So if we are going to background check citizens in order for them to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms............. How about background checks for those receiving welfare subsistence payments such as section 8 housing, food stamps, TANF, SSI and Medicaid? Any outstanding warrants...parole violations.......repeat offenders.............no money.
As soon as someone uses a food stamp to murder someone i'd say go for it, until then, lets try and and debate the topic like an adult and not throw out absurd red herrings
Non-sequitur. Should people in violation of the law be collecting the earnings of other hard working citizens? Please justify.
I don't think you know what non sequitur means. As soon as someone uses a food stamp to murder someone i'd say go for it, until then, lets try and and debate the topic like an adult and not throw out absurd red herrings
Yes I do. Why do you want criminals to be able to collect the hard earned dollars of other taxpayers? We can prevent them from getting guns with background checks and the money to purchase them on the street with background checks.
I don't think you do. As soon as someone uses a food stamp to murder someone i'd say go for it, until then, lets try and debate the topic like an adult and not throw out absurd red herrings
You forgot unpaid child support replaced by welfare. There should be no government services unless the father is named, so he can re-reimburse the Government at a later date like from his estate.
Interesting...Punish the Poorest citizens because someone wants to try to prevent gun crime. Compare the social safety net to a Constitutional amendment. Tell Grandma she needs to prove she deserves her social security check and healthcare protections because YOU need to prove your not gonna shoot someone before you can buy the gun you might use to do so. Perhaps a bit of rational thought would be in order before you present as all with another brilliant synopsis of the societal implications of regulation.
No punishment but we certainly should not give benefits to people with outstanding warrants, parole violations or even multiple offenses. Its not because of.
Selling your food stamps for crack or booze while children starve would likely result in gross negligence or in the case of a death only negligent homicide with depraved indifference, perhaps you have a point...
You have this all wrong, there is no punishment in this, they are seeking aid. Welfare is a benefit, not a reward. Social Security is an entitlement that was paid into, therefore an earned benefit, not a reward. You honestly don't see a problem infringing on a Constitutional Right because someone MIGHT kill someone? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Background checks for firearms is the complete opposite, guilty until proven innocent...
I suppose I simply do not see how verifying someone is capable of using a deadly weapon as intended removes a constitutional right, any more than verifying someone is capable of driving a car imposes undue restrictions on drivers. If someone has vision issues that indicate they "Might" cause a car accident we have no problem denying then the right to drive, yet if someone has an issue that indicates they "Might" kill someone else with a gun......we should allow them to do it anyway?
If they enact background checks the government will then have no hurdles left standing between a free society with a functioning 2nd Amendment and a government that can do anything it wants to us without the people being able to do anything to prevent it. As lamentable as the recent shooting deaths are, have been and will be, is that worth our PERMANENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY giving up our birthright to the government? I say no. Our founding fathers said no. Obama says, "yes." And always keep in mind what Lincoln said, "government of the people, by the people and for the people." And finally, please remember that absolute power resting in the hands of men will absolutely corrupt them. Hell, even without absolute power over us look at how Obama et al acts. Just think what they might do if they knew we had no recourse to their desired dictates!
Non sequitur this: The reason for not humiliating the poor and welfare recipients by requiring background-check eligibility, is because Democrats consider welfare income to be a compensation salary paid to the poor for the unique contributions and sacrifices they made to build and engineer the United States, and for past and present social injustices which they have so graciously tolerated. Welfare compensation payments can be compared to combat-disabled military veterans who receive compensation for their service to our country. Background checks should be required only for law-abiding citizens, because a lot of them can pass a background check. However, criminals such as muggers, rapists, burglars and home-invaders cannot pass a background check to legally buy guns. Therefore criminals must be encouraged to acquire their guns via underground and black market sources. When the festering zombie apocalypse (Democrat-inspired financial collapse) finally occurs, criminals will have the overwhelming advantage. It's only fair, according to Democrats. Criminals make up an enormous part of the Democrtic voting bloc. -30-
You do realize that our Founders' allowed duels, right? They didn't ask for background checks, they didn't say felons couldn't have guns, and they knew darned well that people were going to die because of firearms. Of course duels were fought over this thing called honor, oh I get it now, not a concept that the modern liberal can understand... (Not directed at you in particular) Difference here is between a right and privilege. This is actually all the result of that whole death of community and family. In ages now long gone, families actually looked after their members with 'mental instability' and communities knew better than to sell them guns. Seems the inept state is now running that show, the results are predictable, make more laws because they can't handle the responsibility they assumed with their stupid policies...
