A discussion on truth, beauty, the American way, humor, intelligence, love, stupidity and where we are today
Irrational fear mongering at its finest. How would requiring a license in his wallet tell you or anyone anything about his background or intent? How does requiring a license to carry stop someone who is intending murder or assault? If it is already illegal for a felon or adjudicated mentally ill person to touch a gun by federal law, what's the gain in requiring a license? A helpful hint--someone with a holstered gun is extremely unlikely to be a problem, whether or not there's a shirt over it or a uniform around it. Decades of experience in open carry states tells me you will rarely see anyone open carry--Other than at gun events it's been every few years for me.
First,it's my point that this is what people are saying about Kansas, period. It's not my point of view though heaven knows, as do you, I'm no fan of more guns.Requiring a license in someone's wallet is merely to show someone got some training and is aware of safety. It's some education. It's some awareness of both the responsibility and awareness of what the gun can do and what it's capable of, that's all. It's simply a good idea. This is why we need background checks for mental stability and/or criminal history.To your "helpful hint" I would merely point out the statistics, which are legion, that show the more guns there are, the less safe people are and the more shootings and yes, killings there are.
It isn't what "people" are saying about Kansas, it is what the CSGV is saying and trying to get people to say. It's what they do every time legislation like this passes, while ignoring the complete lack of problems in the many other states that already have similar laws, where they said the exact same thing.How do you know whether the guy walking down the street has a license in his wallet? The license isn't solving anything that the picture complains about.All the background check proposals go far beyond what is necessary for their stated purpose--otherwise my carry license would be sufficient to purchase without an additional background check and without additional recordkeeping. There are plenty of stats that go the other way too. When you look at the details, you'll find that the biggest difference is whether illegal ownership is counted separately from legal ownership. States with more gun restrictions don't have more crime than those with fewer restrictions, states that change laws to reduce restrictions don't have an increase in gun violence. Adding more administrative laws to be followed by people who obey laws isn't going to change the behavior of people who already violate the laws against shooting people.
It is, in fact, what people are saying about Kansas, believe it. And more than just the CSGV. That and a lot more between this and what the Governor, Republicans, Koch brothers and the Right Wingers all did and are doing to that state on this issue and taxes and their budgets, all.The fact is, having some background checks for mental stability and criminal history, both, required will at least avoid SOME problems with all these weapons out there in the world. Will it take care of all of them? No, certainly not. But if it even avoids one murder per state, over time, let alone one mass slaughter, it's lives saved. Even you should be for that.You can belittle them all you'd like--and clearly you do like--and call them "administrative laws" or bureaucracy or whatever but it's simple and it's smart. They only make sense and they're not unreasonable or complicated or encumbering.
Washington State recently passed a background check law so strict that you can't allow a friend to shoot your gun, even in your presence. That's not about safety and background checks, that's about killing off shooting as a sport. If you are worried about the wrong people getting guns, a license that included a background check should work instead of an individual background check for each purchase. If you insist on tracking each purchase you are asking for gun registration--and you should be honest about it. I've never seen any gun control groups willing to accept anything less than every transaction going through a dealer with a background check. They have specifically demanded per-transaction checks in states that require a license or Firearms ID to merely handle a gun. Constitutional rights should not be licensed. The right to vote and the right to own a gun should be treated equally, with equal licensing, equal ID requirements.Why should only one constitutional right require a license? If we can license that, why not a Press or Church license?
Only you're talking about Washington State's law. I've certainly never even mentioned, let alone suggested such a law. Seems like either clear paranoia on your part or a smoke screen.It's not "worry" on my part about the "wrong people getting guns." It's because we've seen the "wrong people", specifically, either the mentally unstable as in the Sandy Hook case or the criminals get weapons when they shouldn't have. I'm all for keeping innocent Americans from being shot and possibly killed. Even you should be for that.And I don't "insist on tracking each purchase." I've never called for that. Those are your terms. Those are your fears. I say again, this is about screening for the mentally unstable and for those with criminal histories. That's all.Yes, lots of us out here would specifically like for every transaction to go through a dealer with a background check precisely so we could have a smidgen of control over who does and does not obtain and possess a weapon. SO WE CAN SAVE SOME INNOCENT HUMAN LIVES.Let me spell it out for you. Here's why you don't have a Press or church license.Because the press and churches, unlike guns, don't directly shoot and kill. And they can't shoot and kill tens of thousands each year in America.As guns are now and have for some decades in our country.Well, churches don't usually kill. Not any more.
