Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Quite simply because it creates a ready and prioritizable list of citizens to be disarmed. That list, in the wrong hands, and at the wrong time could be devastating. And frankly, I don't trust our government with it.General Malaise said:
With all due respect, if people put the same amount of time and energy into reaching out to the folks in their lives they sense are struggling in some way (namely, with some form of mental health issues) that they do advocating for gun control and/or opposing guns, we likely are not having this discussion.
Actually, my hope is that would be the point more folks come to the realization we need to devote far more resources to addressing the actual root cause of this problem.
1-2. I agree. But who sets the criteria and is it universal? Also, how do we ensure that information makes its way to the appropriate database to be queried? A federal background check is only going to be as good as the more local sources (many of which (as I understand it) are sorely lacking) supplying the data.
Laws can be changed. A gun registry was part of the original Gun Control Act of 1968 but was blocked by the NRA. The Firearms Owner Protection Act was written primarily by the NRA-ILA and overturned multiple other federal laws and decisions of the Supreme Court.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
Of course laws can be changed.. doesn’t mean they should be, or will. The obsession with creating more laws without actually enforcing the ones we have, or showing any logical path to how it will actually fix the problem is reaching absurd levels these days.-fish- said:
If you keep pushing reasonable people, they stop being reasonable. Overzealous pressure from the left mobilized centrists and right leaning folks to elect Trump when they likely wouldn’t have.
I think I outlined that some people have begun contributing financially and as activists towards the cause. Whether or not I personally would go down that road would depend on how hard the opposition was pushing I guess. I think everyone has their own tipping points on issues they’re passionate about.
I'm sure those in favor of stricter gun control feel exactly the same way about the other side.
Stricter? How about just some sort of gun control period. In Michigan you just pay a few bucks for a class and you can have a concealed carry permit regardless of ability to shoot, hell you just got to be able to pay and nothing else.
Maybe people that are pro background checks don't consider those opposing it to be reasonable people.
So people are letting social media piss them off? Other than social media nothing has changed with guns, no gun laws for damn sure.
Did that bill pass? I know a year or so ago they required a training class, shooting range training, and passing some sort of test.
This is absolutely not true.
Where did I say it did? I was responding to his comment about people being reasonable. I think it is fairly obvious to even the most casual of observer that neither side can claim the moral high ground.
I guess I’ll post this for the 5th or 6th time... I’m not opposed to background checks. Hell, I’ve advocated going a step further and fixing the glaring holes in the databases that these checks scan... which frankly amazes me that more folks aren’t pushing for.
I'm one of them. I had never given a cent to the NRA or any one similar to them prior to last spring. Not that I didn't agree with the NRA, I was simply never pushed into taking any action. Mine was a combination of things, but the "straw that broke the camels back" was a local protest against guns. I will continue to give to them for the foreseeable future. I feel like I have to do my part to ensure the 2nd amendment rights given to us in the constitution remain in place for my kids and grandchildren.
Frankly when someone constantly has caveats to proposals and uses phrases like “If you keep pushing reasonable people, they stop being reasonable.” to describe only pro-gun folks I pretty much write them off as not being reasonable and is just paying lip service to wanting regulation.
Nothing personal but you posted "I'm against ANY new gun regs so yea, I am not in favor of "universal background checks" either. Too many people with an agenda on this issue for me to let them start nibbling at my rights" above. So I doubt you fit to many folk's definition of "reasonable" on the topic to begin with.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’d be wrong.
I don't see how that is possible. Most gun crimes are committed by people who obtain the guns illegally. So what if I pass a universal background check and someone steals my gun and uses it in a crime?
I guess I maybe put too much faith in "experts".TheFanatic said:
The NRA and their most vocal (zealous) followers have been "Not another inch!" for decades. They have won at every turn and are only becoming more entrenched in their attitude.[icon] said:
Correct. They are a small subset of gun owners. Do you want to push more into their ranks, and Provide them with much, much more financial resources? Because that’s what is going to happen / is happening. Denial has no bearing on the fact this is reality.
There are about 4 million NRA members.
the reality is that the opposite is happening. gun control groups outspent gun rights groups for the first time since it's been tracked. the NRA's funding is in the tank. the vast majority of Americans, including gun owners, support reasonable gun control regulations, including universal background checks. this year saw a significant number of states and municipalities pass new regulations.
Last year, you are correct. Please go back and read what I posted.... it is what I’m PREDICTING will happen if anti-gun groups push too hard.
yes, I hear this quite a bit. that somehow if the vast majority of people get what they want, a small minority will somehow turn the tide backward. the NRA has been saying this for years. oddly enough, they also say that these law-abiding gun owners simply won't comply with the laws.
Until there is a background check for someone that steals someone else's gun, then I'll go along with that, but until then, I don't see what that will do. The majority of gun violence is committed by those who obtain firearms illegally. The person that bought the gun may have gone through the background check, but the person who stole it did not.
do you support laws like Washington State just adopted that create criminal liability for failing to keep your guns secure?
Yeah, I'm good with that.-fish- said:
I see what you did there
