Why are folks more concerned about guns than the loss of lives!

[peacebird]

I do not get it. The second amendment speaks of a" well regulated militia". How are BACKGROUND CHECKS somehow anti second amendment?

Well regulated seems a pertinent phrase here.

Good grief, PLEASE plaster the crime scene photos from Newtown all over the internet...... Let us really SEE what we are debating.

[elleng]

1. 'Folks' aren't,

companies that make guns and ammo ARE, and they are represented by NRA in Congress.

[Trajan]

2. LOL .. Cue in the classic DU Gungeonite Bombasters

Today I wondered " what would be lost if the DU Gungeonites were ejected, lock, stock and barrel? "

A great many of them are right wing interlopers taking advantage of an open door policy that leaves the door wide open to anyone ... Would we really suffer from the lack of them?

I, for one, would wave goodbye from the loading dock as they got back on the train that brought'm ...

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. You've no idea who at DU owns a gun and who doesn't.

Is a "gungeonite" in your opinion anyone who owns a gun, thinks the Constitution guarantees the right to own one (Notice I didn't say confers the right to own one; it merely guarantees the government cannot infringe on a right known to exist before the Constitution was written), or DOESN'T own a gun but STILL thinks the Constitution guarantees that right can't be infringed upon?

Eject those people from DU, is that right?

I joined DU BEFORE there was a daily debate about guns. Before there was an irrational fear. You can take your "eject them" bullshit and put it you know where.

Do you suffer from the fact that I own guns? Suffer? Not suffering from the absence of gun owners at DU means you think you suffer by our presence.

You and your kind will drag me protesting under the water of defeat in the next election even though I'll be doing the thing every lifeguard is trained to overcome: I'll be fighting you all the way as the weight of your bulletproof vest makes the both of us sink. You'll be wearing the vest due to an irrational fear whose odds of killing you are about the same as those of dying by being killed in an automobile accident.

I support the banning of "private transfers commercial or otherwise" and would subject each and EVERY transfer of a gun to a background check. I support size limitations on magazines. I support a law requiring the safe storage of guns AND ammo, including biometric locks. I support subjecting anyone who violates the private sale ban to the same punishment a criminal faces if their gun winds up in criminal hands and criminal acts are committed with it. I support including stolen weapons that are not reported in the previous sentence.

"ejected, lock, stock, and barrel" Fucking bullshit of the highest order.

[Trajan]

36. OK ... so you are a bona fide Liberal ?

There's one .... next ?

EDIT: More needs be said ...

I understand your angst against my statement, but consider this: The bulk of the citizenry have already expressed their preference for GREATER control of guns .... There has been a groundswell of support for increased gun control, with only the most dogmatic 2A supporters rejecting ALL forms of government regulation of guns .... A much smaller percentage resist reasonable efforts to bring some sane regulation to the business of selling guns, versus the large population that would like to see tighter controls ...

Yet, the so called 'Liberal' 2nd Amendment supporters here in DU side with that small group .... Most in DU stand with the masses and support greater efforts to reduce gun death through reasonable and sane efforts, while a small sector of ardent gun fanatics (and DU Gungeonites) reject those efforts ....

You want to ally yourself with those on the right who praise gun rights at the expense of the greater part of the population ? ... Fine - That is your choice ... But don't expect DUers who DO support increased gun regulation to winnow through every Tom, Dick and Harry who joins DU to march their little ass to the Gun Forums and start harrumphing from the proverbial belfry how us 'gun grabbers' are trying to steal their guns ... Dont expect us to find the true bona fide Liberals amongst the torrent of RW High Roaders who join this site just for the pleasure of poking the festering wound of gun politics ....

I know who you are .. and I have seen your posts are generally on the left side of the spectrum over your life here at DU .... But, because you ARE Liberal, you surely must understand how frustrated WE are at this breach in the side of DU that allows right wingers of all stripes to come in here to tweak our fucking noses ...

And, because you are Liberal, you also know that; We aren't here to grab your fucking guns .. Are we ?

Are we Liberals, here in DU, gun grabbers ? ... or are we just asking for some fucking sanity ?

I would apologize to you, if I thought you really gave a shit .... I'm pretty sure you dont ...

The fact is: IF my little reverie (AKA dream, supposition, proposition, notion, idea, what have you) WERE to become a reality, and the Gungeonites WERE sacked - We would lose a few Liberals, true .... But Im pretty sure would would lose far more right wingers ....

