In my scenario about a felon buying from wallmart there were no background checks so the wallmart employee would not even know the guy was a felon.
To recap: Scenario #1 was buying a gun with NO gun control at all (no background checks or anything)
Scenario #2 was like the law is right now.
Scenario #3 was like it would be if there was no longer private sellers.
So when you say "I'm pretty sure criminals aren't really worried about the black market sellers turning them in for attempting to buy a gun, like they would be at walmart", that would not apply currently because no felon would try to buy a gun from wallmart currently due to the gun control that is already in place... which is another example of a form of gun control at work.
I agree that it would suck that law abiding citizens wouldn't be able to buy from private sellers anymore.... but sometimes there has to be some sacrifice in order for change to work. Plus law abiding citizens would still be able to purchase guns from gun stores and wallmarts and all the other public places that sell guns.
I think i have discussed this topic about all that i care for so im gonna be done with it finally and stop annoying people (as im sure that i am).
Thanks for chatting with me about it bronco, gameface, salty and others. I appreciate the info and opinions.
Just 1 last thing: Why do we assume that criminals can get guns so easily through the "black market"? Do you just go stand on a corner in downtown salt lake and wait until you see someone with tats and leather (like on sons of anarchy) and then ask them for a gun. And they just take to some warehouse were the deal goes down?
How exactly do you go shopping at this "black market"? Would it be easier to find this black market in a big city like chicago, L.A., or new york?
What if you were a convict living in a small town in the middle of nowhere with a population of 5000 people? Would there be a black market in a town like that or would you have to drive a long distance to a large metropolis?
Im out of this thread! phew
Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together
The idea that a person needs to pass more hurdles to own and operate a vehicle than own trigger operated lethal force is a completely insane one.
Playing well is priority #1 and nothing outside of that is really even close. If you're hoping someone else ****s up, then you don't deserve the break.
when there are 'accidents' or intentional automobile homicides, we do not have a tremendous chorus of societal change-agents or a virtually singular-voiced mass media calling for laws that effectively prevent ordinary people from owning automobiles, or regulating their purchase.
Although some liberal folks do howl about SUV's being too extravagant and wasteful of precious communal petroleum reserves. . . . . and yet some of the most vocal liberal advocates of "conservation" nevertheless use private jets to haul themselves and huge retinues of sycophants around to international or UN meetings, or around the country, to spread the moral superiority of their green consciences. . . . lol . . . . .
President Barack Obama's kids are attending schools which employ numerous armed guards, as do the children of many gun ban advocates, and yet they howl about how the rest of us don't deserve to similarly protect our own kids at schools.
It's the obvious intent to create a governing class of elites who have control of lethal force to use on lesser humans that is the telling point in this debate, and calling the lesser humans "insane" is practically calling for a political genocide sort of insanity in governance.
listening to the mass media howling for this power in the hands state management, and not believing the criminal intent to hijack our political process on the part of the elite state managers, is at this point true dishonesty. And the existence of that intent cannot be dismissed as mere insanity, or mocked as "conspiracy theory". It's so open and brazen it's beyond stupid rhetoric like that. The reason the right to keep and bear arms was made a personal right by the Constitution is just exactly because the colonial British government tried to disarm the people in America to enable their soldierly redcoat occupation force unopposed privilege over the Americans.
Disarmament of the disenfranchised, especially of a minority population segment, has always presaged genocide at the hands of governments gone wrong.
As I've said before, the problem of shooters taking control of a public place and gunning down whoever is there in our society today is the result not of political activism or class warfare, but is almost without exception perpetrated by kids or young adults in psychiatric care who have been treated with SRI or SSRI medications which are known to impair individual moral reasoning in some individuals, and is frequently associated with kids who also are fixated on video games which positively reinforce the shooters dissociation from normal life-valuing thinking.
We would actually reduce the problem by regulating professional psychiatric protocols for treating people with obvious tendencies in this direction, and maybe going back to more of a lock-up philosophy for the mentally disturbed.
Despite our great societal expenditure for treating psychiatric patients, we have many months, even years of delays in getting professional attention for them. . . . and under Obamacare, these delays will be increased, not decreased.
putting responsible and trusted armed personnel on site to protect kids is actually the rational and cost-effective deterrent we need. Our kids need protection just like Obama's kids do.
Last edited by babe; 12-25-2012 at 06:07 PM.
What's really odd is that the folks who speak out the most about the divinity and sanctity of the Constitution are always the first ones who wish to change it.
It's almost as if... For issues they want changed, the Constitution can and should be changed. They're merely guidelines to restrict the fed gov. And for issues they don't want changed, the Constitution suddenly becomes this divine, sanctified, and tablet law created by the finger of god on Mount Sinai.
Perhaps, *gasp* the right to bear arms was necessary 200+ years ago but not really shouldn't be considered a "right" and probably should be STRONGLY regulated in 21st century America? Just a thought.
I'm absolutely for gun rights but most advocates are going about it in completely the wrong way. The argument needs to have a modern context.
"I'm a moron for thinking the Browns could even sniff 10 wins in a division where the other three teams (two of whom almost always make the playoffs) made the post-season last year. Gyp Rosetti's thee God of football knowledge." - Brown Notes