Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks

Listing select examples does not prove that the system fails every time.

Ad hominem as I am not the topic.

More ad hominem as I am not the topic.

Strawman as the topic of the OP is not "alternative ways to stop those shootings".

 

How is this a gun ban topic? If you think the poll is too old then have you got something better? Put up or shut up.

 

Nor do I refute those failures. I do however argue that pointing out a select few examples does not prove that background checks never work.

To learn your perspective and the perspective of others as knowledge is power.

And I may agree with those ideas, but a moot point as those ideas are not the topic of the OP.

 

Fair enough, but I was looking for instances of where all firearms were confiscated from Americans at a local, state or federal level.

 

Fair enough, but I was looking for instances of where all firearms were confiscated from Americans at a local, state or federal level.

 

Pray tell what citations might be necessary to go about proving such? If such is known, then such can be presented.

That is a wide topic. Pray tell what would you like to know, and where would you prefer to start?

The city of New Orleans in the state of Louisiana, in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.

 

Objective source citation preferably.

Anywhere on the topic of the OP.

Source citation needed for the above claim.

 

There is a neat game the pro-gun side allows the anti-gun people to play. They make the most idiotic, baseless, superfluous, and silly arguments possible. The pro-gun side goes to the trouble of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, the anti-gun side is wrong and what do they do? Why they try to trivialize the facts you brought to the table.

The bottom line is, the anti - gun side cannot show you one, single solitary case where a background check would have hindered, much less stopped a determined shooter. Background checks don't work. They are patently unconstitutional, immoral, unconscionable, unreasonable, and a threat to Liberty.

 

Perhaps we disagree upon the definition of the word select.

Select

1. carefully choose as being the best or most suitable.
   "students must select their own program"
   synonyms: choose, pick (out), single out, sort out, take; More
   
   

adjective

1. 1.
   (of a group of people or things) carefully chosen from a larger number as being the best or most valuable.
   Source Google

It is select as it is limited to "All the WORST examples from an eight year period".

Incorrect, I have not even been trying to disprove facts.

It is illogical by my measure of logic to place your words in my mouth and call them my own. The above in no way represents my actual views. I am pro gun. Did you assume that I am not? If so why?

You should take that up with those who are anti gun.

 

So as to not attack any given poster, I'm simply stating the obvious to gun owners.

The most hypocritical and dishonest arguments of any political subject matter, gun rights seem to be at the top of the list for those with a bug up their butt about gun ownership.

People on the losing end like to pepper their posts with terminology like "straw man," ad hominem, logical fallacy, etc. and then they will create hoops for you to jump through and imaginary goalposts that keep getting changed.

Talk about the incremental confiscation of firearms, the anti-gunners will then challenge you to show where ALL guns were confiscated at the state or federal level. We've never made such a claim and IF any state or the federal government began confiscating ALL the weapons in private hands, citizen militias would rise up to stop it immediately OR this country would fold state by state.

As long as we do not institute serious prison reform; as long as we try to be a nation that tries to be all things to all people and have no cultural identity; as long as we do not take preventative steps to stop gun violence, the numbers will continue to go up and NONE of it has a direct bearing on firearms themselves.

The best illustration is to see that in most years since 9 / 11 we've suffered terrorist attacks that claim a lot of lives by terrorists. In places that have outlawed guns, the terrorists use knives, bombs, trucks, etc. and sometimes with much more devastating results. The real answer is to identify terrorists and keep them out of the United States and, if they are here, either ship them back where they come from or put them into protective custody if they are one of ours.

The antis don't want answers. They want proof when the proof is self evident. Background checks don't work. Registration always leads to confiscation. Nations without Liberty become dictatorships.

 

The world is not so black and white.

Pro Gun people would have made idiotic, baseless, superfluous, and silly arguments possible
Anti Gun people would have made idiotic, baseless, superfluous, and silly arguments possible
People somewhere in between would have made idiotic, baseless, superfluous, and silly arguments possible

IMO a statement that background checks are "immoral", "unconscionable", "unreasonable", and a "thread to Liberty" is idiotic, baseless, superfluous, and silly arguments possible.

The sky would not fall in with more background checks nor less background checks, would it make your world a safer place. I do not know. In my society, I hope the government continues to legislate and regulate the **** out of people trying to obtain guns, in my world the David Lljeyonhelms trying to deregulate guns or the fishers and shooters are the crazy people in the corner of the room with crazy eyes, that our society only just manages to tolerate because we are a so very tolerant people. In my world that same man, stays in government through taking money from tobacco companies, probably the only polly in australia who openly admits to that.

 

Well, to go along with your game, what is wrong with doing background checks on all Americans over all transactions?

 

This is a real life problem over background checks.

It was 1980 and a gun dealer was going out of business. I went to see the merchandise. I noticed a new Ruger Blackhawk 357 magnum pistol with a remarkable discount. I decided then and there to buy the gun. I submitted to the background check.

