Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks

On the contrary - you said:
I have passed a background check and am not sure why some oppose them.
I told you why.

 

92% of libs hate America. True story.

 

What objective source citation do you have to prove that registration would lead to gun confiscation in the USA?

 

We have the history of the left and if it proves nothing else, it proves the left never let up, taking small bites, always wanting more and more. The more they get what they want the angrier they get. The more you give in, the more they want. There is no negotiating with the left, they're dishonest.

 

Dodg noted. I take said dodge as an admittance that you cannot or will not back your previous claim of "Background checks are a form of prior restraint; they violate the constitution" with objective source citation and I will move on to debate those who can.

 

I didnt dodge anything -- I gave you exactly what you were looking for, a reason why some oppose background checks.
But, feel free to move the goalpost.

 

You asked this of Perdidochas, who said:

" I don't believe that requiring background checks will do a thing for reducing crime"

I'd like to respond to that:

November 5, 2009 Nidal Malik Hasan kills 13 people and wounds at least 30 more on an Army base

In 2010 Omar Thornton went on a rampage and killed at least 8 people in Connecticut

2011 Eduardo Sencion, kills five people and injures 7 more at a IHOP in Carson City Nevada

2012 Adam Lanza kills 28 children at Sandy Hook (He stole his mother's weapons which were bought legally)

In 2013 Aaron Alexis killed 12 people and injured 3 more in the Washington Navy Yard shooting

In 2014 Elliot Rodger killed six people and injured 13 more in Isla Vista, California

2015 Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik kill 14 people and injure 22 more with weapons legally purchased - which included background checks

June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen kills 49 people and wounds 53 more in an Orlando gay bar

Okay, that is the worst mass shootings over an EIGHT YEAR period. In every instance the weapons were legally purchased and all but ONE case, the weapons were purchased directly by the shooter - who had no prior record and ALL of them passed background checks.

In the one case, Adam Lanza's mother underwent all the background checks, had firearms training AND her weapons were locked up. Background checks do not work.

I can tell you what would have prevented those killings. So, if / when you get ready to admit that background checks don't work, get back with me and I'll tell you what could have been done to stop ALL those above cited cases.

 

Strawman as abortion and the 14th Amendment are not the topic.

 

You gave me opinion when I am seeking facts. We will have to disagree here.

 

Oh no -- I stated a fact.
Some people very certainly do oppose background checks for exactly the reason I stated.

 

Cowardly deflection - Now you're using an irrelevant argument so you don't have to do any thinking. Cluck, cluck, cluck. You had nothing when you came and leave clucking like a chicken.

 

Subjective opinion that does not prove for a fact that registration would lead to gun confiscation in the USA.

 

Listing some examples of failures does not mean that background checks never work, it does however show a flaw in the system.

 

Which I do not refute.

We are perhaps addressing different aspects of the argument as my issue is with your claim that "Background checks are a form of prior restraint; they violate the constitution". Are you saying that is not your claim, it is just the view of some others but not you? If the above claim is a claim that you back, then why not provide objective source citation that backs the claim?

 

I explained how background checks are a form of prior restraint. You have not argued to the contrary.
I also explained how prior restraint violates the constitution. You have not argued to the contrary.
Thus:
Background checks are a form of prior restraint; they violate the constitution.
You have not presented an argument to the contrary.

The fact -you- require a court ruling to that effect does not in any way invalidate the argument.

 

Ad hominem attack. Further ad hominem attacks will get you blocked as a civil debate cannot exsist in the presence of ad hominem attacks. If you possess the ability to debate in a civil way then I look forward to further debate with you.

 

Some examples? Are you for real? There is no flaw in the system. I took a time period of eight years and showed the worst mass shootings for each year. Your background check system failed every time!!!! Don't you think it's time to wake up and smell the reality of the situation?

Not only are you struggling with understanding the concept behind prior restraint, you obviously never read the Fourth Amendment and you are living in a delusional world if you think that an examination of shootings that is consistent equals "some examples." Your solutions don't work. And, if you think the system is flawed, maybe you should heed my warnings and consider this:

Unlike most gun owners I come to the table with alternative ways to stop those shootings and you didn't even care to engage me in that conversation. You have an agenda. That agenda is contrary to everything the Constitutions stands for.

 

Where is the debate? You have no facts. You're going to block me from what??? Trying to blow smoke folks arse?

 

And dodged my repeated request for objective source citation that backs your claim of "background checks are a form of prior restraint."

Indeed as I am not here to make claims for or against background checks. I am here to learn from you and others thus the questions that I ask and my requests for source citation.

Which you have failed to link to background checks through objective source citation.

Indeed as I am not here to make claims for or against background checks.. I am here to learn from you and others thus the questions that I ask and my requests for source citation.

I have not made an argument "thus" your argument is correct? A claim is not factual just because it has not been proven incorrect. A claim is factual because the claim can be backed by objective source citation supporting a fact... which you have thus far failed to provide for your claim that "background checks are a form of prior restraint."

I agree and would add it does not prove the positive or negative thus my preference for objective source citation when arguing fact as opposed to subjective opinion.

 

Claims made in this thread about background checks.

Indeed as I make no claims for or against background checks. I am here to learn from you and others thus the questions that I ask and my requests for source citation.

 

It's clear you are not interested in a conversation regarding the issue you brought up.
Carry on.

 

I'm telling you the failures of background checks. I don't know what your personal objective is, but I do have ideas on reducing gun violence without gun control. It's a radical idea, I know.

 

New York, New Jersey, and California. Each state passed gun registration laws, promising fervently to never use those lists to confiscate guns.. People dutifully registered their guns. Then the state banned certain classes of guns, and used the registration lists to harass and browbeat the citizens who had registered their guns into removing them from the state or turning them in, and if people did not provide proof they'd disposed of their firearm then they got the "knock on the door".

Registration leads to confiscation. It's a historically documented fact.

 

In the state of New York, after the passage of the safe act, a number of individuals had their legally owned and registered firearms confiscated after a healthcare provider mistakenly classified them as potentially suicidal. These affected individuals later had to go to court to have the confiscation overturned, by proving that the healthcare provider was incorrect.

 

You are going to regurgitate that 3 year old poll? Is this going to be your monthly gun ban topic now?

The gun banners have lost, not even the extreme far left (like antifa) support gun bans anymore. In fact, the extreme left now supports gun rights.