The post above is the topic. There’s no reason why this shouldn’t be a thing
Universal Background Checks
Posts
Total:
97
-->
@Vader
just for gun purchases ?
why not for all purchases ?
It seems like all the young mass murders have similar facial features.
Maybe we should be doing a Universal DNA Background Check.
-->
@FLRW
welcome to "pre-crime"
There's no point in having background checks if when somebody fails it's never followed up on. There was a year that Cabela's had 93 people apply to do the background check and failed and not a single follow-up from the FBI, the sheriff's office or local police. Not to mention that there are shooters who are basically getting guns from people that legally own them like a parent or sibling or grandparent. And a lot of people who may have never had a problem can go in and pass the background check but they probably shouldn't have a gun because of mental illness but they're not far enough into the system for anyone to know that. I think just like you have to do a driver's test to get a driver's license you should have to do a gun safety course and have a gun license. But gun ownership is a right not a privilege and driving is a privilege and not a right.
But gun ownership is a right not a privilege and driving is a privilege and not a right.
bingo
There's no point in having background checks if when somebody fails it's never followed up on.
I would think that the prevention of a gun sale to a felon is a worthwhile point all by itself. The 22 states that require background checks have an overall 15% lower gun crime rate per capita than the 28 states that don't. That's not a big fix but it is an improvement worth pursuing.
I think just like you have to do a driver's test to get a driver's license you should have to do a gun safety course and have a gun license.
Sensible.
But gun ownership is a right not a privilege and driving is a privilege and not a right.
I'm okay with removing the 2nd amendment from the US Constitution
I'll be ok with banning guns as soon as everyone in Washington DC agrees to disarm all their bodyguards and security FIRST.
-->
@Vader
The gunman was a local high school dropout with no criminal history and no known mental health history, officials said. He had just turned 18 and legally bought two assault rifles and ammunition for his birthday.
So what part of "universal background checks" other than the standard ones this murderer went through to own a firearm legally do you think could have stopped this person from owning a gun? A mandated psychiatric exam for every person? Good luck getting that through the Supreme court.
-->
@Vader
The post above is the topic. There’s no reason why this shouldn’t be a thing
Why should it be a thing? What is the goal of universal background checks?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
And a lot of people who may have never had a problem can go in and pass the background check but they probably shouldn't have a gun because of mental illness but they're not far enough into the system for anyone to know that.
And this speaks to the utility of "background checks."
I think just like you have to do a driver's test to get a driver's license you should have to do a gun safety course and have a gun license.
And who should be responsible for licensure?
But gun ownership is a right not a privilege and driving is a privilege and not a right.
And yet people still have died at a much, much higher frequency as a result of vehicular crashes than to gun violence (at least, here in the U.S.) What does that say about "privilege"as opposed to "right"?
-->
@oromagi
I'm okay with removing the 2nd amendment from the US Constitution
Why not remove them all? There's no point in the pretense that they're sustained by the government--the amendments that is.
-->
@Athias
-->@oromagiI'm okay with removing the 2nd amendment from the US ConstitutionWhy not remove them all? There's no point in the pretense that they're sustained by the government--the amendments that is.
I expect that's hyperbole.
-->
@3RU7AL
If one fulfils the required criteria for driving, then it is a right.
Same for gun ownership.
Same as any other democratically administered social privilege.
Though in the U.S. there are seemingly no real requirements necessary, for acquiring a remote killing device. (Which is essentially the purpose of a rifle)
Whereas one must at least, pass a driving test. (I assume this is the same in the U.S.) Where the purpose is essentially to get from A to B without having to expend a great amount of energy.
Though dickheads will be dickheads.....But tend to be the ones that end up causing social problems.
So if it is a sacrosanct right that dickheads should be able to own a remote killing device, then so be it.
But let's be perfectly honest, why does a youth untrained in the use and mental responsibilities of gun ownership, need two assault rifles.
And don't give me the old amended archaic constitutional BS.....Just reamend it and update it.
-->
@zedvictor4
Though dickheads will be dickheads.....But tend to be the ones that end up causing social problems.
And they run in same circles:
1} more guns with more power, to kill more people quicker is better is best and, 2} protect the unborn fetus ---has not taken first inspiration of air-- at all costs with no consideration or empathy for the pregnant womans concerns. Now thats irony for USA peoples.
So if it is a sacrosanct right that dickheads should be able to own a remote killing device, then so be it.