This tied the gun to only me.

I came home one evening and opened the drawer the gun was in. It was gone.

I mean missing. Gone for good.

I called the cops. I informed them the gun was taken.

I was fortunate to also notify my insurance firm and got part of the cost from them.

Now, suppose that gun shows up in Alabama and is used in a crime?

Why would I be forced to talk to cops about the gun?

I support the statement made above my statement too.

 

You clearly intended to say that I selectively picked and chose examples that would prove my point and it is somehow unfair to the discussion. We're being asked to do all the proving and let's face facts: even if we do, the facts are never up to your imaginary standards. You don't have anything.

You are no more pro-gun than Jesus is pro-atheist. Don't kid yourself.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

Liberty, according to John Locke (the most quoted man by the founding fathers), is:

"In the state of nature, liberty consists of being free from any superior power on Earth. People are not under the will or lawmaking authority of others but have only the law of nature for their rule. In political society, liberty consists of being under no other lawmaking power except that established by consent in the commonwealth. People are free from the dominion of any will or legal restraint apart from that enacted by their own constituted lawmaking power according to the trust put in it. Thus, freedom is not as Sir Robert Filmer defines it: 'A liberty for everyone to do what he likes, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws.' Freedom is constrained by laws in both the state of nature and political society. Freedom of nature is to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. Freedom of people under government is to be under no restraint apart from standing rules to live by that are common to everyone in the society and made by the lawmaking power established in it. Persons have a right or liberty to (1) follow their own will in all things that the law has not prohibited and (2) not be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, and arbitrary wills of others."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty

In order to insure that concept, the founding fathers guaranteed unalienable Rights.

“No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…such area well-regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”
-Richard Henry Lee, Gazette (Charleston), September 8 1788

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”
– Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Nothing can be more clear from the pens of the founding fathers to your eyes. Background checks constitute an unreasonable search; nobody committed to the preservation of liberty ever compromises with evil. You cannot serve two masters. Good luck on trying to make gun owners look at it any differently.

 

My home was broken into and all my guns were stolen. Some were purchased in casual sales and some were purchased in stores. I kept serial numbers and reported all of them stolen. The insurance company paid off to the extent of the policy (four grand in guns taken but my policy only covered them for a maximum of $2500.) What puts you in any better position than I was in?

 

The difference is, in my posts I'm presenting FACTS; you are presenting opinion.

 

Such as the number of felons and other prohibited individuals who have been arrested for possession of a firearm, despite there being no legal avenue for them to have come into possession of a firearm to begin with?

Said topic is less than coherent. Clarification and specification is needed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/us/nationalspecial/police-begin-seizing-guns-of-civilians.html

NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 8 - Local police officers began confiscating weapons from civilians in preparation for a forced evacuation of the last holdouts still living here, as President Bush steeled the nation for the grisly scenes of recovering the dead that will unfold in coming days.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/24/a...confiscation-can-and-has-happened-in-america/

Despite their inability to cope with the resulting mayhem, several days after the storm passed New Orleans officials ordered the confiscation of lawfully-owned firearms from city residents. In a September 8, 2005 article, the New York Times described the scene, stating, “Local police officers began confiscating weapons from civilians in preparation for a forced evacuation of the last holdouts still living here… Police officers and federal law enforcement agents scoured the city carrying assault rifles seeking residents who have holed up to avoid forcible eviction.”


As reported by the Washington Post, New Orleans Superintendent P. Edwin Compass made clear, “No one will be able to be armed,” and, “Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.” At the time, NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre noted the nature of the seizures, stating, “In many cases, it was from their homes at gunpoint. There were no receipts given or anything else at a time when there was no 911 response and these citizens were out there on their own protecting their families.”

 

Spoken from a position of ignorance as I never made the above bolded claim nor does it represent my actual view.

Ad hominem as I am not the topic.

How one judges another says more about the judge than the judged.

And this has what to do with background checks? If background checks are unconstitutional then the obvious question is why are they allowed? Has the constitutionality of background checks been ruled on by SCOTUS?

Subjective opinion.

 

Yes as the above represents a serious flaw in the background check system.

You will have to talk to the OP for that as I did not create the thread.

Thanks for the citation. I never heard of the New Orleans case and am appalled by it. You taught me something new and I thank you for that!

 

Doesn't matter, I applied your standards and beliefs to a different amendment and you should stop posting. Kinda sux having your own logic applied to your opinions, eh?

 

False analogy by someone who is desperately grasping for straws.

 

Background checks are not going away.

They are here to stay.
Background checks are a certified

Quack cure all.
Real snake oil.
Patent medcine / worthless cure.

You could register / license all Guns and not put even a tiny dent in Crime and Violence.

 

<Rule 2/3>
Background checks are blatantly unconstitutional and it is impossible to argue it any other way.
<Rule 2/3>

 

That's not what you asked for.

 

You apparently didn't see the argument equating background checks to prior restraint.