by Jack
A freshman at Marysville High, a large school just outside Seattle sat at a lunch table in the auditorium with some of his school friends, then he stood up, pulled a small pistol from his pocket and started shooting at them. In the end 5 were wounded, one was killed and the student committed suicide.
It was another pointless act of a mentally disturbed child, yet before the school could be completely evacuated the news media was already trying desperately hard to get their expert witnesses to fill in the blanks and make rash assumptions about the how and why. CNN was best at jumping to conclusion because of their politics had them primed and ready for just such a tragedy. See, they are squarely behind the gun-grabbers and this tragedy perfect for exploiting in order to push their agenda. So they rolled out their anti-gun groups and spokespeople who were also ready to point out how this could have been prevented. While I was watching they were all talking about background checks for gun shows and how this tragedy might finally wake up voters who have a chance to pass just such a law in Nov .
The shooter was a native American and his family owned guns. He was raised with guns. And they were legal as far the experts and CNN knows. But, obviously his coping skills for social conflict were less developed than his shooting skills.
Was this your fault or my fault? No, of course not. However, to listen to the pundits on CNN it was. Because voters didn’t force background checks at gun shows. But, the bright side is as I said earlier, Washington voters will have an opportunity to fix that come Nov. 4th. They can do it for the children and require background checks on all purchases of guns and all will be well! The thing is, there is a federal law that requires background checks for retail gun sales, but it’s not universal at every single gun show. It’s called the Brady Bill and it was passed in 1993 and then there are state laws for gun shows too. What percentage of school shootings have we had that had absolutely nothing to do with background checks? Ummm….100%?
Well, I guess you can’t have too many background checks, because the purchaser must pay them and that’s good, right? It raises the cost of gun ownership and that is supposed to reduce gun sales and whatever we can do to stop gun sales is fair game.
On the irrelevant side, nothing about this latest crime has anything to do with a gun show background check. However, this incident does have a lot to do with good parenting. It does have a lot to do with teaching kids how cope with problems and not turn to violence. It also has a lot to do with recognizing and reporting kids with serious mental issues. But that’s about the last thing CNN wants to discuss…the focus was all about the desperate need for background checks! They might as well be trying to pass a law making it illegal to be mentally ill for all the good their redundant state background checks will do.
PS Indian reservations have their own gun laws and they vary from reservation to reservation. Federal and State gun laws have no merit on Indian Reservations.
Jack: “Because voters didn’t force background checks at gun shows. But, the bright side is as I said earlier, Washington voters will have an opportunity to fix that come Nov. 4th. They can do it for the children and require background checks on all purchases of guns and all will be well! The thing is, there is a federal law that requires background checks, but it’s not universal at every single gun show. It’s called the Brady Bill and it was passed in 1993 and then there are state laws for gun shows too.”
You know that this isn’t true. The Brady Bill does not apply to gun shows. The debate over whether we should require background checks at gun shows was HUGE a couple of years ago–I’d ask if you missed it, but we had that debate here at Post Scripts, so there’s no way you could have.
“What percentage of school shootings have we had that had absolutely nothing to do with background checks? Ummm….100%?”
Uh, yeah, except for COLUMBINE:
“Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were too young to buy the weapons they would use to kill 12 classmates and a teacher in April 1999. So they asked for help from an 18-year-old friend, who later said she chose a private seller at a gun show to avoid a background check.”
Again, you know this, because I have brought this information to Post Script’s attention dozens of times in the past.
Why are you writing statements that you know are not true? (And why am I the only one who notices?)
Chris that’s right, Columbine had nothing to do with background checks. When they wanted guns to shoot classmates they went right around the gun laws and specifically the background check! Gee, imagine people bent on breaking the law did not comply with gun laws and they had no trouble buying firearms via a shill buyer. Background checks in this case didn’t do anything to prevent them from obtaining firearms. Good observation Chris! Thanks for noting it. Re: “You know that this isn’t true. The Brady Bill does not apply to gun shows.” No it doesn’t, well, let me rephrase that, not necessarily. They have used it at gun shows voluntarily. And States like CA require background checks at gun shows.
The main point is, the background check is somewhat of a red herring argument to prevent gun violence. We have had back ground checks for over 20 years and I know of no reduction in gun violence, even in states with stricter gun show background checks. It just doesn’t seem to have much impact on gun violence.
Some states have opted to go further than federal law by requiring background checks at gun shows for any gun transaction, federal license or not. Five states, most recently Colorado and Connecticut, mandate universal background checks, an even more stringent standard that imposes background checks on almost all gun purchases, including over the Internet.
Even in states that do not require background checks of private vendors, the venue hosting the event may require it as a matter of policy. In other cases, private vendors may opt to have a third-party licensed dealer run a background check even though it may not be required by law.
Chris, this is what I was getting at, but didn’t say it correctly. Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act) of 1993, Public Law 103-159, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was established for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to contact by telephone, or other electronic means, for information to be supplied immediately on whether the transfer of a firearm would be in violation of Section 922 (g) or (n) of Title 18, United States Code, or state law. The Brady Act is a public record and is available from many sources including the Internet at http://www.atf.gov.
The NICS is a national system that checks available records on persons who may be disqualified from receiving firearms.
Forgot the link:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/26/nation/la-na-gunshow-loophole-20130226
Jack: “Chris that’s right, Columbine had nothing to do with background checks. When they wanted guns to shoot classmates they went right around the gun laws and specifically the background check!”
They did not “go around the background check.” There was no background check at the gun show where the guns were purchased.
I’m not sure what you’re not getting about this. Again, the girl who illegally bought the guns specifically said she wouldn’t have done so if she had had to undergo a background check. She didn’t know the guys were going to shoot up a school, but she did know she was doing something illegal by buying guns for underage kids, and she would have been less likely to do it if she had had to put her name to paper. The fact that she thought she was going to get away with it was an incentive; a background check would have been a deterrent.
So you are wrong: had there been background checks at Colorado gun shows at this time, the Columbine attack could have been delayed and/or avoided. It wouldn’t have made these boys any less psychotic or driven to kill, but it would have been a stumbling block in their plan; maybe that would have been enough to make one of them slip up, or for someone to see something and say something. The point is that we should make it as hard as possible for kids like this to get a gun while still respecting the rights of responsible citizens to bear arms.
What is the point of laws against felons and the violently mentally ill owning firearms, if they can just walk into a gun show and buy a gun with absolutely no paper trail? Tell me, Jack: What is stopping known criminals from buying guns at gun shows in many states right now?
Universal background checks do not impinge on citizens’ rights to bear arms. Responsible gun owners should not oppose closing the gun show loophole; they should support it, because it helps ensure that other gun owners are responsible as well.
“We have had back ground checks for over 20 years and I know of no reduction in gun violence, even in states with stricter gun show background checks. It just doesn’t seem to have much impact on gun violence.”
Actually, California has less gun deaths than the national average; less armed robberies and armed assaults than neighboring Nevada and Arizona, which have less strict background checks; and a higher denial rate for prospective gun owners than the national average, meaning we do a better job of making sure felons don’t get guns than other states.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_22483537/californias-gun-background-check-system-could-be-national
So yes, the statistics show that our gun laws do make a difference here, and could make a difference to the nation as a whole.
Chris, don’t be obtuse… they would have gone around the background check if they bought in a store, they had a shill for that purpose. The point being they had a method to obtain the firearms in a way that skirted the law. A LAW WOULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THEM. How hard is this to grasp? Geez…
When I read Jacks comment on background checks. “Columbine had nothing to do with background checks”, I understood his intent. Gun Background checks would not have stopped this from happening (I read guns were plan B, bombs were the intended plan A) When criminals want guns, they get guns period. Laws have no deterrent to a criminals, either potential or hardened. And I do not buy the girlfriends statement, which I find self serving to avoid criminal prosecution. Any background laws only apply to those who abide by laws. So Jacks pointy comment of “Gee, imagine people bent on breaking the law did not comply with gun laws and they had no trouble buying firearms via a shill buyer”. Was spot on!
We have laws of layered redundancy in America today because of knee jerk reactions by law makers that feel Government is the solution to every problem. Not so! If anything Government creates more problems through hurried cobbled legislation than they solve. More gun laws would not have stopped the two Columbine murders, they wanted to cause death and they achieved it.
More so now than ever since 1999 gun laws have only served the elected, and the elected are motivated solely for more political gain using any motive, and not necessarily for public safety.
An voters continue to re –elect the same good ol’ boys club over and over, feeding on their campaign promises like candy, ignoring any record of effective problem solving.
I wish I had the answer, but my thoughts are to preserve my rights, and because of ridiculous over reaching laws at any cost, I don’t want my freedoms reduced by politicians chipping away at them slowly just for election fodder.
How is any national registration at gun shows going to stop criminals” past present or future. Let’s say you have a concealed carry permit, Lets maintain the the wait period, it does serve a purpose, but why go through the DROS process again, (other than the revenue it generates) if the NICS permits someone to carry, that should be enough. But maybe “gun grabbers and no voter ID people” are of the same ideology, ‘more Government, without quality of effectiveness’, that only contributes to the demise of Constitutional guidance.
