im not the type who's calling for massive gun reform. but conservatives really need to check themselves. i dont get how anything along the lines of having simple universal background checks for them is too taboo of a subject.

our attitudes towards gun control seem to get mixed with a type of philosophy that dictate to where guns should not only be blocked from regulation, but have a total immunity to ANYTHING deemed gun restrictive.

It is mind-blowing that we have laws blocking the CDC from tracking gun stats, or blocking the ATF from tracking guns used in a crime. it is absurd that time & time again the NRA spends millions on laws aimed not at the right to own a gun, but the right to fire a gun. a good example is Indiana where they defined when its ok to use lethal force against law enforcement.

republicans like the good ole "well cars kill people too" argument. the difference between cars & guns is that we realized cars were dangerous and enacted reasonable regulation for the publics safety. we have seatbelt laws, speed limits, drunk driving laws, yearly inspections, license's, mandatory insurance, safety ratings etc.

i have a unique view on guns because of my time in both colorado & new york gives me a perspective on both sides. but at some point even hardline gun rights activist have got to come to their senses.

(08-07-2013 04:18 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:11 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:08 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:04 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  People that hear voices and have multiple personalities do not need a gun. We set up a warning to pop up with a certain level dysfunction it red flags the sale and nobody knows about your lumbago

So yes you are for the Federal Govt having access to your medical records. Was that so hard? So do you think most Americans want that?

When a person is incarcerated for mental illness it simply shows up on the background check. Your colonoscopy footage is private & safe for you to view in the privacy of your own mobile home

That's a criminal background check and we have those at the state level. So what kinds of background checks are "91%" of Americans in favor of?

That is what I am saying. This is not a medical check. I think you could stand an evaluation. Seriously, No Seriously

So how about the mentally ill that have no criminal record? How about those who have never been diagnosed? If you recognize that this is a state issue, why are you calling for a federal background checks?

(08-07-2013 04:18 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:12 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:11 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:08 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:04 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  People that hear voices and have multiple personalities do not need a gun. We set up a warning to pop up with a certain level dysfunction it red flags the sale and nobody knows about your lumbago

So yes you are for the Federal Govt having access to your medical records. Was that so hard? So do you think most Americans want that?

When a person is incarcerated for mental illness it simply shows up on the background check. Your colonoscopy footage is private & safe for you to view in the privacy of your own mobile home

That's a criminal background check and we have those at the state level. So what kinds of background checks are "91%" of Americans in favor of?

That is what I am saying. This is not a medical check. I think you could stand an evaluation. Seriously, No Seriously

Peanut.. again, the proposed amendment was for _medical checks_ . Not criminal checks due to mental instability. That's the issue.. what do you check for in terms of medical declarations of instability?

If you have not been diagnosed then buy a gun. This is America you know. The system is not fool proof but if it stops one murder and it costs me an additional 40 minutes that's OK by me. Your time must be precious

(08-07-2013 04:31 PM)john01992 Wrote:  im not the type who's calling for massive gun reform. but conservatives really need to check themselves. i dont get how anything along the lines of having simple universal background checks for them is too taboo of a subject.

Again.. define WHAT will be in those "universal" checks that doesn't infringe on a person's right to privacy?

Quote:our attitudes towards gun control seem to get mixed with a type of philosophy that dictate to where guns should not only be blocked from regulation, but have a total immunity to ANYTHING deemed gun restrictive.

Are you paying attention? Most Americans are _in favor_ of reasonable checks. The question is .. what qualifies as reasonable?

Quote:It is mind-blowing that we have laws blocking the CDC from tracking gun stats, or blocking the ATF from tracking guns used in a crime. it is absurd that time & time again the NRA spends millions on laws aimed not at the right to own a gun, but the right to fire a gun. a good example is Indiana where they defined when its ok to use lethal force against law enforcement.

Completely different argument.

Quote:republicans like the good ole "well cars kill people too" argument. the difference between cars & guns is that we realized cars were dangerous and enacted reasonable regulation for the publics safety. we have seatbelt laws, speed limits, drunk driving laws, yearly inspections, license's, mandatory insurance, safety ratings etc.

John, do you even realize how many laws and regulations are ON THE BOOKS for gun purchases right now?

(08-07-2013 04:36 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  If you have not been diagnosed then buy a gun. This is America you know. The system is not fool proof but if it stops one murder and it costs me an additional 40 minutes that's OK by me. Your time must be precious

Do you even have a stance? What will cost you an additional 40 minutes? A mental evaluation?

