One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Guns Background checks
Page 1 of 2 next>
Aug 20, 2019 13:06:50   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
I hear everybody advocate guns background checks...If i remember correctly the last couple of shooters all passed background checks....So now what???

Reply
Aug 20, 2019 13:23:35   #
Kevyn
 
proud republican wrote:
I hear everybody advocate guns background checks...If i remember correctly the last couple of shooters passed background checks....So now what???


You get some you miss some, just because you don’t catch every speeder dosnt mean you don’t set speed limits. Remember the two most important words in our second amendment “well regulated.”

Reply
Aug 20, 2019 13:29:29   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
Kevyn wrote:
You get some you miss some, just because you don’t catch every speeder dosnt mean you don’t set speed limits. Remember the two most important words in our second amendment “well regulated.”


Ok....But how deep should your background checks go???..I mean if a person have mental disease,by law your psychiatrist is not supposed to give out info regarding his/her patient....

Reply
 
 
Aug 20, 2019 14:23:50   #
padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al
 
Kevyn wrote:
You get some you miss some, just because you don’t catch every speeder dosnt mean you don’t set speed limits. Remember the two most important words in our second amendment “well regulated.”


What you have accomplished with your "well regulated" comment is legally called "twisting." It's not honest but you don't seem to concerned yourself with honesty. You fuel your Prius with feelings and emotions.

Reply
Aug 20, 2019 14:47:29   #
Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
 
Kevyn wrote:
You get some you miss some, just because you don’t catch every speeder dosnt mean you don’t set speed limits. Remember the two most important words in our second amendment “well regulated.”
You have no idea at all what "well-regulated" means as used in the 2nd Amendment. I'll give you a hint: "well-regulated" has nothing whatsoever to do with federal control or regulation.

Reply
Aug 20, 2019 15:08:59   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
You have no idea at all what "well-regulated" means as used in the 2nd Amendment. I'll give you a hint: "well-regulated" has nothing whatsoever to do with federal control or regulation.


Exactly!!!

Reply
Aug 20, 2019 16:20:41   #
TiredOfNonsense
 
Kevyn wrote:
Remember the two most important words in our second amendment “well regulated.”


You are absolutely right. Those are the most important words. But the meaning of "well regulated" is not "controlled by the government" but "in proper working order".

Here you go:

https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

During those times, people used the phrase "well regulated" to mean something that works properly, not something that is tightly controlled.

"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:


1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."


The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected."


The government doesn't usually refer to something it wants to regulate as "well regulated". It's usually referred to as "regulated" or "controlled" -- without a qualifier. Referring to something that you want to control as "well regulated" from the perspective of the regulator makes no sense.

Is it "well regulated" as opposed to "poorly regulated"? Or "regulated but we promise we'll look the other way" regulated? Is that supposed to mean "we really-really-really mean it this time it's really regulated, not like the last time when we didn't really mean it when we said regulated"?

It generally makes no sense for the people crafting a regulation to refer to the regulation they are crafting with qualifiers.

Parents do it to their toddlers with "I mean it this time". But lawmakers, when making amendments to the Supreme Law of the Land, not so much.



But even if you forget all that, do you think the people drafting the amendment actually thought that the way to prevent government tyranny is to have a m*****a that is tightly controlled by that same government, tyranny of which the m*****a is meant to prevent? You really think they were that stupid? You think that is the "spirit of the law" when it comes to the Second Amendment?

They got together and said: "Well, dudes, we really don't want to end up yet another tyrannical monarchy after several generations, so we need to do something. How about we recognize that the people can form a m*****a and restrain the government if need be? Great idea! And the government will be in charge of deciding who is in the m*****a, who gets to be armed with what, who is the officer in the m*****a, and what the m*****a is doing! Awesome, my dudes! Foolproof plan! Bring me some paprer, no the other kind of paprer, I'm going to jot this down before I forget!"

And that kids is how the Second Amendment was drafted. Not.


So yes, I agree that "well regulated" is the most important part of the Second Amendment. But not in the way you think it is.


Kevyn wrote:
You get some you miss some


Ah yes. As AOC and other prominent Democrats keep telling us: any law or regulation or implementation of such law that disproportionately affects people of colors is r****t. It doesn't matter if the law is well-meaning and just; if it happens to affect minorities in a negative way, then it's r****t. And anyone who disagrees with it is a r****t n**i pig.

That seems to be the main left's rhetoric these days.

Keeping this in mind, let's talk about background checks.

Currently, a background check would deny you if you have felony convictions and certain limited types of arrests. (The latter depends on the state.)

But that's not effective. Right? So we need to make background checks stricter, as the Democrats would have us believe.

So how do we make the process stricter?

Do we include all arrests as reason to deny the right to bear arms?

What about someone being detained and questioned by the police but not arrested? Many of the criminals had some run-ins with the law that didn't amount to an arrest let alone a conviction. So do we deny them too? For the greater good, right?

After all, if someone gets stopped and questioned by the police, maybe even more than once, shouldn't we deny them the right to defend themselves a way to murder four million babies per second with their black scary-looking weapon of war?

OK, let's assume we keep making background checks process stricter and stricter and stricter after each new mass shooting....

What will be the end result?