We used to hear about States Rights. A worthy concept in its meaning of limited federal government, but mostly used as an excuse for racism and segregation.The concept of background checks has a similar history. The Washington law is an example of that--it is simply a requirement for a background check for every transfer of a firearm, with specific exceptions for instructors with law enforcement credentials in certain training classes. Since there are specific exceptions for specific instructors, it stands to reason that other temporary transfers would still require a background check. The Headline Text reads 'background checks', people like you who are unaware of the details claim minor inconvenience and paranoia. Michael Bloomberg used his millions to push the Washington State law through--It is hardly paranoid to think he might push similar laws in other states. It is hardly a minor inconvenience if it were impractical for anyone other than law enforcement to teach hands on firearms safety. I remember an exchange here, where eventually you said you wanted a background check for every sale, even for someone who got a background check with their license. I could be misremembering, but I don't think so. Not as bad as the Washington law, but still unnecessary, still adding expense to a constitutional right. And effectively universal registration, not merely screening for criminals and the mentally unstable.Not requiring warrants could make it easier for the police to arrest bad guys, saving innocent lives. The inconvenience to most people would be minor. Getting the wrong people elected causes more deaths than guns. Requiring a background check to vote, just to make sure you aren't a felon is a small price to pay...No. You can come up with an excuse to violate most of the articles and amendments of the constitution, that doesn't make it right or legal. And it isn't the legal gun owners murdering tens of thousands, it is criminals, mostly already prohibited from touching a gun. Making it harder and more expensive for someone with a carry license to get a gun does nothing to solve that problem.
"Used to hear about states rights"?Where do you live? Any given week there's some Right Winger, some Republican always screaming about states' rights, dependably. From gun rights to the EPA to who knows what. I see and/or hear it repeatedly, if not constantly.Requiring, simply, yes, a background check for mental stability and criminal history is simple enough--uncomplicated--and could easily and intelligently help us do just that. That is, keep weapons away from those who shouldn't have them due to these reasons. It only makes sense. Well, to most of us out here in the US and across the world. And by the way, the rest of the world loses far less of its citizens than we in the US do but then, they wisely have far fewer weapons.I have consistently said, here and elsewhere, that these background checks for all weapons purchases in the US only makes sense. Unless you're in the NRA."Not requiring warrants could make it easier for the police to arrest bad guys..."Are you kidding or crazy? You're all about individual's rights but you'd give up your privacy and security of not being searched or seized to police just in the wild hope that they might, might arrest one correct person once in a while?You'll do anything for guns, won't you? It seems to be becoming clear.And this? "Getting the wrong people elected causes more deaths than guns."You seem, honestly, to be becoming unhinged for and about weapons. It's "all for guns" all the time with you it seems now.I saw again, tens of thousands of innocent Americans are killed, year after year. We Americans would still have our weapons. Rest assured. There would and should just be checks to make sure fewer of the mentally unstable and those with criminal histories get weapons. How you could not be for that is beyond me and anyone's guess.These would not make it that much more complicated OR expensive and in the meantime, some lives could, quite likely, if no doubt whatever, be saved.
Sigh. As far as I know, there was a time when states rights was almost entirely used as code for "the right to pass racist local laws", despite having other, non-racist meanings. I don't expect you to approve of those other meanings, but they exist. "Background checks" are used similarly. I wouldn't have a whole lot of complaint with verifying a purchaser wasn't prohibited, if it were done with minimal hassle. If all you are asking for is a verification of legality, a license should be sufficient--I show my license, maybe the seller has a way to verify the license is valid. You've said in the past that isn't good enough--so apparently what you want, like most gun control groups is registration, but you want to call it background checks, and you want it to cost us money and effort. I need to remember that you don't understand hyperbole. No, I don't actually support giving up 4th amendment rights using the excuse of catching more criminals--coming up with an excuse is NOT sufficient grounds for the government to violate the constitution. Doesn't matter the amendment, even the second, excuses aren't enough to justify violation.You cannot charge citizens money to exercise a constitutional right, even if that money is not collected by the government, whether the right is voting, speech, church or guns. You cannot require citizens to give up one right to exercise another. You can't pick and choose which rights are modern enough to keep. If your side wants merely to verify that buyers are not prohibited, they can get that fairly easily if you give up the record keeping and registration parts and give us something in return. For example, when I'm travelling let me keep the rights I have in my home state, or at least let me have the same rights as a similar local resident. Real compromise might work.
States rights, today, don't have to necessarily mean what they used to mean. No way. So I dismiss, now, that they used to mean the rights to pass racist local laws.You say there that "apparently what you want, like most gun control groups is registration, but you want to call it background checks, and you want it to cost us money and effort."You aren't remotely reading what I wrote and you give me no credit whatever. You're reading wrong, possibly, even likely, paranoid but certainly untrue things into what I even wrote, let alone what I've even said, on my last post or ever. Don't throw me in with the masses who you don't care for and who want what you are trying to avoid and I'll, again, give you that same respect.I don't give a fig for registration. My stance has never once, now or ever, been about tracking gun owners. I say again, I repeat, my issue is merely trying to keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable and those with criminal histories. Period. It's all I've ever claimed.I will thank you to not read any more into what I write or mean, just as I do the same for you or anyone else, here or elsewhere, on this or any other issue.Then you have to get and be small. You have to try to insult me. You write: "I need to remember that you don't understand hyperbole."No. Actually that isn't the case at all. In any way. I take your writing at face value and don't read other things into it, just as I would expect that of you, here, or of anyone else who reads what I write. If you'll not project and assume and assume the worst and merely take me and my words at their flat, face value, you will both understand and, again, not go off on some tangent and assumption(s). You will do yourself, even, as well as myself, a great service.Occasionally, as with an auto license or lots of other small issues, citizens must, in fact, be charged a small fee, in order to get a service. In this case, yes, it happens to be purchasing a weapon.You're an absolutist on the 2nd Amendment and when the issue comes to guns.It's clearly why you're so rigid.The society gains, as a whole, as a group, in having background checks for mental stability and criminal history, even if, as I've said repeatedly, we merely reduce the numbers of innocents that end up shot and killed. And yes,it so happens that has a material, dollar cost to it. So be it. It's a small price to pay, literally and figuratively, for a safer, more intelligent and more intelligently run, functional society.I won't talk about "your side", don't talk about what you think mine is. You have your points, your issues, etc. I won't attribute anyone else's positions to you.Again, give me the same respect.
