Steve_S Posted October 10, 2015 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted October 10, 2015 I think it's a good idea. Not a fan of Obama, but there should be longer waits, and reference checks that are meaningful, before someone can purchase a gun. Even a medical history to reveal any type of issues that would reveal depression, etc. Seems like there is a more thorough background check when seeking employment at a new company, than when going to purchase a gun. The main difference is that there's not a constitutional right to employment in and of itself at any given company. Legally speaking, having background checks at all for ownership of a gun is quite literally like the government saying you need to get a background check to go to church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Deidre* Posted October 10, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 9 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 521 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 608 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/03/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted October 10, 2015 I think it's a good idea. Not a fan of Obama, but there should be longer waits, and reference checks that are meaningful, before someone can purchase a gun. Even a medical history to reveal any type of issues that would reveal depression, etc. Seems like there is a more thorough background check when seeking employment at a new company, than when going to purchase a gun. The main difference is that there's not a constitutional right to employment in and of itself at any given company. Legally speaking, having background checks at all for ownership of a gun is quite literally like the government saying you need to get a background check to go to church.In theory, what you're saying makes sense, but guns do hurt people, and if they fall into the wrong hands, then.......well, we can see what has been happening. I think that what people are upset about and rightfully so, is that a few ruin it for the majority. I'd like to believe that most gun owners are responsible, but when we see these mass shootings more and more on the news, it just strikes me as something is wrong with the current process. I'm not a gun owner, so I don't know. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted October 10, 2015 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 0.99 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted October 10, 2015 I think it's a good idea. Not a fan of Obama, but there should be longer waits, and reference checks that are meaningful, before someone can purchase a gun. Even a medical history to reveal any type of issues that would reveal depression, etc. Seems like there is a more thorough background check when seeking employment at a new company, than when going to purchase a gun. The main difference is that there's not a constitutional right to employment in and of itself at any given company. Legally speaking, having background checks at all for ownership of a gun is quite literally like the government saying you need to get a background check to go to church.In theory, what you're saying makes sense, but guns do hurt people, and if they fall into the wrong hands, then.......well, we can see what has been happening. I think that what people are upset about and rightfully so, is that a few ruin it for the majority. I'd like to believe that most gun owners are responsible, but when we see these mass shootings more and more on the news, it just strikes me as something is wrong with the current process. I'm not a gun owner, so I don't know. lol Guns are a tool which *people* use to hurt people. So are knives, bricks, crowbars and many other things. The constitution ensures gun ownership as a right, but aside from that, just logically - why would a criminal who is willing to murder one, ten, or a hundred people follow a law that says not to use a gun to do it or not to own a gun? This person is obviously willing to commit a capital crime, why would they not be willing to commit a misdemeanor or low level felony? As for any argument that if you restricted gun ownership, there would simply be no guns available for criminals to use, I would point out the narcotics trafficking as an example. There is a market for narcotics in the US and though the US has spent well over a trillion dollars and imprisoned millions of people over the past 35 years, the rate of drug usage is still exactly the same. So, obviously, it is easy to get illegal stuff into this country pretty easily. So if guns were to be banned here, outright, that would just add another market to the border cartels to exploit and you would end up with a law abiding population with no means of personal defense and a criminal population with access to basically any weapon they wanted at any time. That is a recipe for certain disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted October 10, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,711 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,528 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I think it's a good idea. Not a fan of Obama, but there should be longer waits, and reference checks that are meaningful, before someone can purchase a gun. Even a medical history to reveal any type of issues that would reveal depression, etc. Seems like there is a more thorough background check when seeking employment at a new company, than when going to purchase a gun. The main difference is that there's not a constitutional right to employment in and of itself at any given company. Legally speaking, having background checks at all for ownership of a gun is quite literally like the government saying you need to get a background check to go to church.In theory, what you're saying makes sense, but guns do hurt people, and if they fall into the wrong hands, then.......well, we can see what has been happening. I think that what people are upset about and rightfully so, is that a few ruin it for the majority. I'd like to believe that most gun owners are responsible, but when we see these mass shootings more and more on the news, it just strikes me as something is wrong with the current process. I'm not a gun owner, so I don't know. lol a gun has never hurt