.....drum roll..... who gets stopped and detained and questioned and arrested more frequently? White people living in middle class and upper middle class neighborhoods or black and Hispanic people living in poor neighborhoods?

Right or wrong, but people of color, especially those who live in poor neighborhoods, end up on "law enforcement's radar" more frequently.

So we expand background checks and effectively turn the system from "shall issue" to "may issue", then all those people are going to be denied the right to buy a gun to defend themselves. Disproportionally poor black and poor Hispanic people.

Have you checked with AOC if she approves that? Watch out, you could be a N**i and not even know it. :)


To recap: you believe that the lawmakers passing the 2A thought that the future government should be in charge of deciding how the possible future government tyranny is to be prevented, and in addition to that you want fewer minorities to own guns to defend themsevles while statistically they as a group get victimized more frequently.

Are you one of the smart ones here? :)

Seriously though, any kind of a background check will always be either too restrictive or not effective enough. And in all probability, if you keep pushing it, we'll end up with a system that is both too restrictive for the law abiding citizens and still not effective enough against determined criminals.

Reply
 
 
Aug 20, 2019 17:36:26   #
Gatsby
 
proud republican wrote:
I hear everybody advocate guns background checks...If i remember correctly the last couple of shooters all passed background checks....So now what???


The US Congress has failed miserably on background checks, the blame is theirs alone!

Passing laws is meaningless, when funding for enforcement is denied.

The FBI lists 11 categories that should keep offenders from buying weapons including committing
any felony, being adjudicated for mental illness or having a drug conviction.

The NICS system requires state and local agencies as well as the military to accurately report
criminal history and other information. But for years, they have failed to upload these critical
records with no consequences for failing to follow federal law.

Enter the SCOTUS: The requirement that states upload this information constitutes an
"Unfunded Mandate", and thus cannot be enforced.

Congress responds: If your going to be that way, just forget it, we did!

You are going to spend the money one way or another. You are either going to hire
the manpower to enforce the laws on the books or you are going to buy body bags.

The NRA has estimated seven million offenders are not in the system.
The group supports better enforcement of the NICS system reporting requirements.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nics-failure-national-instant-criminal-background-check-system/

Reply
Aug 20, 2019 21:14:50   #
Navigator
 
Kevyn wrote:
You get some you miss some, just because you don’t catch every speeder dosnt mean you don’t set speed limits. Remember the two most important words in our second amendment “well regulated.”


Well regulated refers to the m*****a, not the arms of the people.

Reply
Aug 21, 2019 06:22:39   #
America 1 Loc: South Miami
 
Kevyn wrote:
You get some you miss some, just because you don’t catch every speeder dosnt mean you don’t set speed limits. Remember the two most important words in our second amendment “well regulated.”


Kevyn, the perfect example of well regulated.
Always sensible.

Reply
Aug 21, 2019 07:58:41   #
Gatsby
 
America 1 wrote:
Kevyn, the perfect example of well regulated.
Always sensible.


Kevyn needs to regulate his mind.

Reply
 
 
Aug 21, 2019 12:10:39   #
Smedley_buzkill
 
Kevyn wrote:
You get some you miss some, just because you don’t catch every speeder dosnt mean you don’t set speed limits. Remember the two most important words in our second amendment “well regulated.”


Remember what "well-regulated" meant when the words were penned. It meant something that works properly and had little to do with government oversight. I realize your hatred of all things conservative interferes with your already laughable research sk**ls, but try and keep up.

Reply
Aug 21, 2019 15:56:21   #
TrueAmerican
 
Kevyn wrote:
You get some you miss some, just because you don’t catch every speeder dosnt mean you don’t set speed limits. Remember the two most important words in our second amendment “well regulated.”


And our military is regulated by the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) BUT the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. (INFRINGED --- to break terms of (a law, agreement etc.) Syn:contravene, violate, t***sgress, break, breach. Making an unauthorized copy of a would be a copyright infringement) has nothing whatsoever to do with the regulated m*****a !!!!!!

Reply
Aug 21, 2019 16:09:19   #
woodguru
 
proud republican wrote:
I hear everybody advocate guns background checks...If i remember correctly the last couple of shooters all passed background checks....So now what???


It's not about preventing every one, it's about heading off even a few that could have perhaps been prevented. It's more than background checks, it's police departments reporting acts of domestic violence that indicate anger management and mental health issues. It's about actually responding to reports of threats by family members and social media, it's about hospitals reporting unhinged behavior. Unhinged people are going to lose civil rights such as the right to own a gun.

The "won't prevent them all" argument is incredibly dense.

Reply
Aug 21, 2019 16:12:47   #
proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA
 
woodguru wrote:
It's not about preventing every one, it's about heading off even a few that could have perhaps been prevented. It's more than background checks, it's police departments reporting acts of domestic violence that indicate anger management and mental health issues. It's about actually responding to reports of threats by family members and social media, it's about hospitals reporting unhinged behavior. Unhinged people are going to lose civil rights such as the right to own a gun.

The "won't prevent them all" argument is incredibly dense.
It's not about preventing every one, it's about he... (show quote)


In Parkland shooter case Police was contacted many times and nothing was done!!!!...You are right about one thing..See something say something...But also police should take it more seriously...

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.