1wiseguy said that the published information came from a government list. He didn't say if it was state, federal, or local. You assumed he meant BATFE and posted links to prove that it couldn't be the BATFE, except the list came from government sources inside the state of New York. Do you really trust the federal government with the same information that New Yorkers give up for every American? That's why I'm against universal background checks. It would allow the federal government to make a national list of who has what guns. I'm all for background checks that do not track guns, only that a transaction took place. People with a valid CHL or FOID card would be exempt from background checks because the card is proof that a background check has already been done for that individual.
Of course, that is absolute nonsense. When 90% of the American people want something in the way of legislation, they get it. ( When a smaller majority OPPOSE something they can get screwed, as in Obamacare.) And there is this little thing called the US Constitution., " . . . With elections squarely in mind, I bring your attention to the results of a new Rasmussen Reports national survey that finds only 40 percent of “likely U.S. voters” believe that the United States needs stricter gun control laws. This poll records a nine-point drop from last May. As the Rasmussen press release notes, “Fifty-three percent do not think the country needs tougher gun control laws, the highest level of opposition in over two years.” http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/01/polls-show-most-americans-see-through-the-gun-control-spin/
MOD EDIT - Off topic I agree with you about background checks on the individual and no lists or tracking. Any mode of tracking can be defeated and any list will be abused.
In other words, the conservative mantra of giving more power to "reliable" local/state governments and the untrustworthiness of "tyrannical" federal government was disproven by the red herring he chose to introduce into the conversation... Got it. Are you saying that the federal government maintains a national list of all individuals who currently undertake background checks when purchasing through licensed dealers? Agreed.
So your story is a little bit newer then the polls I was citing. The polls I was citing was from 2013. Your story is from 2014.
No. I'm saying that I don't trust them to not keep a list. It's not the same thing. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Government of, by, and for the people means that the government has to trust the people and not the other way around.
So, to drag this back onto topic: It sounds like you're saying individuals who are elected by us, for the purpose of representing us, and who won't be reelected unless we approve of the job their doing, are not to be trusted - but an organization that has a vested interest in ensuring particular corporations are profitable should be beyond reproach... Allow me to fix that for you... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Why is it so many people only quote the last part of that? Not quite. It actually means that the people are the government.
Your 90% cite is bogus. Never happened. Of course, you are welcome to produce a link to your alleged polling data. What happened in a year to so radically transform the electorate/pol less views? You should realize how absurd your poll cite was. You may have been reading fast and saw a poll reflecting 90% of college faculty or self-described librul whack jobs. MSNBC viewers? Or perhaps 90% favored enforcement of existing laws pertaining to illegal weapons and illegal immigrant, gang-bangers' gun arsenals. Could that be it ? History says placing your faith in large government to protect you is a dangerous and foolish thing.
Just another false premise straw man attempt, no doubt. What organization are you talking about, the OWEblamer administration? because it isn't true about the NRA...unless you have proof beyond reproach showing this mythical vested interest you keep babbling about. And those people are restricted to the powers specifically enumerated in the constitution and one such power restriction is that they shall not infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, so what's your point?
I really don't feel like quoting myself again, but alright. " Given the chance to vote "for" or "against" each of nine key proposals included in President Barack Obama's plan to reduce gun violence, Americans back all nine. Americans are most likely to be in favor of requiring background checks for all gun sales (91%), " http://www.gallup.com/poll/160085/americans-back-obama-proposals-address-gun-violence.aspx
I feel sorry for those that do not recognize their rights as inalienable. That they have the identical Rights as every other US citizen............just because YOU don't want them, doesn't mean others agree with you. That's what's nice about your Individual Liberties, they are yours to practice or not. getting any sleep lately?
So your claim is that every citizen is aware of the wording of the 2A... Great, we can pretend that's true. But this doesn't answer the question of why people choose to quote only the second half of it as some weird mantra. As for "every citizen" being the "well regulated militia" envisioned by the founding fathers, please explain how you believe this to be true - particularly as the same founding fathers who wrote the 2A clearly defined the structure of a "well regulated militia" in sections 4-10 of the Militia Act in 1792. http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
You realize that your childish flame-baiting just makes your position look weak, right? Back on topic: A significant proportion of the NRA's funding comes directly from gun manufacturers and sellers. That's already been demonstrated in this thread. Those sources make money every time a firearm is sold, whether it's a straw purchase or not, so they (and the NRA, as their marketing dept) have a vested interest in ensuring that all sales continue (even the straw purchases). Of course, they're also happy to use the "armed criminal" they've helped create as a marketing tool by scaring people into believing they need a firearm to defend themselves against impending threats from this boogeyman. Are you even aware that you're only demonstrating knowledge of half of one Amendment? My point was clearly that the government is not some seperate entity that citizens are tasked with struggling against as it lords over us. What are you arguing with if you don't even understand the point I was making?
Care to take me on with the good spirit of debate in context of 2A and America? 1wiseguy, I have no doubt you can put this mental midget to bed but I just watched some 1970"s marathon about Wrestling along with Roller Derby and understand the tag in theory and given that I slept in Holiday Inn.....well I am feeling good about myself. I will await the tag.....one must follow protocol and sweat. Others across the pond call it perspiration and banking on others.
You're saying that the Anarchist somehow believes in taking freedoms away because the Anarchist wants the government to take them away. There's a difference between rhetoric and intelligence. People can believe in rhetoric, but doesn't mean they have intelligence.
Wait... did someone who is sitting in a Holiday Inn watching 1970s wrestling just refer to me a "mental midget" while hallucinating that a conversation is somehow the equivalent of roller derby?! That's got to be the most amusing pointless off-topic flamebait I've ever seen! If nothing else, you guys are good for a laugh.
Good morning, yes I am in a Holiday inn watching wrestling and Roller Derby marathon from the 1970's and it is funny.The question stands, Care to take on this mental midget? Should be a easy cleanup for you....whats the harm?