I am willing to consider clear concise ideas that will remove guns from criminals primarily. I doubt even the strongest Gun supporter would fight that point. The problem is a abuse from Government in using those same laws to remove weapons from legally owned gun owners.
Recently Calif. AG Kamala Harris created a blended data base that California used to take guns from people they label prohibitive, it is called the “Armed Prohibited Persons” (APPs.)Created by Harris, whose entire career has been anti-gun oriented, so far that tool has been ineffective in reducing crime from street guns, only taking guns Harris labeled as prohibitive from legal owners.
Why did she not see Progressive Liberal Anti-gun State Senator Leland Yee as a trafficker of guns? Or once discovered even allow the gun trafficker to remain on the ballot, HELL it was all over the news, and mostly in his district. And the results of such inaction was he got 287,590 Californians votes. Almost 10% for this suspended State Senator (over 12.5% in his base area) WHY? Knee jerk party voting or possibly Politicians using the system to herd of voters for self-serving political agendas.
I am not willing at this point to give the Government more harmful authority, they prove daily the only interest they have in current events (now Marysville will top their list) is how they can use that to gather votes for their gain, not our safety.
I wonder how long it will take them to outlaw hammers and kitchen knives if they need a cause.
Authorities in Columbine contend the guns were originally bought legally but then sold illegally, so in the case of Columbine, no law would have prevented their resale. If someone is bent on committing a crime with a gun, they will find a way to get one, laws or no laws.
Shooter 1 — TEC-DC9 (9-mm semi-automatic handgun) was already illegal for him to purchase, yet he did! The Savage 311-D 12-gauge double-barrel shotgun (barrel sawed off, (very illegal), did that stop them? And what of Shooter 2 — 10-shot Hi-Point model 995 carbine rifle, and his Savage-Springfield 67H 12-gauge pump shotgun with barrel sawed off, (again very illegal) reducing the entire gun to 26 inches).
When Americans had moral clarity this problem didn’t exist. Guns are not the problem. The sale of guns is not the problem. Lack of moral clarity and grounding is the problem. It’s a problem in the individual and in our society.
Some time in the fifties psychology was introduced into our legal system and before long instead of the alleged murderer being on trial his parents, society, a broken home, or drugs was put on trial. Suddenly the accused was merely a victim who needed our understanding and help more than he needed to feel guilt and remorse or pay for his crimes.
When we fail to hold criminals accountable over time we create uncertainty about right and wrong. Too many kids today are confused, and why wouldn’t they be when the courts, politicians, and talking heads blame gun ownership, the sale of guns, people who enjoy owning and collecting guns, “the gun culture,” or even more absurdly, the NRA, or the Tea Party for school shootings.
Radical progressives see this as an opportunity to exploit the situation and turn shootings by criminals and mental defectives into a “crisis of gun ownership.” The ultimate goal is removing all guns from the hands of all American citizens. Achieving this goal fits nicely with the main objective, a controllable citizenry and single party rule. Please note I did not say governance, but “rule.” These are socialists and they don;t see themselves as servants of the people; they see themselves as superior and entitled to rule over the people.
Radical elements of the Democrat Party will never be satisfied with gun show background checks. Anyone who thinks they would doesn’t know or understand who these people are, what they want, or how they operate.
Our founders knew, because they lived under the tyranny of a king, that private gun ownership was necessary to our republic if tyrannical elements were going to be held in check. They gave us the right to keep and bear arms and included legal language, “shall not be infringed” to ensure those rights could not be compromised or taken from the people.
The founders had moral clarity.
If Democrats had respect for the people and our founding documents they would not be attempting to infringe upon our gun rights. If they had moral clarity they would place guilt where it belongs.
The Columbine kids were acting against the law and they knew it. Its against the law to kill people.
Th Columbine kids were exploiting our gun laws and the gun show person who sold guns to them, and they knew it.
Gun show background checks would have made it a bit harder for them but it would not have stopped them. Those boys were dedicated and committed to doing this crime.
Tina, are you arguing that Americans had more “moral clarity” prior to the 1950s?
The existence of Jim Crow laws alone would seem to disprove that assertion.
I don’t know why you keep saying things like this. If you ever want the Republican party to be relevant again, you have GOT to stop idealizing the past like this. It doesn’t fly with anyone with even the most glancing familiarity with our history.
“Our founders knew, because they lived under the tyranny of a king, that private gun ownership was necessary to our republic if tyrannical elements were going to be held in check. They gave us the right to keep and bear arms and included legal language, “shall not be infringed” to ensure those rights could not be compromised or taken from the people.
The founders had moral clarity.”
Look, I know you already know this and don’t care, because I’ve posted this information dozens of times. But I can’t help but point it out again:
The founders had more restrictive gun laws than anything proposed by any mainstream liberal today:
“The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.
For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
The idea that the Founding Fathers would oppose universal background checks is absurd. They were all for an armed citizenry, but they were ALSO for ensuring that gun owners were responsible and approved by the government.
Your argument that “they won’t stop with background checks” is based on the slippery slope fallacy, and thus has no merit. Slippery slope arguments are made when the person making them knows they have no valid objections to the thing itself, so they have to bring up a bunch of hypothetical bad things that could happen as a result of the first thing. It would be like me saying the NRA won’t stop until every child owns an assault rifle. That would be a bad argument, but it’s the type of argument you make all the time.
Harold: “When criminals want guns, they get guns period. Laws have no deterrent to a criminals, either potential or hardened.”
This is terrible logic. By your reasoning, we shouldn’t have any gun laws at all, because criminals will just break them anyway.
The fact is that requiring background checks at gun shows is common sense. There is literally no reason not to do it. Failing to do this means that current laws against felons owning guns won’t even be enforced!
“They’re going to do it anyway” is a terrible argument. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make it harder for criminals to get guns. The gun show loophole is a huge boon to criminals. Over 30% of all gun crimes can be traced back to gun shows where there is no background check, according to the ATF.
http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-gun-show-loophole-arms-criminals/
That’s in addition to the stats I posted earlier which showed that California has a lower rate of gun crime than neighboring states with much looser gun laws.
Multiple polls including one done by FOX News have shown that close to 90% of Americans support universal background checks.
There is no excuse for not doing this. It does not infringe on the rights of anyone, and it is one extra barrier between criminals and guns.
“And I do not buy the girlfriends statement, which I find self serving to avoid criminal prosecution.”
How? She wouldn’t have been prosecuted anyway; what she did was not illegal under Colorado law at that time:
“Anderson denies any prior knowledge of their plans. No law, state or federal, prohibits the purchase of a long gun (rifle) from a private individual (non-licensed dealer). Because of this, Anderson could not be charged with any crime. If Anderson had purchased the guns from a federally licensed dealer, it would have been considered a “straw purchase” and considered illegal under federal law to make the purchase for Harris and Klebold.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/06/let-s-end-the-straw-purchasing-of-guns.html
http://zanazl.tripod.com/Columbine/Articles/Guns.html
Anderson obviously committed a “straw purchase” under any reasonable definition…except for the definition under federal and Colorado law.
Again, had background checks at gun shows been in place at that time, the plan could have been delayed. It only makes sense that someone is less likely to do something they know is wrong if they are going to have their identity checked and verified. At the very least, Anderson could have been prosecuted for providing the guns to the kids.
Keeping the gun show loophole open–which is what you, Jack, and Tina suggest we should do–means that other people like Robyn Anderson can make straw purchases without any fear of legal prosecution. They could do this for prospective school shooters, gang members, robbers, murderers…even terrorists.
Why shouldn’t straw buyers be prosecuted for this, just because they bought the guns at a gun show instead of a licenses dealer?
“We have laws of layered redundancy”
Possibly true, but universal background checks are not a “law of layered redundancy,” they are literally the only way we can ensure our existing gun laws are reasonably enforced. If a felon can walk into a gun show and buy a weapon they are legally prohibited from owning, without any fear of getting caught, then a law that fixes that is not “redundant.” Nor is it redundant to pass a law that would prevent straw buyers from taking advantage of the gun show loophole.
“in America today because of knee jerk reactions by law makers that feel Government is the solution to every problem.”
I hardly think passing universal background checks fifteen years after Columbine showed the need for them counts as “kneejerk…”
“More gun laws would not have stopped the two Columbine murders,”
You keep saying this, as if it proves itself. It does not. I’ve provided evidence that their plan could have been tripped up by the existence of a gun show background check; you’ve provided no evidence to counter this. Again, I’ve never said it would have DEFINITELY stopped them. But it would have been an additional obstacle. How could you not support that?
“I wish I had the answer, but my thoughts are to preserve my rights,”
How are you rights impacted by making sure that the same laws already applicable at licensed dealers are also applicable to gun shows? Especially since you live in California, which already has such laws in place?
“How is any national registration at gun shows going to stop criminals” past present or future.”
I believe I’ve answered that.
“Let’s say you have a concealed carry permit, Lets maintain the the wait period, it does serve a purpose, but why go through the DROS process again, (other than the revenue it generates) if the NICS permits someone to carry, that should be enough.”
I’m not sure I understand–if you have a concealed carry permit, are you currently required to undergo another background check when buying another gun? Or is this being proposed? I agree with you that this shouldn’t be–a concealed carry permit should be enough.
