How Do Background Checks Prevent Normal Citizens From Getting Guns?

How is it "starting a new fight" to present evidence that the far right is engaged in policies that enable terrorism? Unless you're a policy maker at the NRA, or a right-wing politician, I don't believe you should be insulted by that.

Take a time out from automatically attempting to insult everything presented by people who disagree with you, and actually look at the evidence objectively.
What's your honest take on the link and the information it provides?
I intentionally chose a media outlet that is not known as particularly "liberal".

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...95211920130603
This has nothing to do with exercising my individual Rights........or not trusting governments.............and you just admitted to moving the goal posts............

 

Evidence that part of the government is enabling terrorism has nothing to do with not trusting governments?
Are you even aware of what "moving the goal posts" means? Nothing even remotely resembling that has happened here.

 

This following, IMHO, represents the unspoken but operational belief behind our opposition to background checks.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--

 

Like HAL the suddenly menacing computer wth a mind of its own and a healthy sense of its own self defense and self perpetuation in the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Government is supposed to be our servant.

Once it threatens to turn on us it has crossed the line.

And the only defense we have against a despotic govt. is to make the govt. respect its master, WE THE PEOPLE!

The only way to do that is to be well armed and make it as difficult as possible for the govt. to disarm ALL OF US. Therefore, the govt. would look for the easiest, most efficient and least dangerous ways to disarm as many of us as possible.

One method they'd employ would be to simply get a list of the gun licensees, pay them visits when they aren't suspecting anything, then take their guns & ammo and maybe even imprison them on some trumped up charge or another.

How to avoid being visited by the Obama, er, an oppressive government agent or a platoon of them, is to not be on a list at all. Another technique being used by the govt. is to create new laws to prevent as many new guns being sold as possible. But even more importantly, giving the government more rope with which to 'hang us' isn't going to help us on the day the first shot is fired in earnest.

Background checks may not prevent normal citizens from getting a gun but the government is looking to gain any and every advantage it can (and it does so every chance it gets) to become OUR MASTER. It's my understanding that we should oppose any and all attempts by the government to take away our rights.

What do you think?

 

I believe the Right is being disingenuous regarding Arms; the Second Article of Amendment to our supreme law of the land specifically enumerates what is necessary to the security of a free State.

 

Yes. Per Capita crime increased in both countries after passing gun control laws. So yes I am familiar, and no it does not change the truth of my argument.

Still irrelevant. Did per capita crime increase, or decrease after gun control? Are they more safe, or less safe after gun control, regardless of the US crime rate? Answer: Less safe. Crime is now higher, per capita, than it was before gun control.

Yes, some do. Some want what is best for the entire country, even those who oppose them. If you have a brother-in-law that you care about who is doing drugs, and you want to take him to rehab, even though he'll hate you for it, the fact he'll hate your 'rehab' policy toward him, doesn't mean you don't care.

Because when someone breaks down your door, you don't have time to fool with a gun safe. This is exactly why home invasions have drastically risen in both the UK and Australia.
But gun registries have been used several times by government to come, confiscate, and destroy private property in the middle of Emergency situations where the owners need to be able to defend themselves the most.
Training is just irrelevant. It would harm people indirectly because they would have to pay for something they don't really need, or taxed to pay for it.

Yes actually. In fact, I would consider it an undeniable outcome. For no other reason than the fact that it would drop the value. It's the constraints on LEGAL supply, that are keeping drug prices high. The real benefit would be that without the prescription system, the price of these drugs to the people who actually need them, would drastically fall.

You are making a blind assumption that drug use has not increased because of prescription. I have yet to see any evidence of that, and tons of evidence to the contrary. So if drug abuse had unrestricted growth with prescriptions, I see no reason to suggest it would increase without restrictions. And in fact, I used to know many people in high school, who did drugs (I have no idea if they still do) specifically because of the rebellion factor. They want to 'stick it to society' in whatever way they can, and drug abuse is a way they can. Without that factor, I think *some* drug use would actually decline. Of course that's debatable, but that's what my opinion is.

