founding Fathers wisely enumerated not just Any militia, but a well regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Some of us have guns because of the possibility that between May and November we may be out of power with limited cell and other phone coverage. I live in hurricane country. It is very possible for me to live in a situation where the police aren't 15 minutes away. Nothing to do with scared or brave. Has to do with self-reliance and preparedness. I also have 5 days worth of food and water, and the means to cook it without electricity. There is nothing imagined about this scenario. I lived with it in 2004.

- - - Updated - - -

And a fair to middling rifleman can take either out.

 

Irrelevant. The system of militia, doesn't matter. Regardless of what the militia is, it required that individual people be able to have their own weapons, and the military grade weapons of the time. Otherwise, you can't join the militia can you?

The militia itself might be regulated, but ability of the people to own weapons, can not. Hence... the right of the people to bare arms, may not be infringed.

In order to reach point B: "A well regulated militia" you must have point A: "The right of the people to bare arms". Thus point A: Shall not be infringed. Period.... discussion over.

 

It can't be "irrelevant" if it is part of our supreme law of the land. A well regulated militia is point A, and the right of the People to keep and bear Arms is point B. You may be confusing a natural right to acquire and posses private property in the class called Arms, with being necessary to the security of a free State.

 

It is irrelevant to the point being discussed. You don't join a militia first, to get the freedom to bare arms. You have the freedom to bare arms, to join a militia. You bringing up militia, in a discussion about freedom to bare arms, is a reverse of order.

And, regardless of what you personally think, the founding fathers said that the right to have property called 'arms' was necessary to the security of a free state. What I may or may not be confusing, doesn't change what the people who built this country, intended.

 

Only a well regulated militia is exempted from State laws regarding gun control that are established for Persons who are specifically, unconnected with militia service.

 

[MENTION=62960]@ Andelusion[/MENTION] ............see?

 

You don't join a militia first, to get the freedom to bare arms. You have the freedom to bare arms, to join a militia. You bringing up militia, in a discussion about freedom to bare arms, is a reverse of order.

And, regardless of what you personally think, the founding fathers said that the right to have property called 'arms' was necessary to the security of a free state. What I may or may not be confusing, doesn't change what the people who built this country, intended.

What you said was wrong. Sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I see. Thanks for the heads up. I might toy with him more for my own amusement, but I'm long past taking him seriously now.

 

It is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not a free Peoples'.

 

I guess the Obama administration is doing something right if crime rates are dropping.

 

idiotic......the rates were dropping before he was a spot on his daddy's leg. Maobama has had nothing to do with it..........

 

Apparently.

More states are relaxing gun laws and making it easier to get a concealed carry permit. The Assault Weapons Ban has expired. More guns than ever are in the hands of private citizens and crime rates are at the lowest they've been in half a century.

I guess that not passing new gun restrictions was the right thing to do.

 

Regardless, its nice to see the rates dropping.

 

I agree completely. I've see dozens of different ideas as to why the rates are dropping. That is all well and good, but I agree - the important thing is that they are dropping.

 

Irrelevant. In order to have a "well regulated militia" the founding fathers said without any qualifications "The right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed".

In order to have point A: a well regulated militia, you must have point B: a right of the people to bare arms must not be infringed.

You don't get to A in order to have B. You have B, so you can have A.

What you say, doesn't matter. This is what the whole point of the right to bare arms was all about.

- - - Updated - - -

Bush must have done something right if the sun came up 2,920 time in a row. Obama hasn't done nearly as well.

 

Have you considered the empirical evidence into explanation?

 

Your point being?

 

your god Maobama has contributed nothing. zip, nada, zilch. He has driven us deeper in the whole to the tune of 14 trillion dollars now owed to China. That effectively has stolen your children's and their children' children's legacy. he has upped the ante using the police state. He is driving businesses under with health care, he has left our borders defenseless, he has knelt before foreign rulers, he has declared us a Muslim Nation, fed the racial trouble in Florida, he spends vast sources of money for entertainment for his family's vacation while telling us we need to tighten our belts. He ignores the Constitution and the system of checks and balances. He has used the tax system to abuse businesses, organizations, and individuals. he spies on friend and foe alike then calls another criminal.
This is the guy you support? he hasn't done one thing for the American people except authorize torture and tax more.
meh................you can move him into your house and pay for it

 

Your allegations are all patently false.

 

the part about him being your god was harsh and I apologize.
If he is the man you support is correct....
now which part is patently false, that you do not support him or do you deny that he has done these things

 

I am not sure how you reached your conclusion.

It is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not a free Peoples'.

States have a States' right to secure their domestic Tranquility and Security.

 

The thing is that there are so many factors it seems to be impossible to isolate specific ones. For instance:

- Gun laws are being relaxed and the number of guns in the population is rising.
- The percentage of individuals who own guns is reducing.
- Crime prevention methods have changed
- Legalized abortion has most directly impacted the populations that are most likely to become criminals
- The number of people using social programs has increased
- Three strikes laws have eliminated many repeat offenders

Those are the ones that I've heard and seen studies to confirm that just pop into my head right now. I've seen dozens of others that pick different factors. I've never seen, and am unlikely to see, a study that actually factors in most or all of them. It would just take a prohibitive sample size in order to have enough data in order to factor out everything except the desired variable.