I have no problem ensuring that responsible gun owners’ rights are respected. My father is a gun owner and I wouldn’t dream of letting the government take away his guns. My brother and I will be inheriting those beauties and while I never learned much about them myself (and I’m a terrible shot), they are important to my dad and therefore they are important to me. If I genuinely thought there was a danger of the government confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens I might be with you. I don’t deny that there are some more radical liberals with this goal, but I don’t think they have any chance of accomplishing it in our constitutional system.
“Recently Calif. AG Kamala Harris created a blended data base that California used to take guns from people they label prohibitive, it is called the “Armed Prohibited Persons” (APPs.)Created by Harris, whose entire career has been anti-gun oriented, so far that tool has been ineffective in reducing crime from street guns, only taking guns Harris labeled as prohibitive from legal owners.”
This program was not created by Harris, it was created in 2001. Can you provide evidence that guns have been taken from legal owners (without being returned once the mistake was noted)?
This article shows that at least some good has come from the law:
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/20/213546439/one-by-one-california-agents-track-down-illegally-owned-guns
NRA News guest Laura Carno recently proposed a great idea for reducing gun violence: Let teenagers carry guns onto school buses!
OK, that’s not exactly what she said. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she just wasn’t thinking her words through when she said this:
“If you want to talk about guns at all in the story of Malala or the teacher at Sandy Hook, or any of those, is these are women who should have the choice to be armed. Malala sure couldn’t be armed and so many schools have gun free zone policies that teachers are not allowed to be armed.”
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/15/nra-news-glamour-honoring-malala-giffords-makes/196918
Yes, Malala Yousafzai should have had the choice to be armed when she was 15 years old and on a crowded school bus!
And that’s not even getting into the fact that Malala is an avowed pacifist…
The NRA is wacky.
Chris, were you attempting some humor? Because Carno never said anything remotely like having teens carry guns on school buses. School buses never came up? She was talking in the most general terms that law abiding people should have a choice to have access to a firearm and under certain circumstances I think this would be very wise. What you said was wacky.
As for teachers carrying guns onto campus…I feel like the NRA are shooting themselves in the foot with this policy.
Pun intended.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-utah-school-shooting-20140911-story.html
Chris, why even mention the NRA, they didn’t shoot her? Some teachers will do equally dumb things, but no gun will be involved and nothing will be said. A teacher might make a driving error some day and kill someone, but will you say its AAA’s fault or the DMV’s? Probably not, in fact you probably won’t saying anything because you will think its an unfortunate accident…BUT, BECAUSE it involved a pistol you have screaming rights? I think not.
Another hypocrite Democrat exposed.
‘My Oh My, What Do We Have Here?’: Blaze Readers React to What Ferguson Police Found on Missouri Democrat Who’s Sponsored Several ‘Anti-Gun’ Bills:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/10/26/my-oh-my-what-do-we-have-here-blaze-readers-react-to-what-ferguson-police-found-on-missouri-democrat-whos-sponsored-several-anti-gun-bills/
Chris Jim Crow laws have nothing to do with this post. Are you trying to avoid the issue?
Jim Crow laws existed most prominently in the South. They were not widely supported across the nation after WWII or even by all of the people in the South.
Unfortunately, Southern Democrats/KKK were determined, having been raised by strict segregationists, to continue to segregate and disenfranchise the black man. They were simply carrying on with the traditions of the past:
The Southerners believed they were right and it took a long fight but plenty of Americans, black and white, summoned the strength, some putting their lives on the line, to right these wrongs. It never would have happened without the strong moral clarity of the majority of the people.
“If you ever want the Republican party to be relevant again, you have GOT to stop idealizing the past like this.”
If you ever want the nation to be successful, vibrant, and moral again you had better stop being such a nit picker and listen for the broader message!
Democrats in leadership today haven’t changed much Crow days. The only thing that’s different is the syrup in their mouths that deliver the message in sticky deceptions. They still push policies to promote dependency, they still use the black man, they still want to keep poor blacks and poor whites “in their place.”
Back to the topic at hand:
Please explain how blaming guns and laws for these school shootings is morally superior to placing the blame squarely on the perpetrators of the crime.
Please explain how pointing out that difference in moral clarity ON THIS ISSUE is a big turn off to you.
Please explain why the past cannot provide valuable lessons for today.
If you will not see that these tragic shootings are a result of our society losing the ability to clearly define and carry out our laws and hold criminals responsible and accountable you are not really serious about solving the problem.
“The idea that the Founding Fathers would oppose universal background checks is absurd.”
I didn’t suggest it.
“Your argument that “they won’t stop with background checks” is based on the slippery slope fallacy, and thus has no merit.”
It is based on fifty years watching how Democrats operate and oh by the way, “If you like your insurance you can keep it,” Democrats would never lie about their true intentions!
You need a few more years under your belt before you’ll be qualified to decide about the “slippery slope” argument or changes in moral clarity. Since the fifties the size and scope of the federal government provides proof enough that the slippery slope exists. I hope for your sake the pendulum swings back toward greater moral clarity.
Jack, teachers carrying guns on campus is just stupid. There have already been multiple instances of teachers shooting themselves on campus, and at least one where a gun was left alone and found by a student. How many cases have there been where a teacher used a gun to save a life by stopping an attacker? Zero.
“Chris, were you attempting some humor? Because Carno never said anything remotely like having teens carry guns on school buses. School buses never came up?”
I’m sorry, I assumed you were familiar with Malala’s story.
Carno said that Malala Yousafzai should have had “the choice to be armed” when she was shot by the Taliban. The reason this makes no sense is because Malala was 15 years old and on a school bus at the time she was shot. So either Carno is arguing that 15 year olds should be allowed to carry guns onto school buses, or she didn’t bother to do any research on the circumstances of Malala’s attack before she made her uninformed comments.
If she was speaking generally she shouldn’t have used Malala as an example. Aside from the particulars I already mentioned, it is also inappropriate to use Malala as an example of why people should be armed because Malala has vowed never to use violence, even in self-defense.
“Chris, don’t be obtuse… they would have gone around the background check if they bought in a store, they had a shill for that purpose.”
You’re not making any sense. The shill specifically said she went to a gun show because there was no background check. Had she gone to a store, she would have been subject to a background check. If she still went through with the purchase, at the very least she would have been prosecuted for it.
As an officer, how can you say you’re OK with Robyn Anderson never facing prosecution for straw buying and then giving guns to killers? How can you be OK with the huge loophole in the law that says since she bought the guns from a gun show, she committed no crime?
Shouldn’t people who do what Anderson did be punished by the law?
“The point being they had a method to obtain the firearms in a way that skirted the law.”
…And they had this method precisely because no background check law existed at gun shows.
“A LAW WOULD NOT HAVE STOPPED THEM. How hard is this to grasp?”
I’m not sure why you think anyone needs to “grasp” your unproven assertions, just because you keep repeating them. You have no way of knowing whether or not a background check law would have stopped them. It amazes me how much certainty you seem to have over something that you can’t possibly know. Unless you possess the power to peer into the alternate reality where Colorado had closed the gun show loophole, your claim that a background check law wouldn’t have stopped the kids is just speculation.
As an officer you must know that plots like Columbine can and have been stopped. They are not inevitable. You must also know that the longer it takes for a plan like this to come to fruition, the more likely the kids are to slip up and get caught. Universal background checks would have been one more stumbling block in their plan. According to Anderson she wouldn’t have helped them if she had had to put her name to paper; they would have had to find someone else, which means there would have been a greater chance of their plan going south.
Considering that you’ve prevented literally zero downsides to universal background checks, and no explanation of how they interfere with the rights of responsible gun owners, I cannot for the life of me see how this is not worth it.
Sorry Chris, but I never said teachers should be armed, although I am not opposed to it. I can see how a well trained, responsible adult, with access to a firearm that is not accessible to students, might be of some value for school security. Although the odds indicate the chances of that teacher’s school being involved in a shooting incident is extremely… remote! In the last 25 years there were about 150 school incidents involving a gun. Most of these were without personal injury, just somebody discharged a firearm or shot out a window. Although, it’s still serious, and it concerns me! But, considering we have almost 99,000 public schools with millions of kids attending, I think playground slip and falls or bike accidents have injured and killed more kids than guns. Maybe someone else raised this school/gun issue, but it wasn’t me.
As for my assertions, guilty as charged! Yes, I asserted that background checks at gun shows would not have has any effect in the shooting at Marysville High or Columbine. In many cases any background check, be it at a gun store or gun show, would not have stopped determined killers and I know this because (my experience as police detective) and that they either had plans to by pass the firearm paperwork or they had alternate weapons of mass destruction. I made a tiny leap of logic to make a few conclusions and you are stuck on tedious liberals fallacies. ..and you are welcome to them.
I know I haven’t addressed all of your issues, but it’s not my job to argue every single point you make Chris – I don’t have the time or interest, but I do what I can.
Tina, you claimed that earlier generations had a sense of “moral clarity” that we lack today. That is simply ridiculous. If our nation had moral clarity before the 50s, segregation would not have been so widely accepted. The fact that this mostly occurred in the South is irrelevant; are you saying the South doesn’t count as a large part of “our nation?” Pointing out the brave efforts of those who fought against such injustices also does not support your argument, as that does not show a nation of moral clarity, but of intense moral conflict.
