Skip to main content

View Diary: America has never had a Background Check System for Gun Purchases (184 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No one has a Constitutional civil right... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher, KVoimakas, theatre goon produce and to dispose of hazardous wastes, but they do to keep and bear arms. What you are suggesting is an impermissible interference with a civil right similar to what Republicans are attempting to do with voting rights. It particularly would interfere with the ability of the poor and minorities to exercise their second amendment rights.

    As if we needed any more proof that the War on Drugs is stupid, a Kennedy is supporting it.

    by wishbone on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 05:44:53 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  strawman argument (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not saying that would stop you from keeping and bearing arms.

      It would simply make you accountable for your actions.

      I know that's a radical concept for gun owners, but the rest of us are tired of picking up your messes and paying for their funerals.

      •  " ...your messes..." (0+ / 0-)

        Whose messes? Criminals and the criminally insane create the "messes" you refer to and always have. Your so called solutions fail to focus on criminal behavior, but instead penalize those who harm no one in exercising their Constitutional rights. Most gun owners would support measures to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and the insane. Propose some.

        As if we needed any more proof that the War on Drugs is stupid, a Kennedy is supporting it.

        by wishbone on Sun Feb 10, 2013 at 04:39:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  not true (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Negligent gun owners leave guns where criminals can get access to them.

          Legal gun owners sell their guns to people with nary a thought as to whether those people are felons or mentally ill.

          Legal gun owners kill their children and their neighbors' children by leaving loaded guns lying around.

          The liability I refer to wouldn't cost you a penny if you were as guilt free as you claim to be.  

          •  "Negligent gun owners leave guns where criminals.. (0+ / 0-)

            ...can get access to them."

            And jewelry stores and banks get robbed by criminals as well. If you persist in going after the law abiding with your schemes to interfere with the exercise of Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights you will simply alienate millions of honest citizens who vote, and it will not be helpful to our party. Nuff said. Have a nice day.

            As if we needed any more proof that the War on Drugs is stupid, a Kennedy is supporting it.

            by wishbone on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 08:37:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  bogus analogy (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              If thief steals a diamond ring, he won't use it to kill someone.

              If he steals a gun, he very likely will.

              So the standard of liability for securing guns is vastly higher than that for securing jewelry, cash, or other non-lethal items.

              Bottom line, a criminal can only get useable possession of your gun through gross or willful negligence on your part.  

              Holding people liable for their actions is an honored tradition among all societies, ours included, so I think you'd be surprised at the level of support there would be for applying that bedrock principle of civilization to gun owners as well as the rest of us.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site