How Do Background Checks Prevent Normal Citizens From Getting Guns?

Well, I used an amazing concept called "Basic English". This involves things like "sentence structure".

If I said:

"A human being living longer than a week, which is necessary to the survival of the species, his access to water must not be denied."

No one would ever conclude that the meaning of this, is that a human must survive longer than a week without any water, in order to be granted access to water.

The basic English, and sentence structure, is exactly the same as:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

The only reason anyone tries to reverse the horse and the cart in this line, is because you can't deny it in the other. Most people would become unhappy if they were denied anything to drink for an entire day. Let alone a week.

But with arms, many people have never handled a weapon, and a fraction of that have joined a militia, so it's easier to pretend that Basic English, doesn't matter, and what the writers really meant was that they have to join a militia first, and then somehow are bestowed a right to bare arms.

Ironically, in 1875, they already hashed this out. The US Supreme Court agreed with what I just said, and what the founding father intended.

The right to bare arms is not granted by the constitution. It was an inalienable right. It was a right human beings have by default. The constitution simply restated this fact, by clearly spelling out, this right CAN NOT be infringed by congress. Period.

 

Yet, you don't seem to have a coherent argument. The first clause of our Second Amendment clearly limits the context of the second clause.

And, you seem to be missing the point about not just Any militia, but only a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State and clearly enumerated so in our Second Amendment.

 

now watch him start chasing his tail............I know, many of us have gone through this with him and he fails every time

 

Only when those of the opposing view can reach a quorum with their bandwagon.

 

first of all, owning a gun is a right

background checks make it a privilege for the choose few

who decides who the chosen few are?

I do not care if your an ex-convict or a ex-mental case.. if your well enough to live on your own, your well enough to protect your home and family

.

 

Only a well regulate militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.

 

Ok, well at this point, having talked to virtually everyone else but you, not one professor at my college, not one PhD I have I talked with, not one court case I can find, says what you say.

Nor have I met an English major, who understands basic English, and sentence structure, ever claim that's how you read a sentence.

In fact, I haven't even met any other pro-gun-control leftists, who follows your non-English version of that line. They just simply disagree with it. Which is fine, I can handle that, and still have an intelligent discussion.

But this..... No, you are wrong, you apparently can't see that, or perhaps you are product of bad public education (which wouldn't surprise me). Regardless, this discussion is over. There is no point in me continuing to discuss the topic, when you can't even grasp the simplest of English lessons.

Thanks for chatting. Hope you relearn English.

- - - Updated - - -

Yup. He's in his own private world, where even the fundamentals of English, bend to fit his desired views. Sadly, it's generally people like this, that never get anywhere in life, and never understand why.

 

Yes, we'll be ignoring you now, since you have turned into a broken record of false claims.

 

DC v. Heller paragraph (2) supports my claim, while denying and disparaging your claim.

 

Cool story. If you read my post, you might have noticed I was responding to someone accusing all gun control advocates of being cowards...
As for your specific situation, how many times did you have to repel barbarian hoards in 2004?

 

Wow, that's a lot of rambling to respond to... In relation to the specific cases you have raised, wouldn't it have been better if it weren't so darned easy for the criminals to have obtained firearms in the first place?
You refer to me using circular logic, then post a novel that effectively says "We all need guns to protect ourselves from all the people with guns"....

 

Oh, you have the statistics?
Please provide me a statistic that illustrates how likely the average citizen is to become the victim of crime and illustrate that this probability is higher than a gun owner becoming the victim of a shooting (accidental or otherwise).

 

Can you please point out where I said our society has zero crime?
Of course not, because your entire position is a strawman.

 

Ditto.

And how many of those dead victims of crime were killed by a criminal with a firearm?
My position is that it is not sensible to start a miniature version of the Cold War in every neighbourhood in the country.

Until their guns get stolen.

 

Well that's a nice thought, but not possible. There is nothing you can do to make it less easy for a criminal to get a gun.... because they are criminals. They don't follow the law.

Again, if we could just pass a law to 'make it harder for criminals to get X', then why don't we pass a law to make it harder for criminals to get Heroin? So we have a law controling Heroin, and they are ignoring that. So now we need a law, to make it illegal to violate the Heroin law, or you go to prison. Well they are violating that too. So now we need a 3rd law, to make it REALLY BAD to violate the first two laws. And they violate that one.....

Because they are criminals.... they don't follow the law, so it does not matter what the law is.