Pointing out that your starry-eyed nostalgia erases the institutionalized discrimination faced by women and minorities in your day is not “nitpicking.” For you to suggest that it is shows how committed you are to erasing those experiences; they don’t matter to you. But they do matter to a lot of Americans, and until you understand that, your party will continue to fade into irrelevance.
To say that our nation has ever enjoyed “moral clarity” is to paint a picture of an America that never existed. Our history is not one of clarity, it is one of great complexity and moral conflict. Much of that conflict, especially among our Founders, was internal. Many of them, especially Jefferson, wrote of this internal conflict and the struggle they faced balancing their belief in natural rights and equality with the realities of their time. The Founders were definitely forward thinkers who saw things that others of their time did not, but to say they were men of “moral clarity” is ridiculous, and they’d be the first to admit it! It took centuries for our laws to catch up with the ideals expressed in the Constitution, and we’re not all the way there yet. It took work, dammit. It took protests and marches and boycotts and organized campaigns, and yes, it took laws and Supreme Court decisions that were decried as “liberal activism” (though in reality, these measures were always playing catch-up to social norms).
Now you can argue that conservative solutions are better and hue closer to the Founders’ ideals than liberal solutions all you want, but don’t try and pretend that the Founders were any closer to those ideals than we are today, or that your own generation was closer. It wasn’t, and claiming it was is a deliberate distortion of history that completely erases the experiences of minorities and women.
“Please explain how blaming guns and laws for these school shootings is morally superior to placing the blame squarely on the perpetrators of the crime.”
Tina, if a guard falls asleep on duty and the fortress is attacked, you blame the attacker AND the guard. Perhaps not in equal measure, but to say the guard bears no responsibility, when he could have prevented an attack, is absurd.
Yet this is exactly the argument made by conservatives and the NRA, an organization which once favored sensible gun control but now, thanks to moneyed interests, cares only about selling as many guns as possible, regardless of whether those guns are sold legally.
You want us to believe that we should allow felons, gang members, and the mentally ill to continue buying guns at gun shows without any sort of background check, and that those who believe we should NOT allow this are somehow the ones incentivizing more crime.
You want us to believe that closing a loophole that currently accounts for nearly a third of trafficked guns is somehow a gross infringement of people’s constitutional rights, and that it won’t do anything to combat crime.
You want us to believe this even despite the fact that this loophole has in the past been exploited by gang members, criminals, traffickers, and once, by the perpetrators of one of the worst school shootings in American history.
You want us to believe this even though California, which has universal background checks, has lower than average gun violence.
And you say that YOU are the one with moral clarity?
Ridiculous.
Oh, and one more thing:
“I didn’t suggest [that the Founders would oppose universal background checks].”
You absolutely did, and you know it.
Chris has taken quite a leap spinning my words to serve his thoughts and argument.
I did state ‘when criminals want guns, they get guns period. Laws have no deterrent to a criminals’,
Chris makes it seem I want Criminals to have guns with his comment,
“This is terrible logic. By your reasoning we shouldn’t have any gun laws at all, because criminals will just break them anyway”.
And sadly for the discussion Chris missed Jacks point as well, and Jacks point I agree with
Please Chris, stop trying to invent intent out of thin air, that is not my meaning nor any logic I would ever entertain, and I believe you know that.
Sure we need laws, fair and just laws, but let’s stay away from the knee jerk politically motivated laws and work on a solution that works without infringements of 2nd amendment rights and dismiss the 2nd as only a suggestions. A solid set of national laws that serve the needs of all is what is required so that people can feel assured their rights are not being specifically infringed on, and people are getting tired of being targeted by Obamas administration that slowly chips away at Constitutional freedoms.
“The fact is that requiring background checks at gun shows is common sense. There is literally no reason not to do it, failing to do this means that current laws against felons owning guns won’t even be enforced”
Possibly that comment has merit by itself, my point is what is Government doing with that information, when they use it as Kamala Harris has, it only serves the Her personal agenda, Harris is noted as a major anti-gun person and she morphed the program into a gun confiscation witch hunt, more than trying to remove guns from criminals.
Today we have the background checks which you call for, and criminals still have guns, some guns are even supplied by the very politicians that are making gun ownership difficult, not because qualified people deserve to own them , but because it’s a ploy to get voters support and profit from making guns hard to obtain.
NCIC qualified people have carry permits that ‘Shall be issued’ and prove they have passed a legitimate set of protocol and are licensed to own and even carry a handgun in public. That in itself should be used to eliminate redundant filing of background checks.
“They’re going to do it anyway” is a terrible argument. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make it harder for criminals to get guns. The gun show loophole is a huge boon to criminals. Over 30% of all gun crimes can be traced back to gun shows where there is no background check, according to the ATF.”
Your case study which is dated back in 2008 and 2009 an is archaic by stricter regulations already in place, things are stricter today, go to a gun show and buy a weapon, see how it works.Yet people still obtain illegal guns. Government has failed to provide any effective defense against this with their current brand of background checks.
“That’s in addition to the stats I posted earlier which showed that California has a lower rate of gun crime than neighboring states with much looser gun laws.”
As have most all states of late been reporting lower gun crime. Even without the need of more layering of laws.
“There is no excuse for not doing this. It does not infringe on the rights of anyone, and it is one extra barrier between criminals and guns.”
A barrier! Come on be honest, back ground check haven’t stopped nor will stop criminals, yes we need rules, but not baseless beliefs such as your above comment. Why else the need to keep a log of weapons owned, unless Government needs a list so as to prohibit, or confiscate them at their whim.
As to a background check, I believe a background check prior to voting is more important, because proper voter ID is one extra barrier to prevent voter fraud, and better Government, but I would not expect you would agree to that comment either.
And once more, just to be clear, I never said background checks were not needed, just that they are redundant for some people. Please stop trying to twist my meaning, it sullies your position.
“Again, had background checks at gun shows been in place at that time, the plan could have been delayed. It only makes sense that someone is less likely to do something they know is wrong if they are going to have their identity checked and verified. At the very least, Anderson could have been prosecuted for providing the guns to the kids”
Delayed possibly, I wonder how long it might have been delayed prior to them actually committing it.
I do agree that most intelligent people would be reluctant to put their name on a form that could draw them into Criminal prosecution. However, I will stand by my comment Anderson is saying what she said to save her own skin, and as I read it, my position is supported in your last sentence about “prosecution” above.
“But universal background checks are not ‘a law of layered redundancy’, they are literally the only way we can ensure our existing gun laws are reasonably enforced.”
There’s that ‘Literally position again, as if more background checks is going to stop criminals once and for all, if stopping crime was as important as you profess , why not secure our borders, and why just take drivers licenses without further follow up from drunks, these are laws being broke that cost lives, still the people illegally cross and drive.
As Tina mentioned it takes morals, and criminals have none I know of, codes maybe, Morals not so much.
Again I’ll state a firm YES, multiple background checks are redundant considering you have to jump through the same hoop every time, it only really serves one purpose and that is to enhance TAX revenue on someone already approved to legally possess a weapon and especially true if they have a carry permit.
Criminals do not use legal methods to obtain Guns, if you really believe they do, would please explain why Holder and Obama asked the background check be waived (alleged at this point, but it will prove out once the stone walling stops) which permitted undocumented purchases in the Fast and Furious matter? That might have stopped the unnecessary murder of the Border patrolman. Which was a result of that currently STONE WALLED screw-up.
“I hardly think passing universal background checks fifteen years after Columbine showed the need for them counts as kneejerk”
You’re probably right, ‘using Columbine as a tool for Liberal Political herding of voters emotions’ would have been a better statement, but knee jerk was shorter and to the point.
Regarding APP’s, Harris proved she will mold the use of any guns laws to further her anti-gun agenda, in the cases documented by the NRA , it is clear mistakes were made, as well as clear proof of her anti-gun position. However Holder and Obama loved it, I believe they even invited her to DC to explain how it could become a national model. I would wager all the anti-gunners, and a lot of their supporters will ride this mule to death at some point. Adding another layer of Government on. A lot like Manure on mushrooms (which I dislike as well)
“I’m not sure I understand–if you have a concealed carry permit, are you currently required to undergo another background check when buying another gun”
Yes in California. However some states have recognized the importance of a concealed carry clearance and accept it. But California is not interested in effective laws, just promoting redundancy laws that their constituents can use to support them. Go apply for a CCW and then go buy a handgun,even a rifle, you’ll understand then.
Suggestion,and this is in the spirit of free advice about future gun ownership, You might want to consider transferring you fathers weapons sooner than later, given the direction of California gun politics, if it not checked by reasonable thinking, you may not have that opportunity to own them, and have to turn them into the state, but then you can go to court and fight to recover your own property, after all you mentioned that was sound recourse for those affected by Harris and her gun grabbers.
I am through, there really is nothing more to add, just redirect, but I sense it to be a waste of time, this subject can only be resolved through a honest and unbiased legislative process.
