The way I see it - Only criminals don't want gun safety laws

[LiberalFighter]

It's okay for background checks at retail stores but not at gun shows. - They claim it is too time consuming. Really?

[socialindependocrat]

1. The problem with background checks is the temptation to create a registration list

This may be fru-fru to a lot of people but people have tried to do it in the past
and have gotten caught.

Trust is not a big thing in today's society because it's been proven that we can't trust the people
in power that our parents told us we should trust.

The other thing is can you make stricter gun laws without infringing on the rights of
gun owners who have done nothing against the law?

We have defined the problem as having to keep guns out of the hands
of criminals and aggressive people and those who are mentally unstable.
How do we do that in an effective way?

It's easy for people who don't participate in an activity to not care about
the rights of the people who do.

Just saying...

[LiberalFighter]

2. What you are saying is that there is currently a national registry

Since we already have background checks. Which is bullshit based on the process for doing the background check.

Background checks would be an effective way and should apply to everyone not just retail stores.

[SunSeeker]

4. And what's wrong with a gun registry anyway? We register cars...

[hack89]

7. The ACLU opposes a national gun registry due to privacy issues.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865577495/ACLU-concerned-about-background-check-in-gun-bill.html


I have unregistered car in my garage - it hasn't been registered for a couple of years as I work on it. And it is perfectly legal for me to do so. It only has to be registered if I want to put in on the road.

Guns are regulated the same way. If I want to carry in public I need a concealed carry permit.

[SunSeeker]

8. LOL. The right wing all of a sudden gives a rat's ass what the ACLU thinks.

This is the same talking point that Gun Owners of America nutjob Larry Pratt (or as one DUer perfectly described him, LaPierre's right testicle) was spouting on Tweety last night as his reason for being against background checks. No surprise you're parroting it too.

Whatever "privacy concerns" you may have can easily be dealt with by keeping the records just that, private, like your tax returns. They could only be available upon obtaining a judge-signed search warrant to review them, i.e. when that gun is used in a crime.

As the ACLU said in the very article you cite:

"The ACLU has no problem with universal background checks as long as the records are taken care of and privacy rights are preserved.

'If you're going to do a background check, it makes sense to do an effective background check,' Calabrese said."

[hack89]

9. I support universal background checks

my state has had them for a long time.

There is no need for a permanent record once the buyer passes the check.

[SunSeeker]

10. There IS a need. nt

[hack89]

11. We have done just fine with background checks with no permanent records for decades now

can you show why we need them now?

[SunSeeker]

12. You call 32,000 gun deaths each year "fine"?

Unlike that unregistered car sitting on blocks in your back yard, guns are used to kill 32,000 Americans each year. There should be a national gun registry accessible to law enforcement to quickly identify owners of guns used in crimes.

But we don't even have universal background checks. No, we're not "fine."

[hack89]

13. It won't impact 60% of gun deaths (suicides) and criminals will have unregistered guns

lets not forget there are 300 million unregistered guns in America. How you plan to fix that problem?

[SunSeeker]

14. Less guns equal less gun deaths, including suicides.

Making "responsible gun owners" actually responsible for their guns will cut down on the number of guns purchased, and will cut down on private transfer of guns to third parties, including people who mentally have no business possessing a gun, Including criminals.

Yes, there are a lot of guns out there, but they tend to be owned in large caches of weapons held by gun nuts. Most people don't own guns.

Australia was able to reduce their gun numbers dramatically through buy backs. We can do it too.

[former9thward]

15. It was not done by "buy backs".

The Conservative party, who you are allying with, banned the ownership of semi automatic rifles and shotguns and also pump action shotguns. Yes there were buy backs but people submitted to it because the ownership was illegal. The Conservatives did not have that pesky Bill of Rights that we do.

A majority of people do own guns even if in your limited world you don't know anyone that does. With your attitude I'm sure no one would tell you the truth.