(08-07-2013 04:49 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:36 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  If you have not been diagnosed then buy a gun. This is America you know. The system is not fool proof but if it stops one murder and it costs me an additional 40 minutes that's OK by me. Your time must be precious

Do you even have a stance? What will cost you an additional 40 minutes? A mental evaluation?

How ever long the background check takes. Even 48 hours or a week is still a small price to save lives.

(08-07-2013 04:38 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:31 PM)john01992 Wrote:  im not the type who's calling for massive gun reform. but conservatives really need to check themselves. i dont get how anything along the lines of having simple universal background checks for them is too taboo of a subject.

Again.. define WHAT will be in those "universal" checks that doesn't infringe on a person's right to privacy?

Quote:our attitudes towards gun control seem to get mixed with a type of philosophy that dictate to where guns should not only be blocked from regulation, but have a total immunity to ANYTHING deemed gun restrictive.

Are you paying attention? Most Americans are _in favor_ of reasonable checks. The question is .. what qualifies as reasonable?

Quote:It is mind-blowing that we have laws blocking the CDC from tracking gun stats, or blocking the ATF from tracking guns used in a crime. it is absurd that time & time again the NRA spends millions on laws aimed not at the right to own a gun, but the right to fire a gun. a good example is Indiana where they defined when its ok to use lethal force against law enforcement.

Completely different argument.

no you only say that because its a damn good point on how taboo any gun control is. we cant even start to fix our problems until attitudes like that in govt get eradicated

Quote:republicans like the good ole "well cars kill people too" argument. the difference between cars & guns is that we realized cars were dangerous and enacted reasonable regulation for the publics safety. we have seatbelt laws, speed limits, drunk driving laws, yearly inspections, license's, mandatory insurance, safety ratings etc.

John, do you even realize how many laws and regulations are ON THE BOOKS for gun purchases right now?

and do you realize that in any category there are more laws dictating cars than guns? just like guns a regulated with the magazine, flash suppressor, stock, cars are regulated with headlights, turn signals, break lights, brakes, seatbelts etc.

and yet no one complains when we try to tackle any car related problem with regulation

(08-07-2013 05:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:38 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:31 PM)john01992 Wrote:  im not the type who's calling for massive gun reform. but conservatives really need to check themselves. i dont get how anything along the lines of having simple universal background checks for them is too taboo of a subject.

Again.. define WHAT will be in those "universal" checks that doesn't infringe on a person's right to privacy?

Quote:our attitudes towards gun control seem to get mixed with a type of philosophy that dictate to where guns should not only be blocked from regulation, but have a total immunity to ANYTHING deemed gun restrictive.

Are you paying attention? Most Americans are _in favor_ of reasonable checks. The question is .. what qualifies as reasonable?

Quote:It is mind-blowing that we have laws blocking the CDC from tracking gun stats, or blocking the ATF from tracking guns used in a crime. it is absurd that time & time again the NRA spends millions on laws aimed not at the right to own a gun, but the right to fire a gun. a good example is Indiana where they defined when its ok to use lethal force against law enforcement.

Completely different argument.

no you only say that because its a damn good point on how taboo any gun control is. we cant even start to fix our problems until attitudes like that in govt get eradicated

Quote:republicans like the good ole "well cars kill people too" argument. the difference between cars & guns is that we realized cars were dangerous and enacted reasonable regulation for the publics safety. we have seatbelt laws, speed limits, drunk driving laws, yearly inspections, license's, mandatory insurance, safety ratings etc.

John, do you even realize how many laws and regulations are ON THE BOOKS for gun purchases right now?

and do you realize that in any category there are more laws dictating cars than guns? just like guns a regulated with the magazine, flash suppressor, stock, cars are regulated with headlights, turn signals, break lights, brakes, seatbelts etc.

and yet no one complains when we try to tackle any car related problem with regulation

What are you talking about? One of the reasons I left AZ was all the ridiculous taxes they put on owning a car. Most of the natives are quick to point out that started when the Californians began to relocate to AZ in droves. My home state dropped the inspection Tax and put a cap on tag and title tax.

That is a false statement.

(08-07-2013 05:54 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 05:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:38 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 04:31 PM)john01992 Wrote:  im not the type who's calling for massive gun reform. but conservatives really need to check themselves. i dont get how anything along the lines of having simple universal background checks for them is too taboo of a subject.

Again.. define WHAT will be in those "universal" checks that doesn't infringe on a person's right to privacy?

Quote:our attitudes towards gun control seem to get mixed with a type of philosophy that dictate to where guns should not only be blocked from regulation, but have a total immunity to ANYTHING deemed gun restrictive.