Harold while I must agree with you that it’s absurd to run a costly and unnecessary background check on a person with a legal concealed carry permit or for that matter, any full or part time police officer, there is one big problem:
You see… the intent of a background check was to force you to pay a big fee to raise more money for the general fund. Even though you are actually paying twice, because they charged Y-O-U the taxpayer already in the regular taxes you pay. Yes, we already paid for the background check when we did the budget earmarked public safety. All the equipment and the personnel is already funded in the normal state budget, the rest is just spare change to use however they want. So, they get you to pay a double tax with a DROS (registration) fee. This is kind of like the fire department charging you to show up to put out a fire at your house. Your property taxes already paid for that, right?
If we used your simple logic government wouldn’t have the several million dollars a year they now get from fleecing the taxpayer/gun buyer. You don’t want to deprive the government and at the same time make it easier for honest citizens to own a gun? Although, one might argue that doing away with this redundant fee would save thousands of man hours, and it would bring down the cost of buying a firearm so sales are likely to increase. More sales more tax money would be raised, less man hours processing papers more tax money saved, but now we’re getting a bit too technical for most of our gun-hating liberals to follow, so I’ll stop. But, I like your logic; too bad logic is not one of big government’s attributes.
Jack and Harold, I have to agree with you that a background check on someone who already has a concealed carry permit is unnecessary and redundant. This is a gun control measure I would be willing to see repealed.
What I still don’t understand is why felons and other people prohibited from owning guns should be able to walk into a gun show and buy one with absolutely no enforcement mechanism to stop them.
I stand by my statement that such background checks do not violate the rights of responsible gun owners, and they are the only way to ensure that our existing laws against felons owning firearms are enforced.
Chris, I agree that crazies and felons should not be allowed to buy a firearm, then again, the laws says they cannot possess a firearm. I’ll meet you half way and say that I would be okay with requiring gun shows to do a 10 day wait and register for buyers, unless the person has a lawful CCW or is law enforcement. How’s that? Seems reasonable to me, besides about 20 states already require that, including CA. So it would have no effect on us, save for those with the proper ID.
Jack: “Chris, I agree that crazies and felons should not be allowed to buy a firearm, then again, the laws says they cannot possess a firearm.”
Of course, but the gun show loophole means that that law has no enforcement mechanism. Close the loophole and the felon could probably still get a gun from a straw buyer or a street dealer–but it would be at least somewhat more difficult, and the straw buyer would face prosecution. As of now, straw buying at gun shows is effectively legal, which is why Anderson wasn’t convicted.
“I’ll meet you half way and say that I would be okay with requiring gun shows to do a 10 day wait and register for buyers, unless the person has a lawful CCW or is law enforcement. How’s that? Seems reasonable to me, besides about 20 states already require that, including CA. So it would have no effect on us, save for those with the proper ID.”
Absolutely–though I’ll point out you actually met me more than halfway, since I never even said anything about a waiting period. 😉 Glad we can agree.
Chris and this is how a democracy should work, but too often the opposition is polars apart.
Chris you do this quite often. You focus on a single issue, an issue that has been difficult and contentious for centuries, and then use that to dismiss my point entirely when it has nothing to do with what I was saying.
There’s plenty of evidence to indicate that citizens and their children, in very general terms, held themselves and each other to higher standards of morality (Both in the fifties and in earlier times). I wasn’t talking about absolute moral clarity, nor did I insinuate as much. Perfection is a standard no generation will ever achieve.
Maintaining moral clarity within the populous is pretty darned important in a republic. Everyone benefits when citizens respect our laws and maintain high standards of morality and pass both on to the next generations. I don’t understand why you feel the need to be so contentious about this. (Or, as I suspect, is it just that I said it?)
I wrote:
If you are going to respond to what I say please at least have the decency to address what I have said.
If we were not suffering a crisis of moral clarity these shootings would not be happening. I understand you have not experienced living in a time when murders, robberies and rapes were rare in most neighborhoods but I have. I have also witnessed the decline in morals and the uptick in violence among the people. But it is also a certainty that in the fifties the mere suggestion that guns was the problem in a similar case would have invoked incredulity and jokes aplenty followed by, “Are you nuts! People had clarity about criminals and criminal behavior.
People had greater moral clarity generally in the fifties. Guns do not kill people and if you believe that they do your moral clarity has been compromised! A lot of people today actually believe guns are the problem and because of that we pursue gun laws rather than looking at the real problem…morally confused children.
I’m sorry that it bothers you but it’s true that kids could take guns to school in the fifties and hunt after school without raising an eyebrow. There were no mass school shootings because the people and their children had greater moral clarity about murder, guns, gun safety, respect for others, and appropriate and inappropriate behaviors generally. I think it’s important to make the case for greater moral clarity, especially with young people. I’m surprised that a teacher would have such an aversion to the suggestion that it would make a difference.
There is no point in responding further to your comment.
Jack, I’m glad we can agree on this point, but I’d like to point out you actually met me more than halfway–I never said anything about waiting periods. 😉 So credit where credit is due.
Tina, I did address exactly what you said. You said that previous generations and the founders had greater moral clarity, and I showed compelling evidence that that is not true. I’m not sure how much more clearly I could address your point. People who have moral clarity do not own slaves.
I suppose you could argue that previous generations had more moral clarity than we do in some respects, but I’m still not exactly sure what those would be. People were less promiscuous, but that had a lot to do with the stigmatizing of bastard children, which wasn’t exactly what I’d call the height of morality. The fact that your generation had less mass shootings doesn’t really prove that previous generations were less moral; one stat shows that mass killings reached their peak in 1929:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/are-mass-shootings-really-on-the-rise/
I never said guns were the problem. The wrong people getting guns is the problem. I have no problem with responsible citizens owning guns. That’s why I support laws that make it harder for the wrong people to get guns without compromising the rights of responsible gun owners.
Why don’t you?
I find it hilarious that you seem to think that kids aren’t being taught that murder is wrong.
Chris: “You said that previous generations and the founders had greater moral clarity…”
I said “when people had greater clarity.” I didn’t mention the founders. I also did not make an absolute statement that previous generations were saints or imply that things were perfect. You made that up so you could deride me with that “starry-eyed nostalgia” accusation.
Never before in our history has there been the concept of political correctness or widespread acceptance of the concept that there is “no right or wrong”. We have both now and they indicate a sea change in moral clarity in our nation. We also have larger blocks in the population that are not involved in church and are not receiving weekly moral instruction.
It’s a fact that there are people in our nation who are afraid to blame murders in Chicago on the individuals committing the crimes. We avoid the topic completely because we are afraid of being called racist…that indicates a crisis of moral clarity due to political correctness. People in Chicago are endangered due to a lack of moral clarity. Do you find that hilarious? Are you willing to say that those committing these crimes have moral clarity and are being taught that murder is wrong?
“I suppose you could argue that previous generations had more moral clarity than we do in some respects, but I’m still not exactly sure what those would be. People were less promiscuous…”
You can fathom that we were less promiscuous but you cannot fathom that children were, generally speaking, more grounded in right and wrong? Chris children were not wondering the streets before the hippie generation tuned in and dropped out. There were much fewer kids in foster care. Divorce was rare. Kids were better supported by their families, their neighborhoods, and in their schools. It’s just a fact that they received more reinforcement with respect to morality.
I find it unfathomable that you are so resistant to even considering this point. I’m not asking you to do anything but consider the point that the core problem isn’t to be found in our gun laws and that if we really care about our children we need to address that core problem.
We can pass all kinds of restrictive gun laws and make it harder for criminals but criminals don’t respect the law. Rebellious kids are wired to disrespect people and the law…that suggests a crisis of morality and not just with the kids. Its something in our society.
“The wrong people getting guns is the problem.”
The problem is we don’t know who “the wrong people” are until after they commit the crime. Stricter laws may close one opportunity but it won’t stop those bent on doing harm.
“Why don’t you?”
I didn’t comment one way or another. I just said guns were not the problem and so creating more gun laws would not change the behavior. It seems an obvious point to me.
“I find it hilarious that you seem to think that kids aren’t being taught that murder is wrong.”
I didn’t say that either. I said that we send mixed messages to kids and create less moral clarity.
Never mind the past, I find it hilarious that you can witness the murders in Chicago, kids being snatched from their beds, parents murdering their own children, mass murders in schools, gang members doing drive by’s and an entire genre of music that celebrates killing and believe that most kids today are still being raised to think in terms of right and wrong with moral clarity.
Chris its also difficult to have conversations when someone refers to one comment and then later adds another into the mix to give his “starry eyed nostalgia” bully jab the weight it lacked. My reference to the founders as specifically tied to the purpose for the second amendment:
Your sense of superiority, and your need to make others seem foolish, also make it impossible to have a conversation with you.
I won’t bother with the rest of your pettiness and insults. Have a good night Chris.
Chris: “You did, though I see at least this time you had the sense to delete that comment before denying what you said (There was more in your deleted comment about sex before marriage that I was looking forward to responding to, but it’s gone now, so I guess I’ll have to pass.)
Our readers should know that I did not delete any comments, my own or anyone else’s. I am not accusing Chris of lying but neither have I deleted any comments.
Chris: “Again, I never said anything even remotely like that.
But you don’t care.”
