What are the Arguments Against Universal Background Checks

Dude. LEO very seldom go to jail for violating the law. Neither do the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing politicians. Those laws they pass only apply to the peasants, not the masters or slave drivers (LEO)

 

Hogwash. There is nothing natural about "property rights."

 

hog wash. I am too poor to pay attention, but I have 21 weapons in 19 different calibers, and have had to undergo background checks for all but six of them. I walked out the door a half hour at most after making my selection of most of them. It costs ten dollars. I do not have to drive haslf-way accross the county to register the transaction.
It is easier for a kiddy-fiddler or a wife-beater to getr a gun here than it is for an old black Army veteran to vote in Wisconsin.

 

That is because you DID NOT READ THE LINK!!
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/state-map-gun-suicides-traffic-deaths

 

It is a heck of a lot more valid than your argument for. Slavery trampled on other people's unalienable rights. Me buying a gun from someone does not.

The current argument for it is so dishonest it is striking. First, there are already laws in place. Second, the argument that "if we could just save one life" is so specious especially since it will not be applied to anything but law abiding gun owners. If people really thought that doing something to "save one life', then they would be all for banning or licensing with restrictions certain first amendment rights. For instance, copy cat killers. Banning any publication that told about any shooting would save people's lives but is anyone going there? Not on your life (pun intended) because it is not about saving lives at all.

 

Background checks = "nothing to hide, nothing to fear".

 

Background checks = "more red tape and cost for those that have nothing to hide, nothing to fear, no red tape for criminals"

 

So you think it is unreasonable to assume that most adults are sane and responsible? It is a good think that most sane and responsible folk would disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

Good thing I wasn't talking about background checks then, isn't it?

 

I think it unreasonable to assume anything about someone who's buying a lethal weapon.

 

Silly me, it's only the subject of the thread.

 

Ahhh. So it is a personal prejudice or paranoia? ...I see. It is an unreasonable assumption!

It is not not unreasonable to assume someone buying anything from a knife or hammer to a gun is responsible and sane and the vast majority of lawmakers and citizens agree. It is not an unreasonable assumption, even using the legal standard.

 

If you had read my previous posts in this thread before you had interjected (or looked at the vote tally), you would have seen I was debating against universal background checks in those posts and the conversation I was having..so silly you indeed!

 

Paying for a background check and the other fees would put the cost of home self defense out of reach for a good portion of the poor and elderly.

It already does in California.

 

You are correct. And it is a STUPID mindset fostered by America's culture, which (sadly) promotes/reveres greed and violence.

Guns are a multi-billion dollar enterprise; some people don't want controls placed because it will affect their bottom line.

 

I hope that case is made and ruled upon sooner than later.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...rsal-background-checks-14.html#post1062521919

There's $50 or $60 right there. Let the Democrats have their way you'll be buying insurance for each and every one of 21 guns.

This would further disenfranchise the poor and elderly from owning a gun for home defense.

 

I think it unreasonable to assume anything about someone buying a lethal weapon.

Clearly enough stated again. That's what's there. That you're adding your story in order to somehow make you right and me wrong tells me all I need to know. I wouldn't sell you a gun.

 

For the record, I am against background checks. That's why I posted that comment. It's supposed to be ironic, but I probably failed on that part.

 

Logic makes my position more lucid and reasonable than yours- nothing more and nothing less.

As far as your statement about selling me a gun, it is irrelevant to the conversation and simply an attempted ad hominem attack.

As I stated, it is not not unreasonable to assume someone buying anything from a knife or hammer to a gun is responsible and sane and the vast majority of lawmakers and citizens agree. It is not an unreasonable assumption, even using the legal standard.

 

Only need to be road worthy if you wish to drive them on public roads. Road worthiness is not a requirement for cars that are used on your own property only.

Not sophistry, but the truth. The only reason cars are regulated is to use them on public roads. If I only use a car on my own private property I need no license/registration, and I can even have a non-road-worthy car. It's quite common for some businesses (notably marinas) to own junker trucks that they only use to launch other people's boats. they are often in pretty poor condition, but it's legal, because they are never on public roads.