Gun smuggling happens all the time. Further you can assemble a gun from mail order parts. What are you going to do about that? Back ground check mail order? You can build a gun on a home lathe. What are you going to do about that? Back ground check home lathes? You can have a CNC machine, cut parts to build a gun from blocks of metal. What are you going to do about that? Back ground check CNC machines, and purchases of blocks of metal? You can even build a gun from a 3-D printer, with downloaded plans from the internet. What are you going to do about that? Back ground check people with computers and 3-D printers?

The entire concept of passing laws to prevent people from breaking laws, is dubious. It never works, never has, and never will. You pass laws, to punish people who break them. Not pass laws, in hopes they won't break other laws.

 

I just posted a link of 3 people that were tied up by two men, and a boy got free, and got the families pistol, and drove off the attackers, who openly said they were going to kill them before leaving.

So they escaped only because of that gun. 3 lives were saved because of a gun.

As to the statistics that I was referring to, all you need to do is go over to the first post of the UK Gun Control Myth thread, and see them.
http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-control/310053-uk-gun-control-myth.html

It's very clear that a less armed society has more crime.

You can see the same thing in Australia.

Now between individuals, of course not. A criminal has little ability to know who owns a gun, and who does not. That's why in places where guns are allowed, crime declines, even if no one actually has a gun. And equally, crime increases with gun control, even if some still have guns.

 

And yet, in countries where people are not allowed to have weapons, crime is drastically higher. Back 60 years ago, nearly everyone had guns. Schools even had shooting clubs. And crime was a tiny fraction of what it is today.

I lived in a home with guns, my entire life, to this present day. To date, not once has a gun been stolen, from my parents, or myself.

 

Thank you for resorting to fallacy for your Cause and not having a rational argument for your point or line of reasoning.

 

Thank you making one of the most ironic posts I have read to date. I take it you have mirrors where you live?

 

DC v. Heller paragraph (2) supports my claim, while denying and disparaging your claim.

 

lol....you'll get tired or the other one real soon too. Both are circular and single tracked like a toy train

 

As if only in one specific year, do barbarian hoards appear?

Maybe you missed the 1992 LA riots, where Koreans defended themselves and their property from barbarian hoards, with AR-15s and other hand guns.

Or maybe you missed where in 2005, after Katrina, barbarian hoards of looters were repelled from neighborhoods, who defended themselves with guns.

I have personally in just the last few years, come to realize just how thin the veil of civilization really is. How many times even in the last decade, have we seen in moments the authority break down, riots, looting, and burning down of society, and when that happens, the only thing between you and the hoards, is your ability to defend yourself?

I would hope that no one would ever have to defend themselves with anything. But the fact is, you don't know what will happen. You think you do, but that is mere pride and arrogance that nothing will happen to you. In reality people are brutalized every day, and the one thing that can save them, is not a government law, or some pepper spray. It's a gun.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah, I'm done with him on this topic. He hasn't proven himself incapable of rational thought yet, so I want /ignore him.... yet. But I won't waste my time with his mythical world responses.

 

It's all about giving the criminal element a fair break when they break into your house. He really feels sorry for the criminal. They are so misunderstood while they slay families. He's circular........watch
He prefers to see an entire nation as criminals and victims because the progressive Libs need a cause...........more victims. "See, we need even more laws now that crime has exceeded the expectations of common sense".

 

Appealing to ignorance of our supreme law of the land is no excuse. Unlike those of the opposing view, I am bearing true witness to our own supreme law of the land, simply for the sake of morals and on a not for profit basis.

Thus, why well regulated militias (of Individual Persons in the United States) are routinely exempted from State laws regarding gun control that are enacted for civil Persons who may be specifically, unconnected with militia service in our republic.

 

Ditto Ditto

You mean the criminal that would have had a gun no matter what the law said...those criminals?

Let's say that my wife and I are currently around 45 years old.
In our 90 years, we've never been in a position to see gun ownership create a miniature version of the cold war in every neighborhood in the country.

Between my neighbor's home and my home, there's been over 200+ years of life lived with no evidence a firearm owned by either of us has ever created mini cold war. I'm willing to bet we could go the next 200 years without ever seeing one either. Now on the other hand I have experienced the need for a weapon for self defense, I don't like being a victim. To each their own eh? I am very glad we have our rights....in spite of what y'alls opinions are.

How many stolen guns have been used against you? How many have threatened your life, your wives, your neighbors....I mean since you brought it up and all?