Now ... Keep in mind .. It was a mental exercise, and nothing more ... Fellow Liberal ...

[cherokeeprogressive]

40. Wow. Did you read my entire post? Because I don't think you did.

If you did, you surely didn't address it:

I support the banning of "private transfers commercial or otherwise" and would subject each and EVERY transfer of a gun to a background check. I support size limitations on magazines. I support a law requiring the safe storage of guns AND ammo, including biometric locks. I support subjecting anyone who violates the private sale ban to the same punishment a criminal faces if their gun winds up in criminal hands and criminal acts are committed with it. I support including stolen weapons that are not reported in the previous sentence.

Are those tighter controls not even on your radar? Do you want more? Those are my starting points; not necessarily as far as I'm willing to go.

And you know what? I don't really care what you think about my "bona fides". I've been here a minute. My transparency page shows no hidden posts. Fuck the 40 people who ignore me and fear I might send them emails. I've not sent 20 emails in my eight years here, and I have ZERO people on ignore. So you can pretty much call me what you want, or question my motivations. I don't care. I've been called and accused of worse than you did in your post. Hell... there's a Democrat from Cali who posted that in being the first to step up and call the 2012 election for Barack Obama I was merely covering my ass.

So go ahead and dream of seeing gun owners like me jumping up and down on the dock screaming for you to come back and pick us up. Go ahead and ignore our statements about where in the middle we're willing to meet you. Talk right past us as if we haven't said a word... End EVERY post with the statement that gun owners practice racism, sexism, homophobia, and hate as one of your friends does in their sig line. In the short term, I don't think that works out in ANYONE'S favor.

[BethanyQuartz]

31. I resent that

I'm very far to the left. Much further left than most people who vote Democrat. And I like guns. Not because I'm naive enough to think some old assault rifle is going to stop martial law if our government ever gets really determined, but because I like to shoot. And I like our Bill of Rights. And I don't think interpreting the 2nd Amendment more narrowly is going to save lives. If I thought it would I might be willing to support more regulation but I don't see it happening.

These two mass murdering terrorists managed to kill and wound people with pressure cookers. I guarantee if the police and military ever did a sweep and actually did manage to get all the guns out of the hands of all the criminals (impossible) and keep them from going across our borders (I'm sure Mexico would also appreciate it if our guns stopped going to their criminals, too) the killings wouldn't stop even then. We'd just be ducking various homemade explosives and who knows what other weapons concocted from the internet.

[Trajan]

35. Blah blah blah ....

Put your money where your mouth is > Speak 'Liberal' in the forums, and gain credibility ....

There are plenty of Gungeonites who espouse Liberal notions, but there are plenty who are just as right wing outside of the gun forum as they are inside ... They just cant help themselves ...

It is very difficult for a right winger to hang out in DU very long, unless they are a gun aficionado that is quiet about their other right wing opinions .... We have a number of those who take it to the edge, then back off when things get sketchy ... Quite a few have been here for years ....

It's pretty convenient for a sly right winger to prance about in a Liberal forum just because they can, just as long as they don't reveal themselves too much ... and we all know that ...

[newmember]

3. Does plastering the photos of dead servicemen stop war in the world

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Actually yes, see Vietnam war.

Why we were not allowed to see caskets, et alone gory photos from the field

[newmember]

10. It wasn't the photos that made the difference

It was the people 40 years ago.
We have become a more civilized nation when we protest.
There should have been a million people camping out and marching on Washington
when the senate did what it did.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Why did the pentagon have a no photos allowed then?

I think the evidence s clear. Of course, we also had a draft, but historians most,y agree, having the war on TV and papers, without mostly military censors, had a real effect. Inconvenient fact, most of the real gory WWIi and Korea photos, except of the enemy of course, took 40 years to be declassified. There is a reason fr that

Nam was the first, and last, American war where media pretty much ran this in real time.

IMO, we need to go back to it. IMO we need to run gory photos from shooting scenes too.

The Boston marathon, and gory photos, were really a major exception.

[newmember]

15. I agree that it was the first war in everyones living room

The difference was the how the people reacted to them.
Now it's polls and voicing opinions on the internet

Sure we have code pink and a few die hard protesters but for the most part the vast
majority of people don't like leaving the comfort of their living room.

We are a different breed from the people 40 or 50 years ago.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Check what happened to Occupy

Which is still active.

Wht you are saying is that the American people have given up, and are a bunch of cowards. I say it's the media, which has very little in Te form of civil disobedience.

