|
Post by Sleazyness on Apr 17, 2013 17:33:32 GMT -5
Thoughts?
Like Chris Tucker once said: "Guns don't kill people, stupid mother****ers with guns kill people!"
Blame people not guns.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Apr 17, 2013 17:50:17 GMT -5
It's embarrassing that this bill didn't pass.
Anytime anybody tries to use the Constitution as an argument it just makes me so sick I want to vomit. At the time of the writing of the Constitution they had MUSKETS. Real bullets didn't even exist. There is no way in hell the founding fathers would advocate people owning the types of weapons that exist today. It is just completely unnecessary.
Why people would NOT want background checks on guns purchased at gun shows and over the internet makes no logical sense. All this does is create a huge opportunity for a psychopath to buy a gun over the internet or from a gun show and walk into another school or public place and murder our people. If you buy a gun from a gun DEALER there is already a law that has a mandatory background check. All this bill would have done was extend that law to internet and gun shows so that criminals can not illegally and anonymously acquire guns.
Mind boggling. Republicans really need to get with the program and join the rest of us in the 21st century.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 17, 2013 17:54:19 GMT -5
The bill should've passed, but let's be honest here, a background check wouldn't have prevented any of the tragedies we've seen in recent months and years. In fact, some of those people passed background checks before they purchased the gun(s) they used.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 16, 2024 9:20:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2013 17:54:47 GMT -5
Thoughts? Like Chris Tucker once said: "Guns don't kill people, stupid mother****ers with guns kill people!" Blame people not guns. this as a gun owner, i think most of us dont mind a gun background check. but taking away guns is another story. its just scare tactics by the government......most people who voted for this bill dont even know how to hold a gun correctly......guns dont kill people.....people do.
|
|
|
Post by Sleazyness on Apr 17, 2013 17:58:38 GMT -5
My teacher in English today said "This is the worst our congress/house of reps has ever been."
I sort of agree.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 17:59:55 GMT -5
It's embarrassing that this bill didn't pass. Anytime anybody tries to use the Constitution as an argument it just makes me so sick I want to vomit. At the time of the writing of the Constitution they had MUSKETS. Real bullets didn't even exist. There is no way in hell the founding fathers would advocate people owning the types of weapons that exist today. It is just completely unnecessary. So then I guess when they said freedom of the press they wouldn't have wanted it to extend to the internet or TV? The myth about the gun show loop hole stems from a 1997 survey of roughly 250 people from guns they bought in 1993 and 1994. That was BEFORE there was a system of background checks that we know today as NICS. You honestly think that making more gun laws will stop criminals from getting guns?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 18:03:34 GMT -5
My teacher in English today said "This is the worst our congress/house of reps has ever been." I sort of agree. Yep. Patriot Act and allowing drones in the US is ok but not putting in more gun laws is what makes them the worst. Obama and company's outrage is hilarious. "Damnit we want to take away your rights and Congress wouldn't let us this time."
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Apr 17, 2013 18:03:41 GMT -5
It's embarrassing that this bill didn't pass. It's embarrassing that such a blatant infringement upon the Constitution was even introduced as a bill. If anything, this should be a Constitutional Amendment, similar to Prohibition. Anytime anybody tries to use the Constitution as an argument it just makes me so sick I want to vomit. Oh, I'm sorry. Did my right to defend myself get in the way of your tyranny? At the time of the writing of the Constitution they had MUSKETS. Real bullets didn't even exist. So did the government. There is no way in hell the founding fathers would advocate people owning the types of weapons that exist today. It is just completely unnecessary. Oh yeah? "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.) "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) "The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87) "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646) "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari) "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson) ---- As Thomas Jefferson explained, the people need to be sufficiently able to protect themselves from tyranny. Sorry, I'm not cool with another Nazi regime. You go ahead and keep on believing that the government is all-loving, all-giving, though.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 17, 2013 18:19:26 GMT -5
You honestly think that making more gun laws will stop criminals from getting guns? No, it won't, but the bill is still a no-brainer IMO.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 18:21:40 GMT -5
You honestly think that making more gun laws will stop criminals from getting guns? No, it won't, but the bill is still a no-brainer IMO. Then what's the point of the bill? If criminals will still get guns then what good will the law do? Criminals don't care about the law. I think the point of the bill is to make the public happy and feel like they're actually doing something. When in reality what they are doing doesn't even matter.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 17, 2013 18:27:04 GMT -5
Better background checks MAY catch 1 or 2 people. At least prevent a few from getting guns legally. In any case it harms nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 18:32:59 GMT -5
Better background checks MAY catch 1 or 2 people. At least prevent a few from getting guns legally. In any case it harms nothing at all. But as you said background checks haven't helped in recent cases. If someone is intent on breaking the law and killing someone, I highly doubt they will let a rejection from a gun shop due to a failed background check stop them. If they are going to kill, one more broken law isn't going to matter.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Apr 17, 2013 18:36:08 GMT -5
Better background checks MAY catch 1 or 2 people. At least prevent a few from getting guns legally. In any case it harms nothing at all. But as you said background checks haven't helped in recent cases. If someone is intent on breaking the law and killing someone, I highly doubt they will let a rejection from a gun shop due to a failed background check stop them. If they are going to kill, one more broken law isn't going to matter. What does it harm? If someone really really wants a gun they're going to get one, but it does force them to go through illegal means which isn't a bad thing IMO.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 17, 2013 18:37:23 GMT -5
I don't get this "it hasn't helped that much, why bother?" thing that a lot of Americans seem to say.
