It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
-Thomas Jefferson
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: amazing
And please tell me the harm in more and better background checks? There's no downside.
Because Holme's,Mercer,Lanza all bought their weapons LEGALLY or killed someone to get them.
Holme's and Mercers and Lanza weren't criminals until the day the acted.
There is NO screen for that.
That's true, but still is not a case against better background checks. We want to curb gun violence, all gun violence, and better background checks IS one small piece of that.
I've posted before that the other pieces are mental health, Poverty reduction and addiction/alchoholism treatment and education.
I have no issue with the laws being amended or adjusted to keep up with the times just as Jefferson said here, it is essential in my opinion. Requiring background checks to own a gun is not a bad idea at all and I have no issue with it.
originally posted by: amazing
The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010
I couldn't find a more recent data.
Sure that's a small drop in the bucket, but that's still almost 73,000 people that shouldn't have guns that couldn't get them. I realize it's not THE answer but it is part of the solution. I'm sure it's close to the same every year.
That's over 400,000 Guns NOT sold to people that shouldn't have had them. Then add to that that the registration process is fraught with problems including communications between state and federal government, numerous loopholes etc., and you can see that there could be, some estimates at least 25,000 guns sold each year to people that should have them. (convicted felons)
Again what's the problem? Let's make the registration process better. That's just common sense.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
-Thomas Jefferson
I have no issue with the laws being amended or adjusted to keep up with the times just as Jefferson said here, it is essential in my opinion. Requiring background checks to own a gun is not a bad idea at all and I have no issue with it.
I think people are just too set in their ways to allow progress to take place. What's the issue with requiring a background check? If you are fit to own a gun, your rights aren't being infringed one bit. As of now any felon with a gun record can buy a gun no problems at the high volume dealers, I see that as an issue personally.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96
More EO's huh? So nothing much to worry about since EO's don't have much authority beyond telling how executive parts of the government should function. Same as the other EO's that Obama signed on gun control.
*Yawn* More fake outrage over nothing involving gun control. Guns will be no more restricted or banned after any EO's Obama signs than they were before he signed them.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Tell that to millions of curio and relic collectors that can no longer buy weapons over seas.
Because of Obama's 'executive orders'.
Tell that to millions of Americans that can no longer leave their weapons to their family member now they are forfeit to the state when they die.
Yawn is right because Obama and his supporters have no idea of what they are talking about.
originally posted by: Reallyfolks
originally posted by: amazing
The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010
I couldn't find a more recent data.
Sure that's a small drop in the bucket, but that's still almost 73,000 people that shouldn't have guns that couldn't get them. I realize it's not THE answer but it is part of the solution. I'm sure it's close to the same every year.
That's over 400,000 Guns NOT sold to people that shouldn't have had them. Then add to that that the registration process is fraught with problems including communications between state and federal government, numerous loopholes etc., and you can see that there could be, some estimates at least 25,000 guns sold each year to people that should have them. (convicted felons)
Again what's the problem? Let's make the registration process better. That's just common sense.
That's 400,000 guns not sold legally while nothing was done to then stop those denied from purchasing private or from the black market. Nothing was stopped but the point of sale orgin. But you felt better saying it helped.
Which EO was this exactly?
Also, the administration said it will deny requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the U.S. to private entities, with a few exceptions, such as for museums. Currently, when the U.S. provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval.
The White House announced Thursday it would close two gun sale loopholes through executive authority, by subjecting gun purchases by corporations and trusts to background checks and banning almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities
originally posted by: amazing
originally posted by: Reallyfolks
originally posted by: amazing
The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010
I couldn't find a more recent data.
Sure that's a small drop in the bucket, but that's still almost 73,000 people that shouldn't have guns that couldn't get them. I realize it's not THE answer but it is part of the solution. I'm sure it's close to the same every year.
That's over 400,000 Guns NOT sold to people that shouldn't have had them. Then add to that that the registration process is fraught with problems including communications between state and federal government, numerous loopholes etc., and you can see that there could be, some estimates at least 25,000 guns sold each year to people that should have them. (convicted felons)
Again what's the problem? Let's make the registration process better. That's just common sense.
That's 400,000 guns not sold legally while nothing was done to then stop those denied from purchasing private or from the black market. Nothing was stopped but the point of sale orgin. But you felt better saying it helped.
It does help. You want all those guns sold to convicted felons etc.? Why? Why is that okay with you?
I'm the first to say that I want the right to own a gun and I want less government in my life, but I do want waiting lists and gun registration and back ground checks. Don't you?
I'll also state it again since you missed it. This is not the only solution it's one small part...the biggest is anti poverty measures and way, way more mental healthcare.
I am an advocate of gun ownership but requiring a background check is not a bad idea. Why do you think it is? Is it taking your right to own a gun away from you?
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Reallyfolks
I certainly never said I supported them. To me, they are a waste of time and effort. Just feel good politics to make it look like Obama is doing something.