For someone who preaches to others about reading for accuracy you certainly fail often enough yourself. I did not say you said the above. I said you have “witnessed” these things…like in the news.
Your level of contentiousness is uncalled for, Chris.
Jack there is more going on here than comments being posted out of order.
I’ve tried to post this comment twice without success and WordPress tells me I’m “trying to post comments too quickly”…absurd!
Jack the above comment seems to have posted but only after I copied it to word, shut down the browser and cut and pasted it for submission when I reopened the page. Weird.
Harold I appreciate your comments above and would like to say my comment #6 above was in response to what you had to say at #5. Let’s just say I appreciate your moral clarity and Jacks too.
Tina: “I said “when people had greater clarity.” I didn’t mention the founders.”
It is very difficult to have a conversation with someone who cannot even remember their own explicit arguments.
In post #6, dated October 25, at 3:01PM, you said:
“The founders had moral clarity.”
Please try to remember what you said before denying you said it. If you cannot remember, you can always go back to your own comments and re-read them.
Me: “I find it hilarious that you seem to think that kids aren’t being taught that murder is wrong.”
Tina: “I didn’t say that either.”
You did, though I see at least this time you had the sense to delete that comment before denying what you said. (There was more in your deleted comment about sex before marriage that I was looking forward to responding to, but it’s gone now, so I guess I’ll have to pass.)
Tina: “I also did not make an absolute statement that previous generations were saints or imply that things were perfect. You made that up so you could deride me with that “starry-eyed nostalgia” accusation.”
You are the one making things up.
I did not assert that you claimed things were “perfect” or that “previous generations were saints.” I did not need to make such a strawman argument, because your actual argument was ridiculous enough.
You said previous generations had more moral clarity than we do today. I showed you evidence that this was not true. Slavery and segregation were two grave moral injustices, such that most of your complaints about today’s generation pale in comparison.
Again, nothing in my argument implies that you believe anyone was perfect or saintly. I am arguing on your terms. You used the term “moral clarity,” which implies a certain ability to distinguish right from wrong in a profound way. I showed why this term does not apply to our forebears.
You have now tried to change the meaning of not only your own arguments, but mine as well. This can only be a sign that you realize you are losing. Again, I did not need to misinterpret your words or modify my own. I responded to your actual argument, and I did so fairly.
It’s your blog, so obviously you don’t have to do the same in return. But I’m asking you to do so because it’s the right thing to do. You are lecturing me about “moral clarity;” intentionally mischaracterizing your own arguments and the arguments of others is immoral, and you should stop doing it.
That is, of course, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are doing this intentionally, and that you’re not just incapable of understanding a logical argument.
“Never before in our history has there been the concept of political correctness or widespread acceptance of the concept that there is “no right or wrong”.”
The term “political correctness” is a 20th century invention, but the phenomenon it describes is as old as time. There have always been certain things that people in a society could not say without fear of social consequences. When you were a child, it was considered politically incorrect to acknowledge the existence of gay people. Now it is considered politically incorrect to insult people for being gay. I’ll take the latter.
The idea that “there is no right and wrong” is also not widespread.
“We also have larger blocks in the population that are not involved in church and are not receiving weekly moral instruction.”
I don’t believe religion has any special claim to proper moral instruction, so this is not convincing to me. Many of the world’s most religious nations today are also the most immoral and repressive.
“It’s a fact that there are people in our nation who are afraid to blame murders in Chicago on the individuals committing the crimes. We avoid the topic completely because we are afraid of being called racist…”
That is simply not true. This has been addressed by many on the left, including President Obama.
“Are you willing to say that those committing these crimes have moral clarity and are being taught that murder is wrong?”
Of course the people committing the crimes do not have moral clarity. I’ve never suggested otherwise. Your argument was that our nation as a whole had more moral clarity in the past than we do today. I do not believe that is true.
For the record, I am not saying we have anything resembling moral clarity today.
“You can fathom that we were less promiscuous but you cannot fathom that children were, generally speaking, more grounded in right and wrong?”
I can “fathom” a lot of things; that doesn’t make them true. Again, a lot of the lack of promiscuity was based on a different extreme of immorality in which women who had sex before marriage were stigmatized, as were their children, while the men did not face the same stigma. I don’t believe sex before marriage is immoral, though I do believe using people selfishly is immoral.
“Kids were better supported by their families, their neighborhoods, and in their schools.”
This is absolutely untrue. Please Google the actual child poverty rates throughout American history before you make such ridiculous claims.
This simply proves my point about your idealized view of the past. You make all of these claims about how things were better in your day, and many of them are simply false. And this is not nitpicking–your idea that America used to be this fantasyland is central to your entire ideology.
“I find it unfathomable that you are so resistant to even considering this point.”
Again, it’s not that I haven’t considered your claims. It’s that I have considered them, and researched them, and that is how I know they are not true.
It is very arrogant of you to continue to insist, despite the facts I provide, that my disagreements with your positions mean I must never have given them any thought.
“We can pass all kinds of restrictive gun laws and make it harder for criminals but criminals don’t respect the law.”
Closing the gun show loophole does not require criminals to respect the law.
It simply means that if a known criminal attempts to buy a gun at a gun show, that gun is not going to be sold to them.
How hard is that to understand?
“The problem is we don’t know who “the wrong people” are until after they commit the crime.”
…This also does not make any sense in the context of my suggestion. Universal background checks would ensure that people who have committed a crime and are thus prohibited from owning a gun cannot buy them at a gun show.
“I just said guns were not the problem and so creating more gun laws would not change the behavior.”
Do you understand that your conclusion does not follow from your premise?
I have already said that I agree with the premise that guns are not the problem. Your conclusion, that this means that gun laws will not help, does not at all follow from that premise.
“It seems an obvious point to me.”
That’s because you lack basic logic and critical thinking skills. You can’t see that your claims do not make rational sense.
“Never mind the past, I find it hilarious that you can witness the murders in Chicago, kids being snatched from their beds, parents murdering their own children, mass murders in schools, gang members doing drive by’s and an entire genre of music that celebrates killing and believe that most kids today are still being raised to think in terms of right and wrong with moral clarity.”
Again, I never said anything even remotely like that.
But you don’t care.
Tina: “My reference to the founders as specifically tied to the purpose for the second amendment”
I know, which is why I specifically addressed that point. Again, the founders implemented universal gun registration. Your reference to the founders was nonsensical.
Nonsensical?
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.” – George Mason, co-author of the 2nd Amendment.
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves.” – Richard Henry Lee.
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams.
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” – George Washington
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” – Patrick Henry.
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton.
“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson.
“To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.” – Noah Webster.
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin.
In 1792 Washington signed a bill, passed by a Congress that included 17 framers, requiring that all able-bodied men buy firearms. (Or acquire them by gift)
“A free people ought to be armed.” – George Washington.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson.
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” – George Washington.
“A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control” ~ Fordham Law Review contains interesting points that seek an end to the conflict.
More good reading in “THE HISTORICITY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ARMS:
Yes, Tina, your reference the the Founders was nonsensical in the context of this discussion, and your latest comment was just as nonsensical. Nowhere have I argued that law-abiding citizens should not have the right to bare arms, so what are your quotes supposed to prove? Who are you arguing with?
Do you acknowledge the fact that the Founders favored universal gun registration?
If you do acknowledge this fact, do you see how invoking the founders in order to argue against my call for universal background checks was at best ignorant and misleading, and at worst willfully dishonest?
Chris: “Do you acknowledge the fact that the Founders favored universal gun registration?”
I have yet to find a source that supports the claim and you have not provided an historical reference.
I did find something about registering guns in The Blaze:
I posted the quotes from the founders to illustrate the thinking of the founders, none of which seem to support the notion of universal gun registry. They are also quite interesting from an historical perspective.
“…do you see how invoking the founders in order to argue against my call for universal background checks was at best ignorant”
No more ignorant than you introducing Jim Crow laws in a discussion about gun laws, school shootings, and moral clarity in placing blame.
You can put your ruler away, teach. You’re nothing special here, just an equal participant. Cracking knuckles to elevate your own importance is a bit old fashioned anyway, doncha think?
Tina, I provided a source for the fact that the founders required guns be registered all the way back in comment #7.
I have also provided sources for this fact numerous times in other discussions. This is the first time you have stated that you were unaware of a source.
That the founders required universal gun registration and frequent inspection of guns is a well known fact. That you don’t know this shows how much of your knowledge of history has been filtered through a singular political lens. You constantly accuse me of being uninformed about the history of our nation and the founders’ vision, but then you reveal that you only know the facts which conform to conservative ideology.
I am not saying I want our gun laws to be as strict as those set down by the founders–they had a lot of laws that we now understand as being against the spirit of the constitution–but you were the one who brought up their alleged “moral clarity” in your effort to insist that more gun laws somehow reflect a lack of moral clarity. Again, the founders’ actual actions contradict your argument.
Universal background checks remain a common sense, constitutional solution to ensuring that our existing laws against felons buying weapons are enforced.
CHRIS, YOU ARE DOING IT AGAIN – TELLING A HALF TRUTH TO SUIT YOUR OWN AGENDA! Yes, we’ve also always had some form of gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that any decent American would object to them only because they had to do with racism! Our founding generation denied gun ownership to slaves and free blacks and we wouldn’t do that today! And they ALSO prohibited any white man who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution from gun ownership.