anyone, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I think it's a good idea. Not a fan of Obama, but there should be longer waits, and reference checks that are meaningful, before someone can purchase a gun. Even a medical history to reveal any type of issues that would reveal depression, etc. Seems like there is a more thorough background check when seeking employment at a new company, than when going to purchase a gun. The main difference is that there's not a constitutional right to employment in and of itself at any given company. Legally speaking, having background checks at all for ownership of a gun is quite literally like the government saying you need to get a background check to go to church.In theory, what you're saying makes sense, but guns do hurt people, and if they fall into the wrong hands, then.......well, we can see what has been happening. I think that what people are upset about and rightfully so, is that a few ruin it for the majority. I'd like to believe that most gun owners are responsible, but when we see these mass shootings more and more on the news, it just strikes me as something is wrong with the current process. I'm not a gun owner, so I don't know. lol a gun has never hurt anyone, ever. That is true. If guns ever killed any one, then I guess cars drive drunk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
missmuffet Posted October 10, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 34 Topic Count: 1,992 Topics Per Day: 0.48 Content Count: 48,690 Content Per Day: 11.78 Reputation: 30,343 Days Won: 226 Joined: 01/11/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted October 10, 2015 No it is the person who picks up that lethal weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Deidre* Posted October 11, 2015 Group: Senior Member Followers: 9 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 521 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 608 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/03/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted October 11, 2015 I think it's a good idea. Not a fan of Obama, but there should be longer waits, and reference checks that are meaningful, before someone can purchase a gun. Even a medical history to reveal any type of issues that would reveal depression, etc. Seems like there is a more thorough background check when seeking employment at a new company, than when going to purchase a gun. The main difference is that there's not a constitutional right to employment in and of itself at any given company. Legally speaking, having background checks at all for ownership of a gun is quite literally like the government saying you need to get a background check to go to church.In theory, what you're saying makes sense, but guns do hurt people, and if they fall into the wrong hands, then.......well, we can see what has been happening. I think that what people are upset about and rightfully so, is that a few ruin it for the majority. I'd like to believe that most gun owners are responsible, but when we see these mass shootings more and more on the news, it just strikes me as something is wrong with the current process. I'm not a gun owner, so I don't know. lol Guns are a tool which *people* use to hurt people. So are knives, bricks, crowbars and many other things. The constitution ensures gun ownership as a right, but aside from that, just logically - why would a criminal who is willing to murder one, ten, or a hundred people follow a law that says not to use a gun to do it or not to own a gun? This person is obviously willing to commit a capital crime, why would they not be willing to commit a misdemeanor or low level felony? As for any argument that if you restricted gun ownership, there would simply be no guns available for criminals to use, I would point out the narcotics trafficking as an example. There is a market for narcotics in the US and though the US has spent well over a trillion dollars and imprisoned millions of people over the past 35 years, the rate of drug usage is still exactly the same. So, obviously, it is easy to get illegal stuff into this country pretty easily. So if guns were to be banned here, outright, that would just add another market to the border cartels to exploit and you would end up with a law abiding population with no means of personal defense and a criminal population with access to basically any weapon they wanted at any time. That is a recipe for certain disaster.That is true, but what is the solution then for keeping guns out of people's hands who shouldn't own them? These people are obtaining guns, legally.I think it's a good idea. Not a fan of Obama, but there should be longer waits, and reference checks that are meaningful, before someone can purchase a gun. Even a medical history to reveal any type of issues that would reveal depression, etc. Seems like there is a more thorough background check when seeking employment at a new company, than when going to purchase a gun. The main difference is that there's not a constitutional right to employment in and of itself at any given company. Legally speaking, having background checks at all for ownership of a gun is quite literally like the government saying you need to get a background check to go to church.In theory, what you're saying makes sense, but guns do hurt people, and if they fall into the wrong hands, then.......well, we can see what has been happening. I think that what people are upset about and rightfully so, is that a few ruin it for the majority. I'd like to believe that most gun owners are responsible, but when we see these mass shootings more and more on the news, it just strikes me as something is wrong with the current process. I'm not a gun owner, so I don't know. lol a gun has never hurt anyone, ever. Hmmm....I think it's a good idea. Not a fan of Obama, but there should be longer waits, and reference checks that are meaningful, before someone can purchase a gun. Even a medical history to reveal any type of issues that would reveal depression, etc. Seems like there is a more thorough background check when seeking employment at a new company, than when going to purchase a gun. The main difference is that there's not a constitutional right to employment in and of itself at any given company. Legally