Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 68

Thread: Question.

  
  1. #21





    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    17,461
    Blog Entries
    2
    Transferred Feedback
    Beckett (66)
    Country

    That is semantics. Those who have been diagnosed can be entered. Saying that it won't work because not everyone can be diagnosed is a copout. Not everybody who beats their wife or commits murder will be convicted, does that negate the value of a background check that blocks violent offenders from buying guns? Of course not.

    It's not semantics. It's admitting this is a multi pronged problem and one can't look solely at background checks or even gun control to fix the problem.
    Or do you think health care and mental health in the US is satisfactory?

  2. #22







    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    54
    Posts
    19,098
    SCF Rewards
    1,943
    Blog Entries
    6
    Country

    It's not semantics. It's admitting this is a multi pronged problem and one can't look solely at background checks or even gun control to fix the problem.
    Or do you think health care and mental health in the US is satisfactory?

    No, I don't think that any one thing is a fix to the problem. Stiffer gun laws only affect those who abide by the law. Stiffer background checks only work if the reporting system is infallible. There are flaws in every facet of the problem which is why I argue that more gun laws and stricter gun laws do not fix the problem.

    My honest opinion is that the best way to target gun related deaths in America is a hardcore assault on the illegal gun trade. Extremely stiff penalties for trafficking, owning or selling an illegal gun would be a nice start. A HUGE chunk of the gun deaths in our country are perpetrated by gangs which use illegal guns. Stifling the illegal gun trade would hurt their cause immensely.

    And no, the health care system in our country is far from perfect, but if those diagnosed with mental disorders were entered into a database then the VA Tech shooting and Aurora theater shooting would not have happened (at least not with legally purchased guns). That is a step in the right direction IMO.

  3. #23




    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    48
    Posts
    10,729
    SCF Rewards
    425
    Country
    See Star_Cards's Items on eBay

    "How exactly would it be done?" is a question, not an argument.

    I assume this is to my post. I think it's a question and would be a hypothetical argument based off of those answers, but I'd rather discuss the topic than definitions.

  4. #24




    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Age
    48
    Posts
    10,729
    SCF Rewards
    425
    Country
    See Star_Cards's Items on eBay

    Yes



    I don't know that taking away the right to own a gun for everyone who has even been arrested would make sense. Many people are arrested but not convicted because they did no wrong or it was a case of mistaken identity. Many other people are arrested and convicted of minor crimes that have nothing to do with gun ownership rights (arrested at protest or rallies for disorderly conduct or failing to disperse). There are certainly cases where the police arrest someone because of a certain emotional response when they shouldn't be arrested (wreck your car and hit a police car and I guarantee you that you will be arrested).

    I will go further to say that I don't think that every felon should not have the right to own a gun. Embezzlement is a felony. Insider trading is a felony. Shop lifting over a certain dollar amount is a felony. Receiving stolen property is a felony. Vandalizing a mailbox is a felony. I don't see where any of these warrant prevention of gun ownership.

    I would not agree that people should have to take a test to prove mental stability, but if someone has been diagnosed as schizophrenic, diagnosed with a mood disorder such as clinical depression or bi-polar, diagnosed with certain personality disorders such as a paranoia disorder or Adjustment Disorder which can cause sudden violent reactions, then they should be entered into the database as someone who should not be able to purchase a gun. If their disorder means that their ownership of a gun would make them a danger to themselves or others, then their right to privacy is usurped by the right of the community to be safe.

    I don't think anyone would do that or even bring up to do that, but just used that as an example. I'm in no way advocating that either. It was just a hypothetical example of questioning where lines for background checks could be moved.

    I actually agree with you that not every felon needs to be kept from owning guns. I can see an argument for violent felons, but like you say, insider trading or embezzling are felons. I don't think that people who pay for those crimes are any more dangerous to own a gun than others for the most part. To my knowledge felons aren't allowed to have guns currently. Is that too strict to just make a blanket call like that? Seems to be at first glance.

    I would not agree that people should have to take tests to prove mental stability. Wasn't point on the post. Just bringing it up for discussion.

  5. #25




    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    35
    Posts
    4,590
    SCF Rewards
    753
    Country
    Denver Broncos Montreal Canadiens Milwaukee Brewers
    See dmdean81's Items on eBay

    If we have to have background checks for guns can we have photo id's for voting?

  6. #26




    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    15,119
    SCF Rewards
    160
    Country
    See bbra9027's Items on eBay

    If we have to have background checks for guns can we have photo id's for voting?


    Violation of the 24th amendment
    Drug and smoke free trading.

    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content

  7. #27







    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    54
    Posts
    19,098
    SCF Rewards
    1,943
    Blog Entries
    6
    Country

    If we have to have background checks for guns can we have photo id's for voting?

    Oh no! We can't have that. The current regime only wants to restrict the rights of conservatives. Requiring photo ID might prevent someone from voting for a liberal so they fight that tooth and nail.

    Violation of the 24th amendment

    I read it over and over. Still can't find where it says anything about photo ID in the 24th amendment...

  8. #28




    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    15,119
    SCF Rewards
    160
    Country
    See bbra9027's Items on eBay

    Oh no! We can't have that. The current regime only wants to restrict the rights of conservatives. Requiring photo ID might prevent someone from voting for a liberal so they fight that tooth and nail.



    I read it over and over. Still can't find where it says anything about photo ID in the 24th amendment...

    Last time I checked state IDs and driver's liscence cost money which the state collects. Making someone purchase an item from the state in order to vote is akin to a poll tax which is a violation of the 24th amendment.

  9. #29







    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    54
    Posts
    19,098
    SCF Rewards
    1,943
    Blog Entries
    6
    Country

    Last time I checked state IDs and driver's liscence cost money which the state collects. Making someone purchase an item from the state in order to vote is akin to a poll tax which is a violation of the 24th amendment.

    Oh I see. A turtle has legs, legs are used for walking, birds walk, therefore birds are turtles.

    A poll tax is a fee charged at the polling location to cast a vote. An ID is used for many things like cashing a check, renting an apartment, proving who you are when the police ask for proof of ID, etc. Unless these people are sitting around in a vegetative state for 2 years between elections, they already have an ID. That is a copout. The only reason liberals fight voter ID is because their platform is so weak they can't win unless they get criminals and illegal aliens to vote for them and protect the criminal act of people voting multiple times.

  10. #30




    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    15,119
    SCF Rewards
    160
    Country
    See bbra9027's Items on eBay

    Oh I see. A turtle has legs, legs are used for walking, birds walk, therefore birds are turtles.

    A poll tax is a fee charged at the polling location to cast a vote. An ID is used for many things like cashing a check, renting an apartment, proving who you are when the police ask for proof of ID, etc. Unless these people are sitting around in a vegetative state for 2 years between elections, they already have an ID. That is a copout. The only reason liberals fight voter ID is because their platform is so weak they can't win unless they get criminals and illegal aliens to vote for them and protect the criminal act of people voting multiple times.


    Why was the purpose of asking for a photo ID anyway? Where was all the rampant voter fraud that you conservatives speak of. I know of cases of voter itimidation that the republicans pretended didn't exist but where's the voter fraud that would have been solved by forcing everyone to present an ID?

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
SCF Sponsors


About SCF

    Sports Card Forum provides sports and non-sports card collectors a safe place to discuss, buy, sell and trade.

    SCF maintains tools that will allow collectors to manage their collections online, information about what is happening with the hobby, as well as providing robust data to send out for Autographs through the mail.

Follow SCF on