On the other hand the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate:” They required the purchase of guns! Yes, Chris they demanded citizens own guns, imagine that! If you were around back then and you subscribed to the revolution then you had to buy a gun! Oh, and not just any gun! A 1792 federal law mandated, every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Note – every eligible man had to buy a military style gun. Today we would call them assault weapons. Yeah, you would have to buy an assault weapon under these conditions… how does that grab you? This is how strongly our founders felt about arming the citizenry with good weapons to kept freedom alive!
Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls. There’s your gun control. There’s the facts you so conveniently left out, as you implied the founders WERE FOR GUN CONTROL that took away guns from citizens! Just the opposite. But, so often liberals take bits and pieces of history and distort them so they are exactly opposite of the truth.
Jack, I am not sure why you think my intention was to distort history. I am aware of everything you said, and none of it contradicts my point, which is that Tina’s appeal to the founders was disingenuous. Like you pointed out, the founders’ view of both gun rights and gun control doesn’t resemble the policies of either the right or the left today. I made it clear that I would not support the same gun laws as during the Revolution, because so many do not apply today. That said, these facts also show that the founders at least made an effort to balance gun rights with gun control, and that’s an effort the modern right is not willing to make today.
Okay Chris, but just remember that in the past you’ve been pretty adversarial on gun rights, so when you say the founders were for gun control, it sounds pretty bad, as if the founders were in favor limiting firearms among the general population and they were not. So, if only for clarity, it’s incumbent on you to tell the context of that gun control comment. Then we can fully understand what you are saying.
Chris I apologize for missing the link.
“Tina’s appeal to the founders was disingenuous.”
Disingenuous: lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere.
Your accusation is disingenuous. In fact you had to nit pick to make the accusation which in my opinion lacks sincerity and was designed to damage to me personally rather than add to the conversation.
My appeal regarding moral clarity is supported by the general attitudes of the founders about gun ownership and their enactment of the Second Amendment, not to mention their firm embrace of FREEDOM!
“…and that’s an effort the modern right is not willing to make today.”
There is a very good reason. The absolute lack of moral clarity we perceive in the radical left on the issues of gun ownership, property rights, and freedom. We could have trusted the founders. The hard core left’s agenda is confiscation…they want to see that no citizen can own guns.
My point was today too many of us lack the moral clarity to blame the criminal. Instead we excuse the criminal and make guns the problem. I know for a fact that the founders were moral and religious men. It is extremely doubtful that a single one of them would ever have thought to make guns the issue after a murder…they had moral clarity…period. Sorry to say you can’t bring yourself to acknowledge this in any way.
Jack my computer at home is loading slow again…keep your fingers crossed.
Tina, mine has slowed down too, since the first time the software was working perfectly days ago.
Jack, in what way have I been “pretty adversarial” on gun rights? By supporting universal background checks? I’ve gone out of my way in nearly every discussion we’ve had on this issue to point out that I don’t support taking arms away from lawful citizens, so I don’t think it’s incumbent on me to give any more context than I already have; any misunderstanding at this point would be on you, not on me.
Tina, your “moral clarity” remarks still remain ludicrous. As Jack pointed out, the Founders did not extend their “general attitudes” about gun rights to free blacks. I am not arguing that the Founders were great men or that they were ahead of their time, but they were also complicated, conflicted men, and “moral clarity” is not an accurate descriptor at all. Again, this is not a nitpick–it is irresponsible for people to idealize the founders this way, and your ideology is contributes to an inaccurate and misleading view of history.
“Jack, in what way have I been “pretty adversarial” on gun rights? By supporting universal background checks? I’ve gone out of my way in nearly every discussion we’ve had on this issue to point out that I don’t support taking arms away from lawful citizens, so I don’t think it’s incumbent on me to give any more context than I already have; any misunderstanding at this point would be on you, not on me.”
But, you did support the limiting of what firearms one could bare and as I recall you felt that muskets was what the founders had in mind when talking about the right to bare arms and therefore muskets ought to be good enough for us…now! lol Now if that isn’t adversarial, I guess, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
However, the main point was you dropped a half truth out there that made it look like the founders endorsed gun control as we know it today and I took exception to that and put it in context.
Jack: “…I took exception to that and put it in context.”
An it was much appreciated too, Jack!
Chris: “As Jack pointed out, the Founders did not extend their “general attitudes” about gun rights to free blacks.”
Chris I’ve never denied the things in the Constitution that disaffected blacks. I’ve pointed out that judging the mores of that time by today’s standards is ridiculous, and you agreed.
The Constitution contained a number of things that not all of those involved in writing it supported. The document was negotiated in order to unify all of the representatives of the states so it would be ratified. They also wrote a document that included provisions to change what they found offensive…and the people have!
Your insistence that this one issue means the founders lacked moral clarity denies several truths: 1. There were founders who were against slave ownership, 2. The mores of the time were different, and most ridiculously, 3. The founders would never blame guns rather than the the criminal for a murder(s).
Britannica:
The movement to end the slave trade would not begin in earnest until the 1800’s.
All of this has been a silly exercise anyway. Our nation has changed significantly in the last sixty years, which was my original thinking. Guns are not responsible for the things that led any of the school shooters to plan and carry out their evil acts. But gun control is always front ans center after one of these shootings ignoring completely that sixty years ago this kind of thing DID NOT HAPPEN in America. I suggest that part of the reason for this is that people had greater moral clarity and as a result their kids knew right from wrong. Excuses were unacceptable…now they are encouraged!
For heaven’s sake, even our president excuses himself from responsibility and accountability…what a role model we have in him! And he gets away with it completely with at least a third of the country, perhaps more. An America that goes along with the leader passing the buck and making excuses is a nation that has lost its way and lacks strong moral clarity.
Jack: “But, you did support the limiting of what firearms one could bare”
Don’t you? Surely you don’t think citizens should be able to own any type of firearm they want?
“and as I recall you felt that muskets was what the founders had in mind when talking about the right to bare arms and therefore muskets ought to be good enough for us…now!”
Hmm…It’s possible I’ve made that argument a while back, but if so, I’ve since realized that’s a pretty dumb argument. Obviously the founders couldn’t have imagined every technological achievement of the past 200+ years, but that’s why they left the Constitution so open-ended. By the same logic, the right to free speech wouldn’t apply to the Internet. So I agree with you that “the second amendment only applies to muskets” is a stupid argument. I support the right of law-abiding Americans to own most modern firearms, though I draw the line at assault rifles.
“However, the main point was you dropped a half truth out there that made it look like the founders endorsed gun control as we know it today and I took exception to that and put it in context.”
I did not mean to imply that the founders endorsed “gun control as we know it today.” My point was that the founders balanced gun rights with certain restrictions and responsibilities. They went too far with the restrictions, especially when it came to denying this right to non-white citizens. But the GOP today is going too far in the other direction, opposing sensible restrictions and guidelines like universal background checks.
If anything, Tina was the one being misleading; her crack about “moral clarity” was clearly designed to imply that the Founders endorsed a view of the Second Amendment similar to today’s Republican party, which is simply not true. I never implied that the Founders endorsed a view similar to today’s liberals.
Tina: “Your insistence that this one issue means the founders lacked moral clarity denies several truths: 1. There were founders who were against slave ownership, 2. The mores of the time were different, and most ridiculously, 3. The founders would never blame guns rather than the the criminal for a murder(s).”
Your assertion here lacks support; I don’t see how my statement that the founders lacked moral clarity denies any of these points.
1. Yes, some of the founders opposed slavery; some of them did so even while having sex with their own slaves, an action which is inherently nonconsensual. Thomas Jefferson himself is a case study in internal moral conflict. So I stand by my point: the founders, both as individuals and as a group, did not have anything approaching “moral clarity.”
2. Yes, the mores of the time were different. So? That doesn’t do anything to support your claim that the founders had moral clarity. Moral clarity would mean that they would be able to tell right and wrong regardless of the common moral understanding of their time.
To argue otherwise is to argue that morality itself actually changes depending on the time and place one lives in. That is called moral relativism, and I know you don’t actually believe in that. (Again I have to make the simple request that you stick to only making arguments you actually believe. This requires you to put more thought into your comments than you currently do, but it also saves you from the embarrassment of getting caught saying things you don’t believe, so I think it’s worth it.)
Note that I am not arguing that the Founders weren’t in some ways ahead of their time. They managed to create possibly one of the best moral frameworks for a society in human history. That is worth celebrating, and I am not denigrating them for not being perfect.
But “moral clarity” is an incredibly high standard. I’m not the one who set that standard; you did. That the Founders failed to live up to that standard is not something we should judge them harshly for. But to claim that they reached that standard is to idealize them in a way that is uncalled for, and actively damaging to an accurate perception of history.
3. “The founders would never blame guns rather than the the criminal for a murder(s).”