You often say "That isn't what I meant"...but without pressure you won't say what you did mean. I recalled that in the past you had said that a license alone was not enough, there had to be a separate background check for each purchase. When I mentioned that a few replies ago you did not correct me, so that's what I went with. Until you are willing to say what you ARE asking there's not much else I can do. We do not have an enumerated constitutional right to drive a car, so the fees for that are different. You can also tax constitutionally protected items the same as others without raising constitutional issues--you can have a general sales tax on newspapers, but not a specific newsprint tax. You have objected to showing ID to vote. Unless it is possible and practical to get an acceptable ID for free, I also object, even though I support showing ID here. The same with gun ownership--the government can't tax or artificially raise the cost of owning a gun. You want some sort of background check, but so far I've been unable to pin you down on details. What would be the minimum acceptable background check system? What is the logic where my carry license is not sufficient to bypass a per-purchase background check?
I don't know what hidden meaning you're looking for, other than to pigeon hole me as some stereotype that's against guns and for gun registration and "gun control" and against whatever you believe in but believe me, I mean precisely what I say, each and every time I answer here, you or anyone else. There's no secret, additional, hidden agenda or meaning or answer. I have no idea why you want or like to complicate things but you seem clearly bent on it, for whatever reason or purpose.Now you're making things up out of whole cloth. I have never, never, here or anywhere else said that "a license for weapons is not enough." I have always, repeat, always said, as I have said in these responses here recently, that background checks for mental stability and criminal history were simple, intelligent and necessary. Now, go complicate that as I'm sure you will in your next response.IDs to vote are shown, proven, statistically and historically, to be utterly unnecessary, an undue and unnecessary cost for, to and on voters and that the only purpose they serve for the "small government" Republicans and Right Wingers, is to disenfranchise voters in America, time and again. How much more un-American can one or one group get?Background checks for weapons, however, to repeat, serve the simple, intelligent, useful, helpful and even important role of keeping weapons from those who should not be entrusted with them, however imperfect a system that is, admittedly. Again, if it even only reduces the numbers of innocent Americans shot and/or killed--and that's proven, with data and scientific data to work--it will have easily and wisely served its purpose.Again, you want to complicate the answers.There would simply be a background check, at time of all weapons purchases, for mental stability and criminal history. That's it. The purpose, beyond a license---let me spell it out for you slowly and clearly one more time--is to keep weapons out of the hands of those not mentally capable enough to have them and to reduce the numbers of those with clear criminal histories from being able to easily obtain them.That's it.
Getting a straight answer out of you is more trouble than it is worth. I'm pretty sure you want an individual background check even if someone has a license. I have no idea why you won't answer that clearly, or you say things like Now you're making things up out of whole cloth. I have never, never, here or anywhere else said that "a license for weapons is not enough." Or There would simply be a background check, at time of all weapons purchases, for mental stability and criminal history. That's it. One of those statements would indicate that you'd be OK with a license instead of individual background checks, one says you would not.
As Ronald Reagan said, "There you go again."You never--not once--asked that question before, whether someone should have to do the background checks if they already had a license. Now that you have, in fact, asked, I'll answer.Since this would be a new policy, yes, someone who already has a license, who hadn't, up to this new date, had a background check for mental stability and their criminal history would, in fact, be required to take this check. One background check. The reasoning, after all, is, as I've said multiple times, to merely keep weapons out of the hands of those too mentally unstable to have one or who already have a criminal history. Again, it's simple.The background checks would go with the license, in the future.You don't communicate well, don't ask questions well, don't make yourself clear, don't write well, remotely and then you blame it on the person who is trying to discuss things with you.
You don't communicate well, don't ask questions well, don't make yourself clear, don't write well, remotely and then you blame it on the person who is trying to discuss things with you.I only have that problem here. Other people don't play silly word games 'you didn't actually ask' and similar BS. I'm pretty sure you're vaguely aware that many of your positions lack logic--that is the most charitable explanation I can think of for ignoring most direct questions, but insisting on direct questions before you'll clarify--that way more time is spent on the mechanics than the actual issues. Maybe I'll try again next year. I'll answer any direct questions, but other than that it's time for my annual vacation from posting here.
Yes. You don't agree with my positions so I "lack logic."I got that from you long ago. You only just now put it in words.I don't ignore direct questions. Far from it. Quite the opposite. You dance around, stating things and assume they're questions. Then you take yet another leap and expect me to understand a) your "logic" and b) that it is a question.And again, then you blame me.
Post a Comment