Are you paying attention? Most Americans are _in favor_ of reasonable checks. The question is .. what qualifies as reasonable?

Quote:It is mind-blowing that we have laws blocking the CDC from tracking gun stats, or blocking the ATF from tracking guns used in a crime. it is absurd that time & time again the NRA spends millions on laws aimed not at the right to own a gun, but the right to fire a gun. a good example is Indiana where they defined when its ok to use lethal force against law enforcement.

Completely different argument.

no you only say that because its a damn good point on how taboo any gun control is. we cant even start to fix our problems until attitudes like that in govt get eradicated

Quote:republicans like the good ole "well cars kill people too" argument. the difference between cars & guns is that we realized cars were dangerous and enacted reasonable regulation for the publics safety. we have seatbelt laws, speed limits, drunk driving laws, yearly inspections, license's, mandatory insurance, safety ratings etc.

John, do you even realize how many laws and regulations are ON THE BOOKS for gun purchases right now?

and do you realize that in any category there are more laws dictating cars than guns? just like guns a regulated with the magazine, flash suppressor, stock, cars are regulated with headlights, turn signals, break lights, brakes, seatbelts etc.

and yet no one complains when we try to tackle any car related problem with regulation

What are you talking about? One of the reasons I left AZ was all the ridiculous taxes they put on owning a car. Most of the natives are quick to point out that started when the Californians began to relocate to AZ in droves. My home state dropped the inspection Tax and put a cap on tag and title tax.

That is a false statement.

i think you are confusing taxes & regulations there jimbo

Quote:No you only say that because its a damn good point on how taboo any gun control is. we cant even start to fix our problems until attitudes like that in govt get eradicated

WHAT? Why the hell should the Center for Disease Control (your choice of agencies by the way) be concerned where a single gun is?

Oh noes, we've got guns out there where the government can't say who has them!! GOOD.. .That'll keep them on their toes in case they attempt a govt. takeover of it's citizenry! The 2nd amendment doesn't say.. "I have the right to bear arms, as long as I tell the govt. I have them."

So dont' give me the argument that the govt needs to know how many guns I have in my home to protect myself, my property and my wife.

(08-07-2013 09:39 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:No you only say that because its a damn good point on how taboo any gun control is. we cant even start to fix our problems until attitudes like that in govt get eradicated

WHAT? Why the hell should the Center for Disease Control (your choice of agencies by the way) be concerned where a single gun is?

Oh noes, we've got guns out there where the government can't say who has them!! GOOD.. .That'll keep them on their toes in case they attempt a govt. takeover of it's citizenry! The 2nd amendment doesn't say.. "I have the right to bear arms, as long as I tell the govt. I have them."

So dont' give me the argument that the govt needs to know how many guns I have in my home to protect myself, my property and my wife.

THE CDC is the go to program for tracking all public health related statistics. they dont just cure disease's, they track them too, and they also track car deaths, pool accidents, stabbings and such. There is only one thing the are specifically barred from researching.....gun statistics (not who owns guns, just the trends in how they are even used. tracking who owns them is not even in the ATFs jurisdiction). but actual stats such as "how many gun accidents are there" can not be recorded. as the go to agency thats supposed to be the watchdog for all public safety issues......how does that make any sense?

this is exactly what i mean. you cant have reasonable gun debate without the right throwing a hissy fit. this falls exactly into the notion from the right that guns should have full immunity from any government oversight

Bull john.. I've been trying to be as polite as I can in every debate, but then you guys throw out arguments that should not be even considered in the first place.

You've already done that by throwing the CDC in this argument, when IMO, NONE of those items you site should even be in their capacity. See, that's a totally different argument about the point of govt. agencies doing things that should never have been under their purview n the first place.

Their dept should not be responsible for guns, car accidents, pool accidents, street crime, etc. Again,they're the Center for DISEASE control. But hey, lets' just give the govt. more responsibilities if it allows us to kill your 2nd amendment rights.

But hey, just because conservative voters get tired of your antics from liberals, we're the ones that "throw a hissy fit"?

It is another example of those in power not being able to control themselves and pass legislation without going overboard. I fully support background checks for gun shows. We have the technology to do this right at the show electronically. The other things on this list are just nonsense.

(08-08-2013 08:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is another example of those in power not being able to control themselves and pass legislation without going overboard. I fully support background checks for gun shows. We have the technology to do this right at the show electronically. The other things on this list are just nonsense.

I'm not a gun guy myself, but I went to a gun show with my dad a couple of years back and we had to wait about 2 hours as they processed his background check... and I live in a gun friendly state. Why does everyone have their panties in a bunch about background checks when we already have them?

