Once again, Trump is proposing additional gun control. This time, he is calling for "intelligent" background checks. The only problem is that background checks already exist. If you want to purchase a firearm from a firearms dealer in the US, you must submit to a background check. So what the hell is Trump talking about when he says we need "intelligent" background checks? And I thought Trump was supposed to be pro-second amendment. But whenever the topic comes up, Trump just sounds like another Democrat. Do his supporters approve of this? Do Trump supporters want "intelligent" background checks now that their emperor has given his stamp of approval?
Not all the time. We have also seen that when they do push back (on Fox News, anyway), Trump quickly changes course.
What "course" is Trump on? What is an "intelligent" background check? And how will these background checks prevent psychos from killing people?
It sounds like something that no one will ultimately support, because it's too much for the gun nuts and too little for the sensible people (who want assault-style, semi-auto weapons off the streets).
There is nothing sensible about that position. Not only is it totally unrealistic (millions of such weapons are in private circulation across the US), but it doesn't even address the large majority of gun-related homicides which are committed with handguns.
I can argue with it. What is an "intelligent" background check? Are the background checks that already exist unintelligent? How will these "intelligent" background checks prevent psychos from getting firearms and killing people? Do you now support more gun control because Trump wants it?
I think it is entirely sensible not to have millions and millions of weapons designed to kill people with great efficiency around. The rest of the world agrees with me, too.
I don't want any new gun laws until the tens of thousands of recorded attempted purchases by prohibited persons nationwide are investigated/prosecuted. I was relatively content with the result Trump got after the Florida shooting when he got Feinstein to try and ban everything under the sun and blow up her own plan. He's prolly doing that again. I hope. Generally I do not approve. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt (until he fails).
What exactly is an "intelligent background check"? Does anybody even know what that actually entails or are we just tossing words around because they sound good.
All firearms are designed to kill with "great efficiency". And handguns kill far more people than so-called "assault weapons" do. So if your position had any logical consistency, then you'd be calling for a prohibition on handguns as well. Are you? An appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy.
Trump should be arguing against gun control. Instead, he's calling for more of it. Trump is hurting the second amendment, 3D chess theories notwithstanding.
I know...we should have a law about killing innocent people, nah...lets just make more laws that criminals will ignore to infringe on our rights. It worked great with illegal drugs.
This isn't even more gun control you already have to undergo a background check when purchasing a firearm from any licensed dealer anyway. Trump is just advocating making the current background checks "intelligent" which admittedly I think is a term somebody told him to use for the media and has no idea what the hell that even means any more than the rest of us do. But Democrats like it so it makes him look like both parties are working together. Folks keep tossing around the phrases of Universal Background Checks or expanded background checks. What exactly does this stuff mean? It's not like we can hire those psychic people in the bathtubs from Minority Report who can run your background check and see if you are going to shoot up the mall tomorrow. What exactly do people think is included in an "intelligent" background check that isn't included in a normal background check?
Is Trump "calling" for intelligent background checks, or is he trying to do his job by examining an issue we have and signalling that he's willing to examine the problem? Trump doesn't have a pristine record where the 2A is concerned, but you should have confidence that he's not going to support anything that clearly violates the rights of Joe Guy from buying scary black rifles. It's pretty hilarious... one side is bashing Trump because he did away with a law that "prevents people with mental disorders from owning guns", which isn't accurate... now we have people getting worked up because he's willing to entertain the idea of legislation in the wake of two back to back mass shootings which have the public in a state of uneasiness.
Actually, I'm fully in favor of banning handguns along with assault rifles. Don't need those around, either. They sure aren't useful for hunting. Keep those weapons where they're appropriate, i.e. police, military and shooting ranges. The only exceptions I'd deem reasonable are bolt-action rifles, shotguns and revolvers.
You don't understand guns. One of those "exceptional" guns you mention has a potential of lethality far beyond a handgun or "assault style" rifles in the environment which mass shootings typically occur. Another weapon you mentioned has immense potential in the atypical environment of mass shooting. Also, certain handguns are more than sufficient for hunting.
I have one gun and it's all I'll ever need - hopefully. But I live in gun country and people buy, sell and trade guns among themselves, I'd guess more guns around here trades hands rather than being sold through a dealer or pawn shop. A guy I worked with has a wife who owned a gun store, when she retired she kept the entire arsenal in her house and now sells them out of her house with no checks at all. I don't know if that's legal or not, but she's been doing it for more than 2 years and there hasn't been a problem so far. On top of that, I have no idea how we'd ban over 300,000,000 guns, almost all of them in the hands of law abiding folks who aren't criminals. Any idea how we would do that?
You must be ignorant of handgun hunting. I have only ever taken one big game animal and it was a feral hog with a revolver. The 2nd is not about hunting. at. all.
There's no doing that. Even if progressives managed to disarm the majority of law abiding gun owners, and confiscate their weapons, the black market would still operate. Gangland killings, which constitute the overwhelming majority of gun related crime and homicide, would persist. Homicidal sociopaths would still obtain guns, if not, would resort to other methods which with a little planning and foresight can result in higher casualties.
Handguns are extremely useful for hunting. I’ve killed 9 deer with a hand gun. But the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, so it’s protections don’t extend to just hunting purposes. You are not constitutionally permitted to ban an entire class of firearm. This is settled law. DC v Heller.
That's his MO.. throw some generic chum in the water, then sit back and bitch when nothing gets done... Very tiresome... leadership change coming soon..