speaking, having background checks at all for ownership of a gun is quite literally like the government saying you need to get a background check to go to church.In theory, what you're saying makes sense, but guns do hurt people, and if they fall into the wrong hands, then.......well, we can see what has been happening. I think that what people are upset about and rightfully so, is that a few ruin it for the majority. I'd like to believe that most gun owners are responsible, but when we see these mass shootings more and more on the news, it just strikes me as something is wrong with the current process. I'm not a gun owner, so I don't know. lol a gun has never hurt anyone, ever. That is true. If guns ever killed any one, then I guess cars drive drunk...Cars weren't invented to injure or kill, but they CAN do that, if they are driven recklessly...etc A gun's only functions are to injure someone or kill him/her. That's it. Or of course for shooting practice, but they were invented to employ lethal force. Anyone can take any thing and use it as a weapon, sure. 9/11 is proof of that, but there have been precautions put into place so it doesn't happen again. What precautions should be put into place, to lessen gun crime, by people who own guns...legally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted October 11, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,711 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,528 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted October 11, 2015 ok first, you start off by stating that its the guns fault-which it isnt. Secondly, gun laws has NEVER been able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. NEVER. take chicago for instance. Its next to impossible to legally purchase or own a firearm there, yet the have the highest incident of gun violence in the country, over 100 murders by gun a year there. and thats just the murders, lets not count those that actually survive. Comparing Gun laws to airport security (which is also a joke) isn't even a fair comparison-airport security, is actually something that you can tighten up-but gun laws, dont keep guns out of the hands of criminals. As far your comment about a guns only function, well, heres the thing-that just proves you have absolutly no idea about how guns work, or how they can be used, or any of there various functions. A gun is a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. Even with your "popular" use that you like to call it, a gun in the hands of honest citizens, will stop the criminals. People should have the right to protect themselves. As far as their other uses-you know how ridiculous you sound when you say the only function of a gun is to kill? I have multiple firearms-I fire hundreds, if not thousands, or rounds on a yearly basis. Not a single shot, has ever even somewhat, come close to hurting a human being. And as far as what they do "kill" a lot of that provides food on my table-Im an avid hunter, and they bring me food. They also "kill" varmints and nuisance animals.But they are far more then that. On top of hunting and varming removal, they also are a hobby. people enjoy collecting them, trap and target shooting, they are also a sport-competition shooting is a very big thing. Like I said for some people, they collect them like some people collect stamps-they get put in glass cases, and never even get fired.and lets not forget, the second ammendment, was not even put in place for any of the above-but as a safegaurd against a tyrannical government. All further gun control laws will do, is take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens-which is an infringement upon our second ammendment rights.Finally, most estimates im finding on google, say there are somewhere between 300-310 million guns in the US. Yet, if you compare nationwide, how many gun related crimes, vs how many guns, youd be surprised-there are outstandingly low rate of gun violence. And, if you break it down by state and city, the places with tighter gun laws, usually have a higher gun violence rate. Common sense says lighten gun laws, not tighten them. Like I said before, I own multiple firearms-not one of them, has ever gotten up on its own accord and shot anyone. Nor has it caused me to even want to get up and shoot anyone. Its a tool that can be used for a great many things-the least of which, is to harm humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roman150 Posted October 11, 2015 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 128 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 44 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/04/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/14/1958 Share Posted October 11, 2015 (edited) Anyone who purchases a gun from a dealer undergoes a NICS background check. In my state, I need to apply for a *permit to purchase*, yearly, before I buy *anything*. This process take about 2 weeks. When I want to purchase at a dealer, I have to fill out a ton of paperwork, and wait while the deal calls the FBI to verify the paperwork (the NICS check). Buying a gun, with a permit to purchase, takes about 45 minutes. This isn't akin to buying a bag of Doritos.The background check issue is not just a straw man. It is a lie. The gooberment has records of every purchase I've made for 20 years. Edited October 11, 2015 by Roman150 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Patriot21 Posted October 11, 2015 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,711 Content Per Day: 2.45 Reputation: 8,528 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted October 11, 2015 in my state, we dont need to have a "permit to purchase" but FFL dealers are required to run background checks on anyone they sell to, unless they possess a conceal carry permit. It typically takes between 5 minutes to an hour to do such a check, depending on how busy it is. Of course, if you have a CCP, no such background check is necessary, but to get a CCP you have to pass a firearms safety course, as well as fill out a application, and go through a thorough background check that is just as, if not more, thorough, as the one FFL dealers run. And the CCP is only good for 5 years before you have to apply again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts