What is background checks for gun own...

What is background checks for gun owners gonna do?

Posted in the Owensboro Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Jude

United States

#1 Apr 3, 2013
Adam Lanza didnt kill those kids with his own guns they were his mothers...so whats the point?
Greer SC is a nutcase

Centertown, KY

#2 Apr 3, 2013
Jude wrote:
Adam Lanza didnt kill those kids with his own guns they were his mothers...so whats the point?
How many GOP talking point threads are you going to start tonight, Greer, SC? No matter how many names you use, you're still a parrot.
blah blah blah

Owensboro, KY

#3 Apr 3, 2013
How many crazed gunmen have criminal backgrounds anyway?! That's the real question.
stateyourcase

Owensboro, KY

#4 Apr 4, 2013
What will background checks do? Eventually, they'll save lives.

No, it won't stop a madman hellbent on destruction. But it'll prevent many more needless deaths that only make the local news.
Point

Owensboro, KY

#5 Apr 4, 2013
Jude wrote:
Adam Lanza didnt kill those kids with his own guns they were his mothers...so whats the point?
The point is that we need a way to stop people like Adam Lanza's mother from buying guns.
you are all sheep

Owensboro, KY

#6 Apr 4, 2013
1.It would not have prevented New Town, Aurora, or Gabby Giffords shooting.

2. Most of these crazed gunmen have no criminal record.

3. It will create a wonderful list of gun owners if the government ever decided to seize every gun.

P.S. Adam Lanz's mom had every right to buy guns. How would a background check stop that? Which , just fyi.... she DID have background checks run!

Level 1

Since: Jun 12

Madisonville, KY

#7 Apr 4, 2013
you are all sheep wrote:
1.It would not have prevented New Town, Aurora, or Gabby Giffords shooting.

2. Most of these crazed gunmen have no criminal record.

3. It will create a wonderful list of gun owners if the government ever decided to seize every gun.

P.S. Adam Lanz's mom had every right to buy guns. How would a background check stop that? Which , just fyi.... she DID have background checks run!
Decide to seize every gun?? Really?? If I had that much fear and suspicion of our elected leaders I'd move to another country FAST!
Jesse

Cadiz, KY

#8 Apr 4, 2013
We need to comply with our leaders, we need to support the dems, we need to listen to the libs, we need Al Sharpton to guide us, we need the mayor of New York city to decie things for us, we need a government program...
you are all sheep

Owensboro, KY

#9 Apr 4, 2013
rwtaylor56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Decide to seize every gun?? Really?? If I had that much fear and suspicion of our elected leaders I'd move to another country FAST!
I noticed you stayed away from my 3 points and just took on the silly afterthought. Good call on your part.

Just so we are clear. I do not think they will take guns. There are several in congress that have suggested such. Feinstein being the main one. But tell us old wise one, how would background checks prevent these madmen who go on shooting sprees?

Level 1

Since: Jun 12

Madisonville, KY

#10 Apr 4, 2013
you are all sheep wrote:
<quoted text>I noticed you stayed away from my 3 points and just took on the silly afterthought. Good call on your part.

Just so we are clear. I do not think they will take guns. There are several in congress that have suggested such. Feinstein being the main one. But tell us old wise one, how would background checks prevent these madmen who go on shooting sprees?
There need to be background checks required for all gun transfers - the current system is so riddled with loopholes that it makes it virtually useless. Those loopholes need to be closed. The second major part would be to incorporate a mental health assessment into the system. Jared Loughner (Tucson shooter) had a long track record of bizarre behavior. He was suspended from Community College and told not to return until he'd had a mental health evaluation clearing him to return. Despite his many known problems he was allowed to legally buy weapons just a few weeks before the massacre. We can and must do a better job of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally insane. Will it be perfect and stop everyone? Obviously not, but it will help. The person it saves might be someone you love.:)

Level 1

Since: Jun 12

Madisonville, KY

#11 Apr 4, 2013
Weapons, by design, are intended to be accurate and efficient killing machines. We can't treat them like a bag of candy - available for sale to the first person coming in with a dollar in their hands and with no questions asked.
libbies

Owensboro, KY

#12 Apr 4, 2013
How can anyone have a debate with crybaby liberals? His questions was pretty simple. Yet, you ignore him and put your dumb "judging" icons on there as if to slam him. This is becoming a very serious matter. Answer his question mr. taylor, I am curious as to how you will spin this.

