Who's ready for WW4 (aka the debate)

Exactly, they shouldn't have background checks. Its infringing on your rights.

 

So you are telling me someone who was in prison for being an accomplice to a murder, got 20 years in prison, got out of prison, wants to go buy a gun, goes to the gun store and because the gun store couldnt do a background check the guy goes and buys a gun..... that's okay with you?

vs.

You can buy a gun but were going to do a background check to make sure you wont do something stupid with the gun you are about to buy?

 

gun stores should do background checks, not the government. once the government gets involved its a bad scene. The government should by all means give gun stores access to state records and mental health records they might not have access to as a private business, but it should be the gun stores prerogative to background check.

 

Guns stores should be forced to do background checks and I 100% agree that the government should have 0 part in it. The government doesn't need to know what gun I have.

 

He said government and his point is very valid. It's a very dangerous and serious business altering the Constitution or how it's interpreted and usually always a slippery slope.

Take for example, in Europe it's illegal to use racial slurs against someone. Do I think using slurs are appropriate? No, but I disagree with being criminally prosecuted for using them because once you start deciding what you can, or cannot, say to somebody what the next stop down that road? Do we make it unlawful to insult police officers, military, etc? What happens if someone get's the idea to extend that idea to politicians? What about if we live in a world where it is unlawful to insult the President, or to speak ill of him? Well that's beginning to look like an authoritarian regime and un-American.

While it's definitely a slippery slope, we've already established the literal language of our civil rights, or constitution, is not an all or nothing type of deal. In America, while you can say virtually anything, you cannot make threats because that is not considered free speech.

People with violent pasts should not own guns, nor should guns be a laissez-faire right, requiring people to show basic competency before they can operate because, despite counter arguments, guns kill people. That is their entire purpose to exist, to lodge metal projectiles into into things, usually living things. Saying guns kill people is not the same as saying that guns only are a negative thing in society, they are not. Guns have a very real and important role in human and American society and that also needs to be recognized, like the sentiment guns kill people. To argue they don't is dishonest and prevents common sense solutions.

tl;dr - The left and right are both wrong about guns, and like most things, the simple common sense solutions lie somewhere in the middle.

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 21, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 21, 2017 ---

I disagree to the extent the datebase needs to be cross-state. There is no reason that I, if I had a violent history recorded in Florida, should be able to go to Mississippi and buy guns.

 

@Deinen the government cannot take your guns away. It is your constitutional right I bare arms as well as freedom of speech. Making a threat is not part of freedom of speech. You talk about common sense but if I threaten to kill you it's common sense that I need to be stopped before I do the crime. That's why you don't make threats. Certain threats atleast. Also if guns kill people then pencils misspell words and spoons make people fat.

As far as your second part I can agree that if you commit a crime in Florida you shouldn't get to hop the state border to Georgia or any other state and get a gun. HOWEVER! (Gotta love them howevers) if I buy a pistol, the government shouldn't know it. The government doesn't need to know what kind of gun I have and where the guns at. They should just limit what people can buy guns.

 

So you think people with violent criminal history should have guns or...??? Nowhere did I say take away guns. Nowhere did I say it's not a right to be armed, I support an armed citizenry??? What the hell you on about

 

Weren't the Napoleonic wars classified as a world war or something? So WW2 would be WW3?

--- Double Post Merged, Apr 21, 2017, Original Post Date: Apr 21, 2017 ---

Yes we should supply isis terrorists with guns

 

Gun stores have an incentive to sell as many guns as possible. Therefore I don't think they should be trusted to conduct background checks.