There was a demo this morning in my town. I know, I got the media blast. I could not attend, still trying to fully get rd of a two day migraine. I was not the only media who got that...alas it got zero coverage on my teevee. Therefore, conveniently, it never happened. This happened with Occupy a lot.

We had a hunger strike in this town. We had a US congressman make news during it. I got the exclusive, cause you know what? Otherwise it never happened.

And like these two, we have many across the country, that your media will keep you sheltered from.

Believing media will cover this is insane...who owns the media?

No, people still continue to fight, you just don't learn about it.

Oh and the event today, if I went, I would have to self publish on OpEd News...cause you know what? Large and small editors don't want to deal with it.

[newmember]

19. I was going to mention the occupy movement

In my opinion the biggest fail of the occupy movement was protesters in every major city.

Too bad they didn't all converge on one city being NYC and shut it down.
1 million or more if you added up every kid across the nation involved.
No violence just shut it down until congress the senate and the President
has to convene an emergency session to address it.

They needed one leader, The kids had guts but no clear direction and stated goal.

I'm straying from the original topic so I'll stop here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. What you need is a national strike

That will last at least a week. It lasts only one day, the media will ignore it.

Two million people in NYC before the second gulf war were ignored as well, they shut down the city. But it really never happened.

It is not that things are not happening,they are, in spades...once again, CNN, manbc the abc nightly news, your local news...they have no interest in covering it.

A labor action, my local paper is owned by one of the most powerful hotel owners...it's not in his interest to have a unionized work force. Why that hunger strike never, ever happen. It was covered well, ironically, by the local fox station, which did yeoman's work with occupy as well...

It's out there, you just have to really work to find it.

And occupy did not fail, and it did not disapear. It was such a threat DHS coordinated the police suppression nation wide. No, it's no longer tinfoil, the evidence is out there.

Nor is it gone, not at all...it's not mostly, on the streets.

The NYT will never cover this.

[newmember]

23. I agree and would love to see that...boy would I

"What you need is a national strike"



I feel for you about the migraine ,2days?
I think I would have jumped off a building by now.




I suffered for years with them until I went to see a doctor about them.
It was as easy of a fix as taking a prescription med for me.

I know some meds won't work for everyone but what I take is SUMA TRIPTAN 100MGS
when I feel one coming on. It helps a lot with the pain.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. They don't happen often and thankfully I can sleep it off

It just became a low grade headache.



Thanks.

But I figured I could do without running in the sun photographing the demo.

There will be more.

[spanone]

46. yes. eventually is does.

[Recursion]

4. The problem with background checks isn't a lack of people who want them

It polls at something like 90%. The problem is that those 10% make up a majority of the people in Montana and a few other states.

There's also the depth of support problem: gun control polls 4th or 5th as "most important issue" among likely voters.

It's a moot point as long as the GOP has the House, but the Senate vote should be a wake-up call that gun control advocates need to do something different, though I have no idea what.

[The Straight Story]

6. Ummm...who says they are?

Some see the only solution is to remove all guns (except from those wonderful and capable government folks....).

As far as background checks - I am all for them myself. Not sure which crimes of late they would have stopped.

Not all that sure I favor federal background versus state though.

When you have 1% or less of gun owners using their guns in crimes I don't think it will solve as many problems as some think it will.....It is like how the republicans were sure if they did drug testing on people on welfare it would save a ton of money. Come to find out only a small, tiny, percent on welfare were using drugs and it cost them more money than they saved.

But it sure made them feel better about things for awhile.

Folks don't think gun owners care about the issues. They do (I didn't say *I* because I don't own a gun), they just the solution to the problem in a different light. Why 'punish' the many for what the very few do?

How about we put more funding into police and such to enforce laws -think about speeding and how many people, every single minute of the day, are speeding - we can ticket most people on the roads. There are not enough cops to do so. And even if there were it would clog the courts, so we would need more money and people for that as well.

Point is - there are more laws about guns than there are people to enforce them in a reasonable manner. And our prisons are filled up with people who smoke pot. We could lessen the sentences for non-violent people and put people behind bars longer who use guns.

But we don't. We don't want to spend the money either to enforce what already exists.

You can do a background check on someone today and a year from now their life falls apart and they use their gun in a crime. The check is only as good as the data that day, guns have a long shelf life.

Why work on something that makes you feel better, gives the federal government more information and power (how did the patriot act and such help out in that boston bombing thing?), and does little to prevent the deeper reasons for crime in general?