Isn't different/more thorough background checks worth it if it saves even a few lives? Let me guess, we should stop giving to charity since poverty will never end?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Jun 16, 2024 9:20:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2013 18:37:35 GMT -5
It's embarrassing that this bill didn't pass. It's embarrassing that such a blatant infringement upon the Constitution was even introduced as a bill. If anything, this should be a Constitutional Amendment, similar to Prohibition. Oh, I'm sorry. Did my right to defend myself get in the way of your tyranny? So did the government. There is no way in hell the founding fathers would advocate people owning the types of weapons that exist today. It is just completely unnecessary. Oh yeah? "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}]) "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.) "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788) "The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87) "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646) "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari) "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson) ---- As Thomas Jefferson explained, the people need to be sufficiently able to protect themselves from tyranny. Sorry, I'm not cool with another Nazi regime. You go ahead and keep on believing that the government is all-loving, all-giving, though. Every response you had I completely DISAGREE with. You are wrong. Back then there were muskets and pistols. Now there are machine guns and full auto guns. You are bending the truth of the quotes of the founding fathers to fit into your own views. That is disrespectful. The bills isn't to restrict law abiding citizens access to guns, it is to restrict the mentally unstable and criminals from getting guns.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 18:40:17 GMT -5
But as you said background checks haven't helped in recent cases. If someone is intent on breaking the law and killing someone, I highly doubt they will let a rejection from a gun shop due to a failed background check stop them. If they are going to kill, one more broken law isn't going to matter. What does it harm? If someone really really wants a gun they're going to get one, but it does force them to go through illegal means which isn't a bad thing IMO. So Congress should pass more laws that don't actually do anything because they don't harm anyone? I'm confused by what you mean that it isn't a bad thing to force criminals to get guns illegally.
|
|
|
Post by glenanncam on Apr 17, 2013 18:41:28 GMT -5
I also think the "having guns to protect people from the government" thing is bullsh*t. Give me any shred of evidence that the government would become a dictatorship if guns were illegal. It hasn't happened in most other civilized democratic countries, there's about a 1% chance it would happen in the US.
If the government wanted to become a bunch of Nazis, they could. A few guns isn't going to do sh*t against the weaponry available to the government.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 18:42:10 GMT -5
I don't get this "it hasn't helped that much, why bother?" thing that a lot of Americans seem to say. Isn't different/more thorough background checks worth it if it saves even a few lives? Let me guess, we should stop giving to charity since poverty will never end? How do you know it will save lives? How do you know that a person who gets rejected won't buy a gun illegally and still kill? If someone is intent on killing they aren't going to bother following gun laws. Charity is a voluntary thing and you can do what you want with your money.
|
|
BigEvilNerd
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 15, 2003 17:00:45 GMT -5
Posts: 4,659
|
Post by BigEvilNerd on Apr 17, 2013 18:44:54 GMT -5
Speaking as someone who owns half a dozen guns and carries one on my person most of the time....I don't see the problem with beefing up background checks....provided that is all the bill was about. I've undergone a background check for every gun I've ever bought....it's a pretty simple process and doesn't take very long.
That said I don't see how background checks are going to help avoid shootings and crazy people going off. Do we really need to go into it again....criminals commit crimes because they don't care about breaking the law. Which includes getting access to firearms legally or illegally.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Apr 17, 2013 18:45:05 GMT -5
I also think the "having guns to protect people from the government" thing is bullsh*t. Give me any shred of evidence that the government would become a dictatorship if guns were illegal. It hasn't happened in most other civilized democratic countries, there's about a 1% chance it would happen in the US. If the government wanted to become a bunch of Nazis, they could. A few guns isn't going to do sh*t against the weaponry available to the government. So we should just take the chance? Sure, if the government is willing to drop nukes on us then guns won't matter. But if the government does get to a point where we see they are turning into something even worse then the people can stand up and try to take control before the nukes fly. If government becomes a bigger threat then we will need something to help the people take control. We shouldn't just sit idly by because the government can easily take us out. Look at Afghanistan. They don't have 1/10 of the stuff we have and they have been keeping us at bay for 12 years.
|
|