You are correct. There is opposition to Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action means special treatment for one person because of the color of their skin, sex, religion etc. It does not mean equal rights. Even Martin Luther King, Jr. wanted the black man to make it in an America where ALL MEN are create Equal. That they make it by their knowledge and not by hand outs.
So, Craven, I take that back. Maybe I wasn't being facetious!
Great post scrat.
Centroles wrote:Liberals tried to pass a bill recently that said that guns cannot be sold at gun shows to people that don't even bother to present an ID. It was shut down by conservatives.
Why?
You sound like a reasonable person. What justification do you have for not atleast bothering to find out who the person is before being able to sell the gun to them. What if he is a criminal, wanted for a double homicide? Wouldn't you feel safer knowing that after he kills someone with the gun he bought at the gun show, the government would atleast be able to trace the gun back to him and stop him from doing it again?
Off topic, I am the proud owner of SUV (mazda tribute). It actually gets decent mileage though, I couldnt afford it otherwise. I've never been harrassed for it and I've never heard of anyone else being harassed for owning an SUV.
I'm still waiting for a response to this.
Most likely because some states don't want any laws abridging peoples rights while other states do.
How is having to present an ID before being able to buy a gun, abridging people's rights?
This the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
I can never understand how anyone, no matter how conservative, can argue that there shouldn't be any record (held by gun companies or the shops or someone somewhere), that lets you trace a weapon used in a murder back to it's owner.
If you honestly forsee a scenario where harm would be done by you having to present your ID before buying a gun, I would love to hear it.
I don't know. Personally, I see no problem with having some paperwork with each gun purchase, but some do and their rights need to be respected as much as anyone elses. they have elected officials to government that feel the same way as they do and it seems they are getting good representation.
You somehow see no problem in the government being able to detain people indefinately without a warrant, presenting any evidence, holding a trial, or at the very least telling the person being detained for years on end why they've been locked up (as the patriot acts allow us to do).
Yet you think that somehow, having to present an ID before buying a gun is a violation of freedom.
Would you feel differently I wonder if the man happened to be a known and wanted islamic fundamentalist terrorist who illegally snuck into the US?
Can't wait to hear the answer to that one!
Neither can I.
But I get the feeling that all the extreme conservatives here, especially McGentrix, are going to somehow conveniently ignore or sidestep my post.
Has anyone else noticed that a lot of threads lately are turning into debates over gun ownership? What's up with that?
Also, to my dismay and consternation, I find myself agreeing with Scrat here. Obviously, it's time to check my meds.
Centroles wrote:You somehow see no problem in the government being able to detain people indefinately without a warrant, presenting any evidence, holding a trial, or at the very least telling the person being detained for years on end why they've been locked up (as the patriot acts allow us to do).
Being detained with 15 teens at the border trying to get back into our own country was more than long enough for me buckoo! You bet your sweet bippie I have problems when there is not reasonable cause.
Jow: hie theeself to a local tonsilliary parlouor and begin immediate application of scotch. I'm a paramedic, and this is a medical order!
I don't have a problem filling out paper work and giving my thumb prints when I purchase my firearms. I think it is a good thing. Back ground checks are okay with me. I have a problem with a national database (or didn't I already state that.)
I think all gun sales should have to go through the same process. Gun stores already keep records of who they sell guns to. Gun manufacturers keep records of who they ship guns to and what guns they ship them.
In this scenario. Cop finds a gun on the street. It is a Beretta 92 FS serial number 12345682BR. He calls up Beretta and asks where they shipped the gun. Beretta tells him the name of the Gun Store. He calls that gun store and they tell him it was sold to John Q Public and that his drivers license number is 1413214057. He looks up in his computer the address for John and pays him a visit. John had his gun stolen and he filed a report.
How is this any different from a national database that everytime I purchase a gun not only does the store have to key it in to their records keeping system but they have to key it in to a national system. Tell me what the major difference between the sytem in place now (I agree that we need to check EVERYONE that legally purchases a gun be it at a gun show, from a friend or from a store) and a national database.
There are logistical advantages to having a concolidated system that I think outweight the disadvantages.
What do you see as the disadvantages?
hobitbob wrote:Jow: hie theeself to a local tonsilliary parlouor and begin immediate application of scotch. I'm a paramedic, and this is a medical order!
Well, if it's medically necessary, I suppose . . .
Basically it is a huge waste of time. This is again stepping on my personal freedom. I have a right to privacy and placing my name on a list of gun owners that any authority can pull up when ever he has the desire is against my right to privacy. As long as I am doing nothing wrong, why should he have that right?
That's an argument against accesibility of the database and not the consolidation thereof.
saints, unfortunately if you're a conservative that supports background checks and presenting an ID, you're in the minority.
The problem is, right now, not everyone does keep a record of their gun sales. You don't have to even present an ID at gun shows for godsake.
If we lived in a perfect world, where all gun manufacturers and gun stores kept records of who they sold it to, then there wouldn't be a need for a national database. But we don't live in a perfect world.
And you said it yourself, if the scenario plays out like you described (and it rarely does) how is that differnet from a national database. You have to call more people, it takes a lot longer, but it's the same thing.
Frankly if the local police station is trying to track down a killer or a terrorist, i would want them to be able to do it as fast as possible. I wouldn't want to risk that the shop might be closed for the week, the records burned down in a fire, the guy never bothered to keep a record and a host of other scenarios that would make it impossible or very very slow in linking a gun used in a murder or an act of terrorism to it's owner.
If you're worried the national database might be abused, sure restrict access to it. Make it a rule so that you can only use it to track down a gun found in the scene of a crime or something. Make it accessible only to check the records of a guy you already have enough evidence to have put in custody as a suspect for a crime. But atleast let there be one, if at the very least as an emergency back up.
Quote:I have a right to privacy and placing my name on a list of gun owners that any authority can pull up when ever he has the desire is against my right to privacy. As long as I am doing nothing wrong, why should he have that right?
It's not infringing rights if they ask for paperwork and thumbprints. You have a right of privacy to a point. If it is the same as the gun tracing methods (but quicker for the law enforcement) why is it a big deal.