1776 was a good year for making constitutional laws. 2076 --Return of Mad Max--- may be a good year to amend some of USA laws to better fit the times, some 300 years later.
But let's be perfectly honest, why does a youth untrained in the use and mental responsibilities of gun ownership, need two assault rifles.
More is always better. Greed is always better. To have ability to killl ever easier and faster is always better. :--(
And don't give me the old amended archaic constitutional BS.....Just reamend it and update it.
Civilized peoples have civilized laws. I was 18 when the Alice Cooper song came out, 18! 18! 18! I'm 18 and I like it! I'm a boy, I'm a man, I'm 18 and I like it!
-->
@zedvictor4
why does a youth untrained in the use and mental responsibilities of gun ownership, need two assault rifles.
everyone is focused on the symptoms
nobody seems to even be aware of the cause
-->
@oromagi
do you believe Ukrainian citizens own too many guns ?
-->
@oromagi
I expect that's hyperbole.
Not at all. On what basis can you argue purging the second amendment while also sustaining the integrity of the others?
-->
@Vader
why not for all purchases ?
I never understand people wanting to chuck a right when it comes to gun ownership, simply because guns have been involved in death. To use the car example cars kill many people but no one would ever suggest that because people have had stupid driving mistakes or drunk driving that nobody should be allowed to use a car and owning a car isn't even a right. So if we don't get rid of cars because people die in cars because of some people's mistakes why is it that whenever people think about gun rights it's nobody should be allowed to have a gun cuz guns kill people even though most gun owners never hurt anybody.
So if we don't get rid of cars because people die in cars because of some people's mistakes
raising the legal driving age to 25 would dramatically decrease automobile related deaths
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagido you believe Ukrainian citizens own too many guns ?
Ukrainian gun laws are far more sensible than American gun laws.
To own a rifle, you must obtain a license and renew it every 3 years, You must be 25 years old with no criminal record, mental illness, etc. You must own a gun safe and store your weapons unloaded inside that safe. 10 round magazine limits. You have to have a reason and the guns you own should be consistent with that reason- hunting, target practice, collecting. Handguns are generally illegal.
This is pretty consistent with how the founding fathers regulated non-hunting weapons. Local militias stored arms and powder in a central fortified armory. Ukrainians maintain a well-regulated militia that has proved effective at making cities harder to occupy during the present emergency but generally ineffective against organized combined battalions. Ukrainians are a pro-gun culture and public officials frequently award rifles to upstanding citizens as a prize or in recognition of some achievement. About 1 in 40 Ukrainians legally own about 1 million registered firearms. During the present emergency there is estimated to be about 3.5 unregistered firearms in circulation, the fate of which is undetermined but will predictably result in increased firearms deaths in that country over the next ten years or so. Ukraine has experienced a few US style mass shootings in recent years.
-->
@Athias
-->@oromagiI expect that's hyperbole.Not at all. On what basis can you argue purging the second amendment while also sustaining the integrity of the others?
The same basis we've used to dispose of the 18th Amendment: failed to achieve the desired effect, created an unsustainable degree of public lawlessness, overwhelming popular opposition.
The stated objectives of the US Constitution are:
- form a more perfect Union
- establish Justice
- insure domestic Tranquility
- provide for the common defence
- promote the general Welfare
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
The current state of American gun ownership has eroded and undermined all of these objectives to a considerable degree. Objectively, this amendment is broken as the essential notion of "well-regulated" has been disregarded beyond any national advantage or even common sense.
On what basis would you throw out all the Amendments to the Constitution just because one Amendment doesn't work? Would you argue that we should have disposed of the FIrst Amendment because we repealed the 18th?
-->
@oromagi
Ukrainians maintain a well-regulated militia
During one recent news bulletin on BBC Radio 4, the correspondent referred to “Putin’s baseless claim that the Ukrainian state supports Nazis”. This is, itself, disinformation: it is an observable fact, which the BBC itself has previously reported on accurately and well, that the Ukrainian state has, since 2014, provided funding, weapons and other forms of support to extreme Right-wing militias, including neo-Nazi ones. This is not a new or controversial observation. [**]
-->
@oromagi
overwhelming popular opposition
this is probably the critical factor
-->
@Vader
have you considered free public mental-healthcare ?
-->
@oromagi
The same basis we've used to dispose of the 18th Amendment: failed to achieve the desired effect, created an unsustainable degree of public lawlessness, overwhelming popular opposition.