 

I assume you feel the same about the police searching your property at will. I guess you also wouldn't have a problem having the government wiretap your phones. After all if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear.

 

Unstable, insane, dangerous, and incompetent people who attempt to buy lethal weapons believe their logic is lucid and reasonable, too.

In the absence of written evidence to the contrary the best policy is to seduce their beliefs from them in order to make a reasonable judgement about selling them a lethal weapon or not and to err on the side of not doing so if there's any doubt in the mind of the seller.

 

Bah!

Well no, but I was hoping you had enough sense to answer that way on your own hahaha

It is not the business of the state to get involved if you want to commit suicide. You should be free to do whatever you want to your own body, no matter how misguided or unfortunate. That is what freedom is. It isn't just allowing things you agree with or things you would personally do.

I was trying to gauge how far you were willing to take this forced protection. I don't know that we will agree about much if you don't even believe you have freedom over your own body. Protection is something you should seek or desire. I don't think I should have protection forced on me.

Sure it is; law is an attempt to maintain order through threats of punishment, or to make people whole if they are damaged by others.

Hahaha... maybe one day, but not today.

Considering the odds, I would say that they are indeed irrational.

 

If you had asked me in the year 2000, I would have said the same thing about warrantless wiretaps, the current behavior of the TSA, or most of the provisions of the NDAA that apply to US citizens, yet here we are. There are vets all over the country having their guns taken for extremely flimsy mental health concerns right now. The best way to protect yourself from the possibility of abuse is to have protection codified in law, not make allowances in the law but assure us it won't be misused. If there is no intent to misuse the statute, everything should be spelled out in empirical terms, not hinted at with nebulous terms like "mental illness".

Other than those I have already stated? I don't think felons should be forever barred form their rights, nor do I think mental illness is a meaningful term as currently defined.

As I have already stated, if someone is too dangerous to be free, then they should not be on the streets. If they are not deemed dangerous enough to have them committed, then we as a society will have to take our chances.

If they are violent arrest them. If we suspect that they may become violent one day, that is too vague to have meaning. Everyone can be dangerous given the right circumstances.

Statistical significance is the gold standard for public health issues. Basically, in most issues it is the determining factor if the issue should be addressed with public health measures.

And yet, gun deaths are miniscule when compared to the deaths caused by the highly regulated field of medicine. You stated earlier that every death is worth a policy change. Where is the disconnect happening here?

Go back to your earliest post in this thread, because that is what I am referring to. I said, I don't believe that the deaths of 4 people were justification for changing laws that could potentially effect hundreds of millions of people, and you said you believed it was. Every life is precious and all of that.

Well then don't release them, but don't ask me to compensate for an unsafe situation which I had no hand in creating.

 

Seriously? This semantic dodge is your serious answer?

Sure. A background check is seeking permission to exercise a right. I don't feel that I have to prove anything or be subject to any level of regulation regarding my constitutionally protected rights.

An empty gesture to validate your participation in another empty gesture. Too cynical?

My buying or selling of private property has nothing to do with the state. My health records and my private transactions are my business.

Ok fair enough. But why am I being scrutinized for guilt or innocence in the first place? I don't mean what is the purpose of the law, I mean why am I included in new regulations that are a response to crimes which I did not commit?

Who has the newly added responsibility to consult the database? The database is a tool, not a person or entity with agency or responsibility.

If the burden of proof is not on me, can I decline to take or administer a background check for a private sale?

No it does not. The founding documents only provide for the pursuit of happiness, not its attainment. The amendments were designed to protect you from the state, not protect you from every remote possibility of negative outcome. If an issue becomes so large that it effects the population in a significant way, the state may attempt to address that, but it must do so in a way that is consistent with the constitution.

There seems to be a strong correlation between poverty/wealth inequality and violent crime. There is also a correlation between males raised in single parent homes and violent crime. Maybe start with the roots, rather than the symptoms.

Guns are not a cause of anything, nor are private transactions.