(08-08-2013 08:11 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 08:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is another example of those in power not being able to control themselves and pass legislation without going overboard. I fully support background checks for gun shows. We have the technology to do this right at the show electronically. The other things on this list are just nonsense.

I'm not a gun guy myself, but I went to a gun show with my dad a couple of years back and we had to wait about 2 hours as they processed his background check... and I live in a gun friendly state. Why does everyone have their panties in a bunch about background checks when we already have them?

It is a red herring. We know what these people really want.

it may be called the CDC: put its mission is public safety not just diseases. They go well beyond the study of viruses. So of course they should be the watchdog of car crashes and such. BECAUSE THATS THEIR JURISDICTION. there is no other program whose in charge of that.

Its main goal is to protect public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability. The CDC focuses national attention on developing and applying disease control and prevention. It especially focuses its attention on infectious disease, food borne pathogens, environmental health, occupational safety and health, health promotion, injury prevention and educational activities designed to improve the health of United States citizens. In addition, the CDC researches and provides information on non-infectious diseases such as obesity and diabetes and is a founding member of the International Association of National Public Health Institutes.

so basically what you are saying is that its okay for the government to give a program the authority to study any it deems as a public safety issue....as long as its not guns. why? because the NRA says so.

the simple fact that CDC studies....
severe weather
drunk driving
fire related death/injuries
suicides
child abuse
elder abuse
domestic violence
fireworks
dog bites
pool accidents

is specifically barred from studying one thing....and only one thing (guns) is pretty telling as to how messed up our system is. do you really think that gun use in the US (misfires, defective firearms, injury/death rates etc.) is not as big of a problem as any of whats mentioned above? do you really think that gun stats should at the very least not be tracked in the same way we track food fireworks & cars

im pro gun rights, but im not pro stupidity, and i want to get rid of this mentality that guns should be immune from ANY government oversight.

(08-08-2013 08:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 08:11 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 08:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is another example of those in power not being able to control themselves and pass legislation without going overboard. I fully support background checks for gun shows. We have the technology to do this right at the show electronically. The other things on this list are just nonsense.

I'm not a gun guy myself, but I went to a gun show with my dad a couple of years back and we had to wait about 2 hours as they processed his background check... and I live in a gun friendly state. Why does everyone have their panties in a bunch about background checks when we already have them?

It is a red herring. We know what these people really want.

the two hour wait was because your dad bought a gun from a licensed dealer whose required to do a backround check for every gun sold because they sell guns on a regular basis

the loophole deals with those classified as "occasional sellers" who can sell their guns even though they are not licensed and thus not required to perform background checks.

(08-08-2013 09:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 08:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 08:11 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 08:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is another example of those in power not being able to control themselves and pass legislation without going overboard. I fully support background checks for gun shows. We have the technology to do this right at the show electronically. The other things on this list are just nonsense.

I'm not a gun guy myself, but I went to a gun show with my dad a couple of years back and we had to wait about 2 hours as they processed his background check... and I live in a gun friendly state. Why does everyone have their panties in a bunch about background checks when we already have them?

It is a red herring. We know what these people really want.

the two hour wait was because your dad bought a gun from a licensed dealer whose required to do a backround check for every gun sold because they sell guns on a regular basis

the loophole deals with those classified as "occasional sellers" who can sell their guns even though they are not licensed and thus not required to perform background checks.

You mean an individual non dealer selling to a licensed dealer?

(08-08-2013 09:12 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 09:08 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 08:16 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 08:11 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(08-08-2013 08:06 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is another example of those in power not being able to control themselves and pass legislation without going overboard. I fully support background checks for gun shows. We have the technology to do this right at the show electronically. The other things on this list are just nonsense.

I'm not a gun guy myself, but I went to a gun show with my dad a couple of years back and we had to wait about 2 hours as they processed his background check... and I live in a gun friendly state. Why does everyone have their panties in a bunch about background checks when we already have them?

It is a red herring. We know what these people really want.

the two hour wait was because your dad bought a gun from a licensed dealer whose required to do a backround check for every gun sold because they sell guns on a regular basis

the loophole deals with those classified as "occasional sellers" who can sell their guns even though they are not licensed and thus not required to perform background checks.

You mean an individual non dealer selling to a licensed dealer?

i believe the individuals can bring the gun to a gun show and sell it to anyone. the only laws regulating it are

1. the gun must fit the legal criteria of whats allowed to be legally possesed in that state
2. you must follow a federal law stating that you can not sell a gun to someone you believe is a felon

the keyword there is believe. after those 2 rules, its fair game