We are are not looking for solutions, we are looking for band aids to make us feel better and like something is being done. Just like after 9/11 - ride the wave and pass anything to make us safer.

[peacebird]

7. My husband & I own guns, we also support background checks

So mister Straight Story, do you believe in background checks?

[The Straight Story]

8. At the state level, sure

Have them here in Ohio. No problem with em.

[peacebird]

9. We live in Virgina and our state does not have the best background checks...

[The Straight Story]

13. Well, here is an idea

Back when I was managing data centers we had them across the country. Each one had it's own way of tracking things. Our own tools. What worked for us here in Ohio didn't for the folks in Illinois and Texas.

A few of the site managers were buddies with the director and found one tool they wanted us all to use. Even though the tool we made ourselves met 92% of the needs of all the data centers and theirs only 83% they were convinced theirs was the best way so that we all had the same interface, etc.

Their idea won. Then failed as many centers had to use two software tools to track anything.

Eventually my idea won out (years later) - have all the sites come together to create a minimum standard and use that as a template. Then each center could build their tool around that and add in anything they needed for their site.

Upper management could get the data they needed and we got what we needed even though it looked and felt different, sometimes even within the same state.

When it comes to background checks work on setting a federal standard. Not administered by the feds, not run by them, etc (though we all know they will collate that data in their fusion centers....) Such legislation mandating some standards should pass easily, then each state can adopt that and add to it as they see fit.

In wyoming gun ownership is close to 60%. Gun related murders per 100,000 is 0.9. In Ohio it is 2.7 per 100k with 32.4% owning guns. Different states have different issues and one big band aid won't fix the issues in such a diverse country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Alas this is the problem

California has them, even closed gun show loop, AZ does not...why do you think criminals in need of a gun in Cali, travel to gun shows in AZ? This s why it needs to be federal.

Will it stop all crimes? Nope, will it reduce them...yes.

[The Straight Story]

16. No need to go to AZ

Straw purchases, theft of guns, etc in CA can keep a supply going.

Got someone who needs money but a clean record? Easy cash.

While many guns are taken off the street when people are arrested and any firearms in their possession are confiscated, a new study shows how easily arrestees believe they could illegally acquire another firearm. Supported by the National Institute of Justice and based on interviews with those recently arrested, the study acknowledges gun theft is common, with 13 percent of all arrestees interviewed admitting that they had stolen a gun. However a key finding is that "the illegal market is the most likely source" for these people to obtain a gun. "In fact, more than half the arrestees say it is easy to obtain guns illegally," the report states. Responding to a question of how they obtained their most recent handgun, the arrestees answered as follows: 56% said they paid cash; 15% said it was a gift; 10% said they borrowed it; 8% said they traded for it; while 5% only said that they stole it.

The report goes on to state that "over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs" and reveals that 23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, when a new law took effect requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours. This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years.

Another large source of guns used in crimes are unlicensed street dealers who either get their guns through illegal transactions with licensed dealers, straw purchases, or from gun thefts. These illegal dealers turn around and sell these illegally on the street. An additional way criminals gain access to guns is family and friends, either through sales, theft or as gifts.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. They still go to AZ and California does pursue straws.

Yes, this needs to be 100% and it needs to be Federal.

And yes, we are gun owners, just not fanatics.

Some things have to be federal, period, full stop, end of discussion.

[spin]

37. Great post. I totally agree. (n/t)

[hack89]

14. 90% of Americans supported background checks - that includes most gun owners.

the problem is that politicians don't think that opposing gun control has any downside - it is not a priority issue with the voters. That perception will not change until there is an election where they are punished at the polls for opposing gun control.

[geckosfeet]

32. But voting for it and passing it into law means they have to provide infrastructure for it.

Databases that contain every ones criminal records (if they have one). Then the staff to run the data centers and field all the calls and checks coming through.

The money to do this will have to come from somewhere and they are all afraid to walk the raise taxes line.

Here is how it works in MA:

You want a gun license you go take a class. After you pass the class you get a copy the state application form, fill it out and take it to your local/town police department. There they will take your finger prints and send them off to various agencies to be checked to see if they pop up anywhere. They also do criminal record checks. If you pass all that you hand over $100 and you get your license.

Next you want to buy a gun. You go to a gun shop, pick out the gun of your dreams and go to pay for it. You are required to fill out a rather lengthy form stating that you are not a criminal, fugitive from justice, drug user etc. etc. The store owner calls in the background check.