It's interesting that you mention the eighteenth amendment, which was a complete aberration given that it was the only amendment that prohibited private activity, namely the sale and distribution of alcoholic beverages. A purge of the second amendment would be much more identical to the 18th amendment than it would the 21st amendment. It's not that the 18th amendment "failed to achieve the desired effect"--which was nothing more than a coax from the Temperance Lobby--but it had the opposite effect.
The stated objectives of the US Constitution are:
- form a more perfect Union
- establish Justice
- insure domestic Tranquility
- provide for the common defence
- promote the general Welfare
- secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
The current state of American gun ownership has eroded and undermined all of these objectives to a considerable degree. Objectively, this amendment is broken as the essential notion of "well-regulated" has been disregarded beyond any national advantage or even common sense.
How?
On what basis would you throw out all the Amendments to the Constitution just because one Amendment doesn't work? Would you argue that we should have disposed of the FIrst Amendment because we repealed the 18th?
No, I would argue that the First amendment should be repealed if the 18th amendment were proposed, or any other amendment that seeks to undermine the presumably maintained principles delineated in the Bill of Rights.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I never understand people wanting to chuck a right when it comes to gun ownership, simply because guns have been involved in death. To use the car example cars kill many people but no one would ever suggest that because people have had stupid driving mistakes or drunk driving that nobody should be allowed to use a car and owning a car isn't even a right. So if we don't get rid of cars because people die in cars because of some people's mistakes why is it that whenever people think about gun rights it's nobody should be allowed to have a gun cuz guns kill people even though most gun owners never hurt anybody.
Wonderfully stated, Polytheist-Witch. Part of the disingenuous narrative surrounding these mainstream media bombardments of hoplophobic propaganda are the neglected mentions of how the overwhelming majority of gun-owners (in the U.S.) HAVE YET TO USE THEIR FIREARM IN A HOMICIDE. Furthermore, what's also neglected is that a majority of firearm related deaths are SELF-INFLICTED. You're right: if the rationale is, "because 'X' was used in this many deaths, 'X' should be banned," then why not ban cars? High cholesterol foods? Sugar? Again, great point.
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagiUkrainians maintain a well-regulated militiaDuring one recent news bulletin on BBC Radio 4, the correspondent referred to “Putin’s baseless claim that the Ukrainian state supports Nazis”. This is, itself, disinformation: it is an observable fact, which the BBC itself has previously reported on accurately and well, that the Ukrainian state has, since 2014, provided funding, weapons and other forms of support to extreme Right-wing militias, including neo-Nazi ones. This is not a new or controversial observation.
SInce you have changed the subject, I'll accept as conceded my point that Ukrainian gun law is more sensible than US gun law.
As a justification for genocide, Putin's claim is certainly baseless and it is not disinformation to say so. Objectively, Putin has spent far more of his taxpayers' money supporting ultra right wing supremacists groups than Ukraine ever has. Putin decries neo-Nazism in Ukraine while actively offering training and support to neo-Nazi groups in Hungary and the US. David Duke, the founder of StormFront has been a full time employee of Putin since 2007. The Stormfront site itself is maintained and protected by Russian cybersecurity.
The number of ultra-right white supremacists in the US Army is observably much larger than the Ukrainian military (36% of US soldiers polled in 2019 report white supremacists in thier ranks, one in five members of Patriot Front are active US military or vets, etc). That's not illegal in the US and the Biden administration provides funding, weapons, support to those members so applying your standard, it not controversial to say that the U.S. and Russia militaries are observably far more Neo-NAZI then the Ukrainian miltary..
This has proved dramatically more true in the last week since the surviving members of the Azov Battalion surrendered to Russia. In spite of his Jewish heritage, Zelensky permitted neo-NAZI recruitment and intelligently placed all 2,000 of those ultranationalists in a single frontline battalion alongside foreign recruits and other political extremists. Then Zelensky ordered those shock troops to defend Mariupol to the death while evacuating the core of his troops which he used to punch Russia's left flank as they were bogged down fight the Azovs. Putin is threatening to try and execute those survivors for war crimes which would increase global outrage against Putin while simultaneously ridding Ukraine of its most virulent ultra-nationalists. This is an old military tactic expertly deployed by the Ukrainian military.
-->
@oromagi
SInce you have changed the subject,
you're the one who mentioned "Ukrainians maintain a well-regulated militia"