Should we then, rather than improving the background check system....do away with it altogether? Of course this will still leave the "Hurdles" of couple million guns, the legality of them, the inability to actually remove the right to bear them, and they would probably need to show the will to do so in some way as well.
You do of course realize that our founders outlawed duels....right? There was no such thing as a background check for them to require, there were no "Felons" to keep guns away from, and "Honor" was and is merely an extension of opinion.....Hell my Great, great, great, great, great Grandfather was Aaron Burr...heh (seriously, he was). It seems you have noted the societal changes when it comes to how Families and culture function to an extent, yet have not extrapolated this to address it in todays world. You argument makes little sense to me.
I dunno. Maybe someone in D.C. could propose some new hurdles that could be enacted which would prevent the govt. from having a straight, unimpeded expressway to being able to do what our forefathers were afraid an over reaching government would be tempted to do. If the Dems want background checks then maybe they should give us a new safeguard that will replace the safeguard we would be losing. What we fear is the loss of the last thing standing between us and an oppressive government. Create a new safeguard, a new barrier that would insure our 2nd Amendment would still be effective. I haven't heard this anywhere by anyone so please be sure to credit Pregnar Kraps for this proposal should anyone find it to be a worthwhile suggestion. Call it the PK proposal.
Sounds good....perhaps you could "Flesh Out" the details of the PK Proposal. A nice place to begin might be explaining to us exactly how a background check system that does not effect gun ownership for people entitled to have one undermines the right to bear arms. It might also so be helpful to explain what a new safeguard would look like, as it would not actually be replacing an older one that would still exist. As for your fear of losing the last thing standing between you and fascism.....sounds a bit loopy to me, and rather like someone who is afraid of the boogy man under his bed.
Well, the idea that the government already has and HAS HAD a registration law from the 1990's that hasn't been enforced should make anyone curious as to exactly what they need a new law for except to gain more information and insert more of their tentacles into our lives. And for what reason? A heavy set friend went to a liposuction doctor wanting him to suck out all her fat. His response was, 'Sure! Glad to.' But first he told her to lose 25 pounds with dieting and exercise. Only after she'd availed herself of the pre-existing, non-invasive methods of getting rid of her weight would he take care of whatever fat she couldn't lose otherwise. The point is that the NRA wants to see the government make use of the existing tools at its disposal before passing any new background check laws. And if the government were to do that and there was STILL a hue and cry across the land for more laws and/or more stringent measures the only way I can imagine that anyone should go along with it would be if these new background checks were handled by a private company with no connection to the government and laws preventing the government from being able to access the data collected except with an act of Congress. The RESULTS of the background checks could be made available to the government for enforcement puposes but the info itself would be private and secret. That way the results could be used to prevent bad/crazy guys from getting guns and those of us concerned about an over reaching government would have some assurance the government was still kept away from encroaching on our Constitutional rights. And, once again, that measure should ONLY be enacted after the existing laws were fully enforced. Hell, if the current laws/regs were enforced as we all thought they should have been all along some of these shootings might have been prevented! Remember, for those reading this who didn't read the first post, this is to be referred to as the PK proposal. EDIT: I referenced this page for background info. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/the-case-against-gun-background-checks/
Another provision of the PK Proposal could be that the private company assigned the job of collecting the gun buyers background check info be chosen by the gun manufacturers themselves. Or it might actually be a function of the NRA! That way they'd be certain to handle the info responsibly. And that would be only IF the government began enforcing the current laws and they were found to be inadequate. I think this would be a compromise everyone could agree on. Comments?