[SunSeeker]

16. I'm flattered with the tag team gungeoneer swarm. As usual, all you offer are lies.

You say in your title it wasn't done by buybacks, but in your post you admit Australia did do buy backs. Then you lie and say a majority of people do own guns. That fact is, only 35% of Americans have a gun in their house. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/23/gun-owners-vs-the-nra-what-the-polling-shows/

Of course, like your fellow gungeoneers, you can't make your point without throwing out a gratuitous, ignorant personal insult about my "limited world" and how "I don't know anyone" who owns guns. I can assure you my world is much broader than you can possibly imagine. I've grown up around people with guns, and unfortunately, two of the people I was close with were victims of guns. Right in keeping with the statistics, one of them committed suicide with the family gun. The other was shot by accident with his own gun by his best friend. He survived, but was never the same. Those two experiences convinced me to never keep a gun in my own house. Now that I have a young son, my reasons are even more compelling.

And fortunately, I am married to a man secure in his masculinity who likewise, accurately, sees only danger in keeping a gun in our house.

[former9thward]

17. You love to post bogus polls.

No one in their right mind would tell a stranger calling on the phone that they had a gun in the house. Or diamonds. Or a storage of cash. It is just ridiculous. The numbers are made up. But believe that nonsense if it helps you sleep at night.

I noticed you ignored the fact your friends the Conservatives made owning those weapons illegal. That is the only reason people participated in the buybacks.

[SunSeeker]

19. No, you love to relay false NRA talking points and ignore reality.

You claim no person would answer such a poll honestly, yet you are sure of your number, and don't offer any cite. LaPierre made a similar claim about the repeated polls that over 90% of Americans want a universal background check. He was on TV the other night saying it was actually in the single digits. LOL. Dude is unhinged.

And Australia did not make all guns illegal, just certain ones. The U.S. can and has made certain guns illegal too, and can do so again. Even your buddy Antonin Scalia said so. And guns being illegal are not the only reason people participate in buybacks. Whenever law enforcement has voluntary buybacks, they tend to run out of money or gift cards long before people stop bringing guns. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/12/27/more-than-2k-firearms-voluntarily-surrendered-during-las-gun-buyback-program/

[former9thward]

21. I didn't offer any specific number.

Because no one knows. Everyone I know owns guns but it would be silly to think 100% of people owned guns. You keep misstating what your allies the Conservatives did in Australia. The only guns they bought back were the ones they made illegal. As far as the U.S. goes if you are talking about the AWB in 1994 that did not make any guns illegal. People that owned guns that were banned under the AWB did not have to turn them in and they were not illegal to own. The voluntary buybacks are a howl. The only weapons that get turned in are non-functioning weapons. Stuff with parts missing or that have become unworkable due to rust or other damage.

[SunSeeker]

22. No, you didn't offer specifics, nor cites, nor truth. nt

[CTyankee]

5. Evidently, it is also easier for people who haven't been touched by gun violence to

not care about the rights of people who have.

Just saying...

[SunSeeker]

3. K&R

[Myrina]

6. I liked the way Maddow illustrated it last night ...

... talking about the UN resolution that POTUS will sign, but Congress will surely shitcan: we are in a league with 3 other countries in our opposition to a resolution that will ban certain weapons sales "to be used for genocide" .... Syria, North Korea and Iran. And US.

What does that tell ya about what the Tealibornagain Party really is about?

[Skip Intro]

20. The ACLU is not for the backgound checks proposed.

Universal background checks could be seen as a step toward confiscation (background checks could = registry) as you can't take the guns until you know where they are. Some people do see the background checks as a step in that direction. In the age of warrantless wiretaps and drones, I can kinda see the point.

I'm for whatever current checks we have now extended to gun shows. I'm not for much more because I really don't want to just hand the government yet another means of eroding my rights.

It amazes me the seeming eager ease with which some gladly surrender their rights and liberties.