You are indeed capable of critical thought. Just have have to ask the right questionsOriginally Posted by David88vert
FineYou would need the background check system to keep a history of checks performed to have evidence that someone did not perform a background check.
Your interpretation of the constitution, and your analysis of my lack of regard of it, I suppose, is a matter of opinion.Furthermore, you are suggesting a vast expansion of laws to make all firearms buyers get a carry permit, essentially creating a national registry of permit holders. That does not follow the spirit of the law in the Second Amendment. Your lack of regard for our Constitution and the Bill of Rights would be frowned upon by our founding fathers.
This is the answer I was looking for, and that I knew you understood.The only possible current background check proposal is that buyer would be responsible to bring a letter of state approval to show the seller. That is similar to the proposal by Senator Coburn.
This would not criminalize the seller for not checking it, but would not keep a felon from getting a firearm.
So, in this case, after this law would pass, and the seller sells to a felon, and the buyer buys without a check, are both of them breaking the law? If, in breaking the law, the buyer blows someone's head off with it, are they both responsible?He would simply keep trying sellers until he found one that didn't ask him for the approval letter.
We have to stop looking at it like everything would prevent Newtown. If I wanted to prevent another Newtown, I could close down every elementary school. Not much could feasibly be done to prevent a Newtown....and none of these proposals would have prevented Aurora or Newtown, even though the President used references to Newtown repeatedly in discussion about current gun legislation just yesterday. Obama: "Unimaginable" That Congress Would "Defy" Americans And Not Pass Gun Control | RealClearPolitics
How is something proactive if it does not generated the desired and planned results?
Newtown, Aurora were used, however maliciously you may or may not believe, as a prompt to discuss steps we can take as a nation to reduce access of guns only to the people that can't, or shouldn't have them already. No one can argue with that. No one is arguing with that. That's all I'm going to take that as. I'm not going to attribute the use of Newtown as malice toward legitimate gun owners, because that is not its intent at all.
If, in these steps, a similar tragedy is prevented, or slowed down, or whatever, then we've got a bonus.
Reply With Quote