Conservatism, lets define it.

[Rich10]

I never voted for Clinton, why would I defend him?

You said, "I have no problem with gun control that was under Clinton, whats wrong with background checks?", and, "Whats wrong with background checks?".


No one is asking for you to defend Clinton. 

This is what is going on-

[Quote from: Wolfie on Today at 08:18:32 AM]
People are questioning my commitment to the Second Amendment.
quote]

[Wolfie]

You can carry as much ammo as you want, its none of my business.

All I said if you cannot take care of business with 7 rounds you have a problem. If you are missing and need a 100 rounds to make 2 hits you should not be carrying.

[Wolfie]

I stand by background checks for gun purchases.

[Rich10]

I stand by background checks for gun purchases.

Ok- obviously something for us to disagree on.

And everything else in Clinton's gun control?

[sqlbullet]

The Officer was working in performance of his duties and should carry as many rounds as he needs.

I am talking civilians.

Possible responses to this

1.  In a truly free society the guardians do not have privileges the citizens do not.

2.  A civilian likely has less training and therefore may require more rounds.

3.  A civilian is more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than a police officer.

I am certain I could come up with more.

I stand by background checks for gun purchases.

And I stand against the state denying anyone access to a tool that can preserve life.

[P33v3]

[/quote]

And I stand against the state denying anyone access to a tool that can preserve life.
[/quote]

The founding fathers couldn't have said it better

[Charlie_Zulu]

Off duty one gun one mag and when I saw something I made a call and took notes.

Right.... great strategy. 

7 rounds huh?  That SAFE Act Kool-Aid tasty?

Cops in Texas are the best in the world.

I don't know if I would go quite that far but thanks for the acknowledgement.

[Wolfie]

Yep, the 2 NYPD cops earlier this year. Were killed by a gun that was acquired from a state that did not require background checks.

Just collateral damage, nothing more.


CZ I cannot stand the GOP/Democrat SAFE Act, I hope the USSC overturns it.

[sqlbullet]

Yep, the 2 NYPD cops earlier this year. Were killed by a gun that was acquired from a state that did not require background checks.

This assertion presumes that Mr. Brinsley would have had no recourse or method to access a handgun had a background check been required.  That is patently false.  There are multiple alternate avenues to acquire a handgun,  not the least of which (although among the harder) would have been to take a class at the community college in metal mill operation and make his own.  We cannot assume Mr. Brinsley would have been deterred.

[Wolfie]

I prefer facts to assumptions.

[Rich10]

Yep, the 2 NYPD cops earlier this year. Were killed by a gun that was acquired from a state that did not require background checks.

Just collateral damage, nothing more.

Collateral damage??  I'm not sure??  However, in a free society there is risk.  In life itself there is presumed risk and danger.  Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither.

I prefer facts to assumptions.

Yes, and the fact is there are multiple ways to get a gun.

[The_Shadow]

It seem the easiest way to get a gun is to just steal it!  But then there are those who steal food just to survive these days! 

[sqlbullet]

I prefer facts to assumptions.

Noted.  I have corrected my post's vocabulary to note your presumption, where I had previously called it an assumption.

In either event, your statement:

Yep, the 2 NYPD cops earlier this year. Were killed by a gun that was acquired from a state that did not require background checks.

Still implies a presumption on your part that a background check would have averted the killings.  Your above retort doesn't change the fact that the facts surrounding the acquisition of the gun are not a causation of the killing.

The fact is the sun rose in the east on Dec 20 2014, and there was nitrogen in the air the killer breathed that day.  The fact is we allow free interstate travel, and if we had personal searches every time you crossed a state boundary it may have been a deterrent to this crime.

You made the above citation in support of your argument for background checks because YOU are asserting a presumption that stronger background checks would have stopped this crime.  And that by extension they will have a reductive effect on overall crime rates.

However, given that far more draconian measures have been shown to fail, and that the data correlating the current background checks system with crime reduction are nebulous at best, this is a reach. 

In other words, we are paying, lots, for a system that has no clear effect on violent crime rates.  If I have overlooked a statistically normalized, peer reviewed study that shows something different, please let me know.

[Wolfie]

Nothing wrong with background checks, you guys disagree and thats your opinion.

[Geeman]

Nothing wrong with background checks,

Infringe legal descriptions include:

advance stealthily
meddle
interfere
take liberties
frustrate

Shall NOT be infringed!!!

you guys disagree and thats your opinion

Take a good look at all the contracts that are signed when purchasing a firearm, including the background check.  I say its government exceeding their bounds.  My opinion is that its just another infringement, soon to be followed by another, then another....

Greg