What does this have to do with anything? Are you actually saying that the Founders’ morality regarding gun rights shouldn’t be based on what they actually did, or the laws they passed, but on whether or not they “blamed guns?” Wait, let me rephrase that, since it shouldn’t be a question: You are saying that the Founders’ morality regarding gun rights shouldn’t be based on what they actually did, or the laws they passed, but on whether or not they blamed guns. That doesn’t make any sense.
And that’s not even getting into the fact that this is a strawman argument anyway; I have never “blamed guns rather than the criminal for a murder(s).” I have not blamed guns, period. I of course believe the primary blame should be placed on the murderer; I’m not asking for gun manufacturers to be arrested for murder, nor are (the vast majority of) liberals.
I have said that the lack of sufficient gun regulations is partially to blame for murderers being able to easily access guns. I have provided compelling evidence that this is the case; the lack of background checks at gun shows allowed the Columbine killers to get guns at a gun show, and according to the ATF, account for a huge amount of illegally trafficked guns every year.
Do you see how this argument does not in any way “blame guns,” which are inanimate objects incapable of deliberate action? Do you see that I am placing most of the blame on the murderer, but also part of the blame on lawmakers who make it too easy for murderers to get guns?
I’m not asking you to agree with this argument–but do you at least understand it, on a basic level? Because you don’t even seem to understand your own arguments–every single one you have offered contains at least one obvious fallacy–so I’m really concerned about whether it’s possible for us to have a sensible, logical discussion on this issue.
Chris “Tina was the one being misleading; her crack about ‘moral clarity’ was clearly designed to imply that the Founders endorsed a view of the Second Amendment similar to today’s Republican party”
Excuse me, but that was not a crack! It was an observation that I have no trouble backing up thanks to the crackpot radicals in your party that blame guns and access to guns, rather than criminals, for school shootings!
My original comment referred to the fifties and changes in the way we handle criminals that began about that time. My later reference to the Founders and moral clarity had to do with the purpose for the second amendment:
Moral clarity about the right to keep and bear arms being necessary to prevent tyranny; moral clarity that that right should not be infringed!
You do this a lot Chris, so much so with me that I’m beginning to think its done on purpose. Kindly refrain from misrepresenting what I say.
The subject here is “school shootings.” We do not have moral clarity when it comes to this subject. We do have a lot of emotional, knee jerk, panic and blame shifting, some by radicals on the left. I think that is a very strong indication that too many in our population lack the moral clarity to hold the shooters accountable for their dastardly deeds. I think it demonstrates that too many of us are willing to use an horrific incident for political advantage, sending a confusing moral message in the process to other would be shooters and kids in general.
You see prefer to ignore the shooters and go straight for the throat on more gun legislation which further restricts law abiding gun enthusiasts and further erodes the “shall not be infringed” language in the Constitution. If your side wins so be it but don’t try to float the crazy notion that, magically, these shootings would then stop. It’s the shooter stupid and it always will be whether you have the moral clarity to see and admit it or not.
“What does this have to do with anything?”
If you hadn’t interpreted what I said to make it match your prejudices and sense of superiority, instead of what I was actually saying, you would know. I won’t repeat myself.
“I have said that the lack of sufficient gun regulations is partially to blame for murderers…”
Assuming I suppose that those plotting murder give a rip about laws. Sorry kid, you are of definitely squishy when it comes to moral clarity. It’s absurd that every time one of these incidents happen we end up talking about more gun laws. You are naive if you think these incidents aren’t being used to further restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners.
“…but also part of the blame on lawmakers who make it too easy for murderers to get guns?”
Geez Chris, now its the lawmakers.
No! It isn’t the lawmakers. lawmakers have passed truckloads of gun laws whatever the number.
More food for thought can be found here:
Laws don’t prevent crime. Laws are used to prosecute crime. The Criminals don’t care about laws. Criminals determined to murder will find a way. Those seeking a sensational method will plot accordingly.
“but do you at least understand it, on a basic level?
Chris you are so full of yourself.
We won’t see real change in this area until we see a change in the moral fabric of our nation. A good place to start would be teaching clarity about who is responsible for these shootings and holding the perps responsible with strong sentencing. We live in an upside down world where even feeling shame for wrongdoing is discouraged and punishment is soft.
Another good place to start, by word and deed, would be to teach greater reverence for life in general.
An aside. I learned a new word from that last article. Hoplophobes are “people with phobias about guns.”
Tina: “Moral clarity about the right to keep and bear arms being necessary to prevent tyranny; moral clarity that that right should not be infringed!”
But Tina, as Jack and I have already pointed out, and as you have conceded, the Founders did infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, to a much greater degree than we see today.
Again: the founders not only required universal gun registration and routine inspections, they banned certain groups of people from owning firearms entirely.
You know this, which can only mean that your argument is based on what the Founders said in the Constitution rather than what they actually did. That seems backwards by any moral standard. How can someone be said to have “moral clarity” if that clarity only extends to their ideas, not their real world actions? How can you say the Founders had “moral clarity that the right should not be infringed,” when they infringed on that right to a greater degree than any lefty politician has managed to today?
Perhaps it would helped if you defined your terms–you have said “moral clarity” over and over, but you have not once bothered to explain what you mean by this term. I can’t see any reasonable definition of “moral clarity” that would apply to the Founding Fathers. So tell me: what do you mean when you use this term?
“You do this a lot Chris, so much so with me that I’m beginning to think its done on purpose. Kindly refrain from misrepresenting what I say.”
I have not misrepresented a thing you have said. Your arguments are unclear and self-contradicting.
You have misrepresented my argument numerous times, including here:
“You see prefer to ignore the shooters and go straight for the throat on more gun legislation which further restricts law abiding gun enthusiasts”
and here:
“If your side wins so be it but don’t try to float the crazy notion that, magically, these shootings would then stop.”
and here:
“Assuming I suppose that those plotting murder give a rip about laws.”
Regarding the first misrepresentation, it is ridiculous to say that my proposals “ignore the shooter.” My proposals make it more difficult for the shooter to get guns. I have specifically addressed the shooter numerous times, including when I asked you why you believe that criminals should be allowed to walk into gun shows in most states and buy a gun without a background check. You have declined to answer this question.
It is also a misrepresentation to claim that I am in favor of “gun legislation which further restricts law abiding gun enthusiasts.” My proposals do not restrict law abiding gun enthusiasts. You know how I know that? Because multiple times now I have asked you, Jack, and Harold to explain to me how universal background checks violate the rights of law abiding gun owners, and aside from Jack, who admitted they do not, none of you have been able to answer this very simple question.
That tells me that you know you cannot back up your repeated assertion that I am in favor of restricting the rights of legal gun owners, so you’ve just chosen to keep repeating it, hoping to win the argument by sheer repetition.
This tactic is dishonest. If you truly believe that my proposals restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners, you need to explain exactly how they do that.
Your next misrepresentation was this:
“If your side wins so be it but don’t try to float the crazy notion that, magically, these shootings would then stop.”
I have never floated such a crazy notion, and you know it. You are intentionally making a strawman argument here. I have said that universal background checks could help prevent some mass shootings, and I provided evidence for that claim. I have also provided evidence that it would make it more difficult for felons to buy firearms. I have never once suggested that it would “magically” stop all mass shootings, and your implication that I have suggested that is willfully dishonest.
Your next misrepresentation was this:
“Assuming I suppose that those plotting murder give a rip about laws.”
As I have explained multiple times (and really, this shouldn’t have been necessary to explain in the first place) my argument does not at all rely on the premise that criminals care about laws. It simply relies on the premise that the laws I am proposing will make it more difficult for them to get guns. That’s simply a fact: gun shows are currently a huge source of illegally trafficked guns, and were used to access the guns in one of the worst school shootings in American history. Passing universal background checks would not make criminals care any more about gun laws; but that’s not the point. They would still face more difficulty in accessing guns.
Presumably, you believe that most legitimate sellers of guns care about gun laws? You understand that most of the people who sell at gun shows now would respect background check laws and not sell to convicted felons, or anyone else without a background check? I’m assuming you have more respect for gun enthusiasts then to believe the sellers are going to violate the law by selling to criminals even if background check laws pass.
“You are naive if you think these incidents aren’t being used to further restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners.”
Again, please explain how any of my proposals further restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners.
“Laws don’t prevent crime. Laws are used to prosecute crime.”
Laws with a proper enforcement mechanism can of course prevent crime; you argued only a few sentences after this that we need stronger sentencing for shooters, which you wouldn’t be in favor of unless you believed it would deter future crime. This would involve passing a law to prevent crime. (Again, I beg you to think through your arguments better. You are completely contradicting yourself.)
Universal background checks are a necessary enforcement mechanism to ensure that our current laws about felons buying firearms are more closely followed. It is currently illegal to knowingly sell to a convicted felon; it is NOT illegal, however, for a seller at a gun show to sell to a felon if they are unaware due to the lack of a background check. That’s why this is called the “gun show loophole;” it is a huge way around the law.
The right wing and the NRA claim that they only want our current gun laws enforced, right? Without universal background checks, that’s not possible.
I’ve explained this numerous times, and you just. keep. ignoring. it.
If I sound superior, it’s only because my arguments are superior to yours, on the most fundamental level. If you would like me to change my tone, you need to bring better, more well thought out arguments to the table. Every single argument you have made is so easily shot down.