Note that if you leave the store and come back ten minutes later to buy another gun the entire process is repeated.

Point being that all states and the federal government would have to build the infrastructure and staff needed to support this process. Some states already have it. Most do not.

So it's not just the fact that people agree with bg checks. There is huge funding consideration as well.

[davidn3600]

20. Distrust of government

And it's not just with guns, but with many other issues as well.

Government has failed quite a lot over the last 30-40 some odd years. There are a lot of broken promises. There are a lot of lies. People don't trust their politicians. People don't trust the police. Most people think congress is corrupt.

Plus America is on a bit of a social libertarian streak. We are starting to consider marijuana legalization, gay marriage, women in combat, etc, etc.. Issues where we are REMOVING restrictions instead of putting them on. And restricting guns would be going against the current of the river.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. 90% support background checks

...

[davidn3600]

24. 90% want background checks but that doesn't mean 90% supported this bill

The continuous misuse of statistics in our media drives me crazy.

And I still haven't seen anyone tell me how more background checks is supposed to have stopped Adam Lanza. His mother bought those guns and she would have passed every check.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Once again, the US senate

Went against the will of the people. I know this is hard to understand.

[davidn3600]

29. Only 4% of Americans think this is the most important issue

We've spent 4 months on this and gotten nowhere...

Time to move on. Obama's wasting all his time and political capital on a bill that frankly won't do much of anything at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Some of us are not

And will vote against any candidate, regardless of party, that gets an A from the NRA...

We are done.

[spin]

38. The US senate was not designed to support the will of the people. ...

The framers of the Constitution created a bicameral Congress primarily as a compromise between those who felt that each state, since it was sovereign, should be equally represented, and those who felt the legislature must directly represent the people, as the House of Commons did in Britain. There was also a desire to have two Houses that could act as an internal check on each other. One was intended to be a "People's House" directly elected by the people, and with short terms obliging the representatives to remain close to their constituents. The other was intended to represent the states to such extent as they retained their sovereignty except for the powers expressly delegated to the national government. The Senate was thus not intended to represent the people of the United States equally. The Constitution provides that the approval of both chambers is necessary for the passage of legislation.[13]...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate

Recently I have often heard that senators from the states with low populations that strongly support gun rights should vote their conscience and bow to the will of the majority of people nationwide for the good of the nation.

The people in states like Montana elected their senators to strongly support gun rights and those senators may honestly believe that legislation like the assault weapons ban is foolish and ill conceived.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Yeah, but requiring supermajorities

Is not what the framers had in mind either

[spin]

45. I have to agree that that is a valid point. (n/t)

[rightsideout]

28. Because it's their guns and not their lives.

So they don't care about other people's lives.

[Mopar151]

39. Too many view a threat to their gun as a threat to their life n/t

[Honeycombe8]

33. I agree about the background checks. But Newtown has NOTHING to do with that.

People don't seem to get it. Why the Newtown pleas fell on deaf ears.

A background check used at more places would not have prevented Newtown, and Newtown did not happen because he was able to get a private gun at a gun show. The guns were legally obtained (presumably with a background check) by his mother, is my understanding. There was nothing in the mother's background that would have prevented her from passing any background check.

It's like showing dead children resulting from a runaway Lexus that had a fault accelerator, when you're trying to get a bill passed that requires background checks for buying a Lexus. The same instrument is involved, but the background check is unrelated to the cause of the death of the children.

It was the wrong tack to take, and I said so early on.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. If you "do not get it," it may be because you are offering a false choice and disregarding the

legitimate views of others.

The ACLU, for example, opposes a national gun registry. This was pointed out earlier on DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172118563

You are hardly in a position to claim that the ACLU, its members, or members of other liberal organizations are "more concerned about guns than the loss of lives." You are hardly in a position to disregard the legitimate Due Process concerns of the ACLU and others and claim that only the Second Amendment, and your interpretation of the Second Amendment, should be determinative of whether people can own firearms for self-defense in their homes.

Because peoples lives are important, many people have owned firearms for centuries for self-defense and to deter a potential need for self-defense in the home.

