The Obama Presidency

[Drewbacca]

As I said and you never addressed, drawing a line in the "freedom" stand here is completely arbitrary. Every amendment has exceptions and carve outs, the idea that the 2nd is the only one where that cannot be is just nonsense.

It depends. The amendments should have clear cut, obvious affects on a huge social problem. If you're arguing guns are a rampant problem, which is an iffy proposition to prove IMO, but whatever. Lets say you did that. And your measure is that you want to stop school shootings specifically since that's the catalyst everyone is utilizing here. You should prove without a shadow of a doubt that background checks and an assault rifle ban would have prevented these things.

That said a background check might prevent someone with a violent background and no access to a black market source from getting a gun. So that's probably OK. Not sure it would prevent crime at all, though, so that's why I wonder about it. Restricting others for a feeling (of safety, of comfort) is wrong IMO (and the basis of most poor legislation and policy making).

Then who is saying the second amendment shouldn't be up for qualification? Certainly no one here? I thought we were all for some background checks, and most of us for some restrictions on concealed carry.

Honestly, gun control and abortion are the two issues I have had the most trouble with. In both cases, I wish we had great freedom in theory but few people would exercise the rights in practice. And in both cases, I distrust those who say the answers are clear (more so when it comes to guns).

I have always split with the bulk of the Democratic party when it comes to gun control, but I don't see it as a cut-and-dry issue.

Ya I'm perfectly fine with background checks and certain concealment bans. I stop at registries though—that's treating people as future criminals just because they bought a firearm.

[Nick]

Good luck proving anything "beyond a shadow of a doubt."

It's both a public safety and a personal safety issue. Guns are definitely a threat to public safety, by their very existence, but so is cooking gas. But the better comparison is to nuclear weapons. With all the guns out there already, I see no compelling reason to tell anyone he doesn't have the right to own a gun for defense, particularly if he doesn't feel there is a close and reliable police presence.

[Space Pirate Roberts]

So car owners are being treated as future criminals right now?

[Nick]

Anyone reasonably believed to be sane and only interested in defense, that is.

[Yoshi]

So car owners are being treated as future criminals right now?

There's no Constitutional right to own a car or drive one.

[kedawa]

Aren't there already background checks?
I have an American friend that can't vote or own firearms because he went to prison for growing pot.
Is he just on the honor system?

[bbobb]

There are massive loopholes in the current background check for gun shows and Internet purchases which is what this legislation would have changed

[Josh]

If it was up to me, you could buy an AK 47, a dime bag, then go to a big gay wedding and you and your buds could smoke one, shoot one up in the air, and play grab ass.

Count me in for everything but the grab ass.

[YellerDog]

Sounds like Reno.

[Fe 26]

Laws restrict freedom. That's how laws work. But good laws restrict freedom for the greater good

this is equally silly. Most of the largest and widespread evil acts were done for the greater good. People actually thought they were helping humanity when they had the inquisition or the Holocaust.

And don't put words in my mouth. Not approving of shit like the Patriot act or the war on drugs doesn't mean I want zero laws. I'm fine with basic laws like "kill people and go to jail or be put to death" and I don't like preventive laws like "you can't have drugs on you" or "you can't kill people with these specific weapons." I also don't like privacy destroying laws like "LAWL we don't need a warrant because your neighbor said you were a terrorist"