The economic system works, whether they understand it, or have a degree in finance or not. Your entire argument seems to hinge on ignoring reality and history. It's like you are debating something that has never happened in the history of the world, or current day. When in reality, it *IS* happen right now, and historically, it happened many times.

Al Capone was a school drop out at age 14. He was about as ignorant a person as you could get. Yet his organization eventually had ties and connections that spanned from LA California, to Florida, to Canada, to ports along the East coast. Do you really think that Capone had to be educated in investments? You think Capone was telling his smugglers, illegal brewers and are cartel managers "Hey guys, I want a profit and loss statement turned in each month, and I want an ROI statement each quarter! We gotta hit our quotas!"?

Of course not. You don't need to know anything, for the supply and demand system, to spur investment. All he knew is, if he paid this guy a ton of cash, he could come back with a ton of alcohol. With the alcohol, he could sell it and make a massive amount money.

Same thing happens with illegal drugs. Drug runners don't have a degree in economics. All they know is, if they get a bunch of money, and buy this stuff, and then sell it over here, they can make tons more money. The spurring of investment happens naturally. And we all know that pot houses take lots of investment. Hundreds of lights, tables, stands, pots, fertilizer, and of course tons of electricity over the growth cycle.

It's called investment into production. You think they are Finance majors? Of course not.

And lastly, as I already pointed out... it's happen right now. The Australian police have already found home made gun, that work and shoot perfectly. I really don't know how you are even trying to deny this when it is historically and presently verifiable. The evidence is there, and it's very clear.

In fact the more I think about your argument, the more bafflingly stupid it is. Um.... did you miss the whole Afghanistan war with Russia? Some of these tribal people in Afghanistan thought that the Russian guns were demonically possessed. Literally they thought they were fighting demon weapons. By the end of that war, Afghan people IN CAVES.... were BUILDING AKA rifles. And you think that modern people in a first world country can't do what Afghans can? Really? Seriously this is your argument?

Huh? I don't think so. From what I understand the number one black market weapon of today, is the AKA. The primary source of those weapons is China, not the US.

Look, if you *want* to remain ignorant, that's fine. But having posted numerous sources, several articles, and several videos with statements from police, from firearm experts, and of course an undercover video of people on the street selling guns.... you are asking me to except your argument with the evidence of "because I said so", and especially when you have been proven wrong numerous other times. Your credibility is a bit low with your zero evidence and a statement about teenager (which you don't even know his age), and sensationalized media (which means nothing because all media is sensationalized).

You seem to be just looking for random excuses to deny what is documented fact.
If what you said would be a good enough argument for you to accept, that reflects poorly on you.

Once again.... you are acting as if this is obvious, and never tried. It has been tried. Canada tried it. After spending billions of dollars on a system that ran for over a decade, they scrapped the whole thing. Why? Because it didn't work. The Canadian government itself admitted, that the registry had not stopped a single crime, and could not attribute a single conviction of any kind. It was a waste of money, and didn't solve anything.

It was prefect, undeniable rebuttal to your point. You claimed that those home-gun-makers would be ratted out by one punk kid. Fail. Historically there have been dozens of crime groups that by your logic should have been ratted out. Yet they were not. There is no reason to believe that any groups of today will be any less tight lipped about their operations, than in the past.

Right. But the problem is, you can't prevent criminals who don't follow the laws from getting guns. The only person you can prevent from having a gun, is the innocent.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and I think the exact same about you, which is why I'm not bothering to respond to your disingenuous posts anymore.

 

What ever can you mean; unlike those of the opposing view, I am merely advocating the morality of bearing true witness to our own laws.

 

Which hypocritically, you yourself are not doing, and you know it. So, I'm done playing with you. Thanks for stopping by.

 

Only one term is enumerated regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State.