In the 2008 Heller case, a police officer who was authorized in the District of Columbia to carry a handgun while on duty was irrationally prohibited by the District of Columbia from possessing a handgun while off-duty at his home in the high-crime area of the District of Columbia. Obviously, the District of Columbia did not become more safe when he was off-duty. And his desire to own a firearm in his home for self-defense and to deter a potential need for self-defense in his home had absolutely nothing to do with Newtown.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/07-290P.ZO

In the 2010 McDonald case, a law-abiding long-term homeowner who lived in a neighborhood which had been taken over by gangs and drug dealers, and who had been a robbery victim by a home invader, wanted to own a handgun for self-defense in his home. However, the city of Chicago refused to allow him to own a firearm in his own home to defend against future home invasions. Likewise, his desire to own a firearm in his home for self-defense and to deter a potential need for self-defense in his home also had absolutely nothing to do with Newtown.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

In the Heller case, the Supreme Court provided a detailed explanation as to why the private ownership of firearms for self-defense and other legitimate purposes is not dependent upon service in the militia. If you really disagree with the Court's reasoning and want to be taken seriously, why don't you point out the Court's reasoning with which you disagree and show your logical basis, if any, for such disagreement.

The Second Amendment never granted any right to own firearms. It is a limitation upon what the government and governmental employees may do. If you do not understand that the right to self-defense is a natural right and it is not dependent upon a "well-regulated militia" clause or any other clause in the Constitution, then you are beyond help.

[Alva Goldbook]

41. Let's take this one piece at a time....

Why are folks more concerned about guns than the loss of lives!

They aren't. There's just a difference of opinion on how best to save lives.

I do not get it. The second amendment speaks of a" well regulated militia".

The words "well regulated" here do not mean as in "government regulations". Language and common phrases have changed quite a bit in the last 240 some odd years. For instance, if you said you were in favor of privacy rights back then, it would mean the right to use the outhouse. The phrase "well regulated" means in today's wording "well regimented", or "well equipped".

If you read all the 10 amendments, none of them talk about government regulations. The only regulations talked about is limiting gov't power (i.e. "Congress shall make no law" in the 1st amendment).

How are BACKGROUND CHECKS somehow anti second amendment?

Do we put such caveats on other rights? Would you, for instance, need to get a background check to go to church, or to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures or have to get a background check before you're allowed to speak to a lawyer?

The 4th amendment gives you the right to be secure in your property. I believe that background checks violate the 4th amendment. I'm also of the opinion that it violates the 5th amendment right not to be a witness against yourself. We also have a common law right to be presumed innocent. Background checks assume that everyone is guilty, and you must prove your innocence. Imagine if you had to prove that you weren't a terrorist before you could attend a mosque or if you had to prove you never plotted to blow up women's clinics before you could attend a church? Would you not say that would be a wholesale attack against the 1st amendment right of the freedom of religion?

What we often don't see is all the people who's lives are saved by guns. Guns aren't just used to take lives. They're used all the time to protect life. If you believe what the Justice Dept. has to say on the subject, for every gun homicide, guns are used 125 times to save lives. Depending on what gun control laws are enacted, some of those lives could be lost.

[kudzu22]

43. The problem isn't the background checks

Everyone supports background checks -- the question is when do you have to do them? When you buy a gun? Sure, everyone supports that. When you loan one to your best friend? Ok, maybe. When you let someone stay in your house? Umm.....


You see my point. I don't think I should have to have a background check for house guests if I keep my guns in a safe. That is why the bill was opposed, not because we think background checks are a horrible idea.

[rrneck]

44. "Anti second amendment"?

Why would you frame your statement in the context of religious belief? Because you think others revere it? Maybe they do, but when you follow suit you have already lost.

I don't think background checks are prohibited by the second amendment. I'm not aware of anyone that does. I haven't seen that argument made, although just because I haven't seen it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Background checks for new firearms purchases have been the law of the land for some time and they seem to work quite well.

So why don't you advocate for a "tag" that will inform the government of your relationships with people. You know, an object that will facilitate a record of who you know or meet that will last forever in a government database. That "tag" will have a serial number, and if the powers that be want to know who you know, all they have to do is pull up that number and check the log to see where that "tag" has been. Of course, nobody in the bowels of any federal agency is required to tell you when you have been tracked, but there will have to be severe penalties for non compliance on your part.

Now, our current administration would never use such a data mining opportunity for nefarious purposes. And there has never been an administration corrupt enough to abuse the power of government in such a manner for its own political ends. Certainly no administration would dream of exploiting current data mining technology to suppress support for illegal wars, regressive tax policy, and the exploitation of 99% of the population.

Administrations change. Do you think we're out of the woods yet? Do you think there will never be another Dick Cheney? The pushback against thirty years of conservative looting has barely begun. It would be unwise to give a potentially corrupt government yet another convenient window into your private relationships for the illusion of security.