In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2166
Online now 1747 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
The thing is we aren't stupid, if we give the left a gun registry they will next want to use it to confiscate some guns, or tax gun owners or stuff like that.
We know what the lefts ultimate goal is here, so yeah some of these things may have been common sense measures but they were also the first stones in the road to banning guns.
Wow, just when I thought you couldn't present yourself any dumber than you already have, you go and totally redeem yourself.
Well, I think we can all agree that convicted felons and the mentally unstable shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. If you disagree with that, you're welcome to detail why.
These background checks do not, in any way, take away a citizen's constitutional right to bear arms - as long as they haven't been convicted of a crime. The only people these background checks affect are those who, due to their circumstances, have surrendered the right to own guns. As a result, the only freedoms being impinged upon have already been released.
Similarly, the sex offender registry only impinges on the freedoms of those who have surrendered certain freedoms due to their actions. There are multiple people here railing against a gun registry, and I agree - there's no reason to log every single gun owner in the US if they haven't ever done anything wrong, and if there was some major registry of all gun owners, it'd be a ridiculous intrusion on freedoms. However, the only freedoms being impinged upon here are those from people who have already given up their freedoms.
Alternatively, if you want to argue that a background check in and of itself impinges upon your freedoms, you might as well argue that driver's licenses, concealed-carry permits, and pilot's licenses (among other things) are all impingements upon one's freedoms. The background check doesn't affect your 2nd amendment right at all - as long as you haven't already surrendered that right by virtue of your situation.
There ARE gun regulations, such as background checks on some purchases (which are presumably constitutional). So why do you gun lovers always claim that an expansion of background checks to other purchases is an unconstitutional intrusion by tyrant Obama? You guys freak out when anybody mentions registration (which naturally leads to confiscation!), or background check restrictions (because those forms are too goshdarn long!), or a regulation about the type of gun you can own (because an AR15 is constitutionally protected!)
Because it violates the ex post facto clause of the constitution (I think).
You can't be tried for the same offense twice. Being placed on a registry is in effect, supplemental punishment. Punishment beyond what you were convicted and served time for...
Of course not. I think the sex offender registry is a good thing in many respects, because it protects society from those who have committed certain crimes and should not be allowed to be placed in a position where they can do so again. Similarly, gun background checks are a good thing because they protect society from those who have committed certain crimes and should not be allowed to be placed in a position where they can do so again.
If you can't make a legit argument then play the racism card. Good job, bro.
what else would registration lead to?
No card at all. Dude's a racist. Spent an entire thread election night bashing black folks.
background check gonna stop a violent criminal from gaining access to weapons?
What's your reason for not wanting a gun registry or background checks?
Meh, they're dark. I'm not sure racists differentiate.
Because it will eventually be used to ban guns.
I'll allow CMXI to educate you on that
He'll do so more eloquently then I could stand to
Yeah now I'm totally confused by this thread.
A registry I can see the argument, but you don't even want background checks?
Nope. That's not what ex post facto is. It's that you can't be punished for something that was legal at the time, but subsequently became illegal.
This is the point that they don't want to address. What would really change that would stop crazies from killing? Nothing.
And if you knew the entire story you would know why. If you don't, keep your liberal mouth shut
Great argument. That explains why cars and kids are so often seized by the government for no reason at all.
If they've committed a violent crime before, then at least it'll make it more difficult. This isn't Minority Report, we can't predict what people are going to do in the future with complete accuracy, so we can only act based on past actions.
Naturally, you'll probably respond with: "Well, the criminal will still get weapons and commit crimes even with the existence of background checks."
My response to that is simple: just because we don't have a method of completely preventing criminals from getting their hands on guns doesn't mean we should make it easy for them.
I'm sure that logc applies to many if not most laws... Which other ones should we get rid of?
Get back in the kitchen madam
Say's who? Here's where you guys always lose me. You've no evidence to support your claim yet you continually espouse this theory that the government wants your guns, for what purpose? To gain what? Do you really think your firearms protect you from the largest military industrial complex in the world?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports