Why is regular background checks and other same gun control bad, according to the right?
>inb4 Shall not infringe
No seriously.
Because then it's not private property of guns, it's state-approved lending.
>>79888721
Regular background checks already exist, but are kneecapped intentionally in the budget to manufacture a "gun" problem.
If you don't enforce the laws you have, you don't get to make more.
The reason they won't is because if the laws in place actually worked, they wouldn't be able to argue that they need to be confiscated.
>>79888721
becasue it is a right and to infringe on the right requires the highest amount of scrutiny to justify it. Background checks are not perfect and will infringe on more peoples right to own a gun than prevent crime. Also more than likely, the government will try to find ways of reducing that right even more.
>>79889947
>background checks will not reduce crime
sorry but I need a source on that.
Because today its background checks. Tomorrow its a national gun registry. The next is going full commiefornia nation wide.
These cocksuckers have been chipping away at gun rights for decades. They won't stop at background checks, or the next step, or the next. They will always keep coming back and keep chipping away until there is nothing left.
We already have background checks. It's a flawed system. In virtually zero instances would the proposed gun control measures have stopped any of the past gun crimes. Sn Bernardino, Orlando, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech, le Supreme Gentleman, ANY of them.
Niggers and spics and mudshits will always find a way to get these guns.
>>79890276
Only when you find a source proving they will.
You won't find that one by the way, because 5/6 felons committed crimes with stolen guns.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/availability-of-guns/
If you don't like the page, go check out the journals, you've got everything you need there.
Because you're a fucking American and gun-control was attempted in the 1770s in order to suppress Freedom and Liberty. We literally wouldn't be having this conversation if more stringent gun control was enacted. In fact, let me just point out real quick that were it not for gunpowder we wouldn't even have had a renaissance, we'd still be serfs if it wasn't for guns. Learn from the past countryman.
>>79890584
>no you prove god doesn't exist
you can use the rest of the developed world as reference
>>79890878
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/
Be my guest.
>>79888721
Shall not be infringed.
Also we have the NICS, and registration didn't work in Canada so I doubt it would here, definitely wouldn't on the federal level. In the end Muh background checks are like many gun control arguments a short term attempt to tackle violence in this country without actually dealing with the root causes, namely poverty, shitty inner city areas, and gang warfare. Given that violent crime has been on a downward curve since the '90s I don't see much of a reason to be concerned.
>but Orlando
Is the exception, not the rule. Only a few hundred people a year are killed by rifles (this is all rifles mind you, not just "assault" rifles) and if you do end up a victim of firearm violence it's most likely going to be coming from a handgun.
>>79888721
>1 post
>1 post by this ID
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
Now that that's settled, this is now a gun thread. Everyone post cool guns.
>>79888721
do you have to pass a check to exercise any other right?
Also fuck you faggot it is no ones business what I buy
>>79889947
Infringe on people's rights? As long as you aren't a criminal or have a mental heatlh record, aka a law-abiding citizen, why should it matter?
>>79890490
Slippery Slope fallacy. Just because we have gun control doesn't mean we will eventually get a gun registry and ultimately a gun ban.
>>79888721
>background checks
The problem with the whole "universal background check" thing is that 99.99% of Americans think the government regulates firearm *sales*. They don't. What is regulated are firearm *transfers*. As in, any change in possession.
When the background check law was originally being written people realized what a clusterfuck it would be to have to find an FFL and fill out a form 4473 every time they loaned a .22 rifle to a sibling so they could shoot the rabbits trying to get into their garden, or other situations like that.
So they set up a system with two categories: "public transfers", which is any purchase from an FFL or transfer of a handgun across state lines, and "private transfers" which is a situation like giving your aunt a pistol because her ex husband is stalking her. You have to fill out a 447 for the former, but not the latter.
It was NOT a "loophole", no matter how hard the liberals try to keep pushing that buzzword. The law was written that way very intentionally, and everyone knew the score when it went to vote.
Most people who push universal background checks are doing so on the mistaken belief that background checks are applied to sales, without understanding what the actual affect of such legislation would be.
>>79891367
Slippery Slope isn't a fallacy, and was proven in the LGBT sphere, where the media is now pushing for bestiality and pedophilia acceptance.
There's also already gun control. There needs to be gun easing.
>>79891665
So is there anything wrong with government regulating firearm "sales" in terms of checking to see if you have a mental health issue or had past criminal offenses?
>>79888721
You don't get to inb4 the correct answer.
SHALL
>>79888721
The government is a criminally inept pile of shit that doesn't deseve authority over a fucking landfill
>>79891367
>Slippery Slope fallacy
>fallacy
Fuck off, faggot. Give an inch and the globalist cocksuckers will eventually take a mile. They want us all disarmed so we can be good little worker bees in THEIR utopia.
>>79891367
I dont think you have taken a law course. A right said in the constitution has the highest scrutiny in order for it to be infringed on by the state.
Also,If you have a mental record, it doesnt mean that you are not a law-abiding citizen. People with records are out there with guns that have records that have been treated.
>>79888721
It's not about guns, it's about erasing the Constitution and instituting a new way of thinking about the citizen as helpless.>>79891367
>>79891050
>>79891216
Why do people say "Shall not be Infringed"? People have argued that it's all subjective, like the Constitution.
>>79888721
Background checks aren't my issue, but you cannot by law be denied a weapon just because you're on a terror watch list. In the United States we have a system known as due process of the courts in which all persons are innocent until proven guilty. Because of this barring anyone not currently convicted of a crime from purchasing a weapon should be and is considered unconstitutional based on the laws of the United States.
>TL:DR
u cant keep a person from buying pew-pew guns bcause le due process meme.
>>79889561
Based
>>79891216
>>79891050
>>79892175
2 words, armed insurrection.
Some of these bills were worded in a way that if I left my house and my wife had access to my guns that would be a felony. That's a problem.
I don't think many people have a problem with an instant background check (NICS) but when you factor in that states like CA, NY, NJ, MD, etc have such shitty paths to gun ownership before you even get to the NICS check it's just overkill.
The hoops you need to jump through and the time it takes to get things moving along are insane in some states yet they don't see a reduction in violence. In fact, there are some studies that show that more guns means less violence... or that there is zero correlation at all between gun laws/ownership and violence.
But, for whatever reason, democrats loooove to play this game where they pretend that a person who will go through all the steps to buy a gun legally is the biggest threat to the safety of muh childran
>>79888721
>Why is regular background checks and other same gun control bad, according to the right?
1. It doesn't work.
2. You should not ask permission from the government to exercise your constitutionally protected rights.
>>79891367
>Infringe on people's rights? As long as you aren't a criminal or have a mental heatlh record, aka a law-abiding citizen, why should it matter?
If you're walking the street, you have the right to self defense.
>>79891367
>Slippery Slope fallacy. Just because we have gun control doesn't mean we will eventually get a gun registry and ultimately a gun ban.
Those who are pushing gun control want a registry and a gun ban.
>>79891946
>So is there anything wrong with government regulating firearm "sales" in terms of checking to see if you have a mental health issue or had past criminal offenses?
Yes. Again, you should not ask the government for permission before exercising your rights.
The government is the last entity that should determine what is "mentally ill" or not.
If someone is so mentally ill that they'd use a firearm to kill innocent people, what is that person doing walking the streets.
Finally, people are innocent until proven guilty. You are asking them to prove themselves sane before being able to buy firearms.
>>79892424
>Why do people say "Shall not be Infringed"?
Because it's in the wording of the amendment.
>People have argued that it's all subjective, like the Constitution.
If the constitution means whatever the person wants it to mean then they can re-interpret it to say whatever they want it to say.
The constitution was written to say exactly what it says, no interpretation about it.
>>79891946
>So is there anything wrong with government regulating firearm "sales"
ALL current law is based on simple transfer of possession. If you want to start regulating sales you would have to completely rewrite every notable piece of gun control legislation in the country, starting with the National Firearms act of 1934.
Good luck with that.
>in terms of checking to see if you have a mental health issue
Being adjudicated mentally deficient in a court of law has been a disqualifying condition for a NICS (the database a 4473 is run through) check for more than two decades now.
If you're talking about psych evaluations or something like that, fuck off. Medicine is insanely politicized in America. It would be abused in a heartbeat.
>or had past criminal offenses?
Felony convictions and misdemeanor domestic violence convictions are already disqualifying conditions.
Pic related is the relevant section of a Form 4473.
>>79888721
Because it's pointless. Criminals don't obey laws.
There are half a billion unregistered guns in the US. It is literally not possible to prevent someone in the US from arming themselves.
How many times are you faggots going to start these pointless threads?
>>79891367
silppery slope isn't a fallacy.
Anyone who lives in California can tell you where this shit is heading.
>>79888721
All private property exists merely because of force. Either I am willing to defend it more than you are willing to fight to take it, or an extension of it such as the legal/state ramifications of taking my property outweigh the benefits of doing so.
With this in mind, property is essential to life, and quality of life. Without any sort of property, you lack any means of sustaining yourself. If you depend on public property, you become at the mercy of the owners of said property. If you depend on community/family for property, you become dependent on family/community to continue to exist.
Thus you get into this situation of "what if the state lays claim to my property?" which is does in a social contract in most of the world; e.g., you "own" land that belongs to the state. It's therefore in the best interests of the property owning individual to hedge the power of the state to the best of their ability until a point where the state is too weak to maintain sovereignty; this is your "we've gone too far with personal liberty" stage.
So, logically, you want to make your property, and therefore your life or right to exist as strongly defended as possible. To inhibit your right to defense to those who may wish to deprive you of property is not only short sighted, but is the road to slavery.
>tl:dr; property rights are important to personal liberty. Guns are enforcers of property rights.
>>79892958
>This post
I guess I'm pro guns now.
>>79888721
There's no such thing as gun control. Only consolidation of ownership. I would be fine with restrictions all the way up to a ban if the following items could be guaranteed.
1. Our local and federal governments were forever impervious to being infiltrated by despots.
2.ONLY law enforcement and the military had access to firearms.
The fact of the matter is there are hundreds of millions of guns in the US and we know that prohibition does not work. Where there is a demand, someone will fill it.
Nearly all of these calls for gun control are essentially demanding that people loose the right to defend themselves in order to blanket themselves in false security.
>>79893149
>I guess I'm pro guns now.
Damn straight you are.
>>79891367
Background checks wrongly deny thousands of people every year while criminals continue to arm themselves with impunity.
Fuck your background checks.
>>79889201
I was never prouder of being born at Paulista Av.
>>79890584
The page you cited says "secondary market and theft" you stupid fucking nigger. That secondary market is obviously private sales without background checks.
>>79891050
>Registration did not work in Canada
The long gun registry didn't work. We have had a pistol registry for basically forever. If I sold a legal pistol to Tyrone and he gets caught, I am fucked.
>>79893847
Private transactions cannot be background checked, both due to a violation of first sale doctrine, and due to the sheer idiocy of "Hey, You gotta bring that gun back here to sell it. That's the rules lol!"
We want less of a grey market, not more you fucking leaf.
>>79888721
I literally used to smoke 4-5 unfiltered cigarettes at the same time, dragging on them all at once.
AMA
>>79890490
>being reasonable isn't reasonable because if they're reasonable they'll become unreasonable.
>>79895163
There's nothing reasonable about background checks.
>>79888721
Our law requires an amendment to the constitution before any of the regulations are lawful. therefore, any regulation at the congressional level will never cut the mustard when it reaches the supreme court. Plus, FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS MF-ER!!!
>>79888721
Nobody said those things were bad, in fact we already have those things but they are not enforced. For instance Islamic Terrorist Omar Mateen actually passed a background check, and was already on a watchlist. Obama's administration failed to enforce our pre existing gun laws. What the right does not support is the dissolution of state rights, which is what a federal background check would do. If you want gun control then vote for it in your state, or move to a state that has it. That's how america works. Beyond that total gun control is physically impossible because of free will, it would be worse than the war on drugs.
>>79894382
As long as you kept your stick on the ice, all that matters
>>79888721
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLLckyRpwr0
>>79891367
>Slippery Slope fallacy
google "after birth abortion"
>>79888721
>Why is regular background checks and other same gun control bad, according to the right?
1. Background checks do exist to a degree
2. Ineffective at stopping actions of criminals who operate outside the law anyway
3. Violent crime- with or without guns- is disproportionately committed by one ethnic group above all others.
4. Psychological background checks will lead to the government disallowing gun ownership to to those with homophobic tweets
5. The modern Authoritarian Left will never take an inch. They always, always, always will go for the mile.
>according to the right?
What happened to the Marxes, Cockburns, Orwells and Kennedys- the pro-gun Left?
>>79890276
Violent crime has been going down worldwide since the late 60s due to a variety of factors.
Removal of access of criminals to to firearms in the UK and Australia simply meant the violent crime -homicide among it-that was expected to be reduced was simply picked up by other weapons.
>>79889561
Damn...
SHALL
>>79893129
Fucking based, saving that
>>79888721
Because that power to denie shouldn't be allotted to the government that constantly proves it is corrupt and incompetent.
Government says you're a bad guy, now your rights are gone without due process.