Level 1

Since: Jun 12

Madisonville, KY

#13 Apr 4, 2013
libbies wrote:
How can anyone have a debate with crybaby liberals? His questions was pretty simple. Yet, you ignore him and put your dumb "judging" icons on there as if to slam him. This is becoming a very serious matter. Answer his question mr. taylor, I am curious as to how you will spin this.
I've already completely answered his question - you should take time to read before starting your name calling. Name calling doesn't make any point you're trying to prove more valid - it just makes you look immature.
you are all sheep

Owensboro, KY

#14 Apr 4, 2013
rwtaylor56 wrote:
<quoted text>
There need to be background checks required for all gun transfers - the current system is so riddled with loopholes that it makes it virtually useless. Those loopholes need to be closed. The second major part would be to incorporate a mental health assessment into the system. Jared Loughner (Tucson shooter) had a long track record of bizarre behavior. He was suspended from Community College and told not to return until he'd had a mental health evaluation clearing him to return. Despite his many known problems he was allowed to legally buy weapons just a few weeks before the massacre. We can and must do a better job of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally insane. Will it be perfect and stop everyone? Obviously not, but it will help. The person it saves might be someone you love.:)
See, filling up a page with empty words doesn't answer the question. Just be honest. Laughner, the Aurora shooting and Lanza had NO MENTAL HEALTH BACKGROUND...NONE, NATTA, ZIP. So, how would your new background check detect such an animal? It can't. So back to my question. I have no problem with background checks. I have nothing to hide. I am just saying the problem is not law abiding citizens. It has been proven time and time again ( See Chicago ), tough gun laws does not equal less gun crime. Obama said in October, during a debate . That military style weapons should not belong in the hans of civilians, and he plans to make stricter gun laws. He is using New Town and that is sad. So you are also ok with the government making us have "gun insurance", a higher ammo tax"? Both of those new proposals are an infringement on the 2nd ammendment.
you are all sheep

Owensboro, KY

#15 Apr 4, 2013
rwtaylor56 wrote:
Weapons, by design, are intended to be accurate and efficient killing machines. We can't treat them like a bag of candy - available for sale to the first person coming in with a dollar in their hands and with no questions asked.
We don't do that now. Criminals dont buy guns from dealers. When you disarm the public you are just making it easy for the thug to take what he wants.
you are all sheep

Owensboro, KY

#16 Apr 4, 2013
rwtaylor56 wrote:
<quoted text>
There need to be background checks required for all gun transfers - the current system is so riddled with loopholes that it makes it virtually useless. Those loopholes need to be closed. The second major part would be to incorporate a mental health assessment into the system. Jared Loughner (Tucson shooter) had a long track record of bizarre behavior. He was suspended from Community College and told not to return until he'd had a mental health evaluation clearing him to return. Despite his many known problems he was allowed to legally buy weapons just a few weeks before the massacre. We can and must do a better job of keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals and the mentally insane. Will it be perfect and stop everyone? Obviously not, but it will help. The person it saves might be someone you love.:)
" Bizarre behavior"? So who will decide what is bizarre? That can't work. Is your answer to everything just let the government control it? I agree that mental health has to be a big part of background checks. But there has to be a record. It can not be a judgement call. Someone might think a mid 50's man spending his time talking on topix all the time is "bizzare behavior", some may not. If you give them that kind of gray area, none of us will own a gun.
Stephie

Owensboro, KY

#17 Apr 4, 2013
you are all sheep wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't do that now. Criminals dont buy guns from dealers. When you disarm the public you are just making it easy for the thug to take what he wants.
Whoa. The first true statement I have seen from you. So, how do criminals get guns? By taking them from so called "law abiding" citizens such as yourself.

Level 1

Since: Jun 12

Madisonville, KY

#18 Apr 4, 2013
you are all sheep wrote:
<quoted text>See, filling up a page with empty words doesn't answer the question. Just be honest. Laughner, the Aurora shooting and Lanza had NO MENTAL HEALTH BACKGROUND...NONE, NATTA, ZIP. So, how would your new background check detect such an animal? It can't. So back to my question. I have no problem with background checks. I have nothing to hide. I am just saying the problem is not law abiding citizens. It has been proven time and time again ( See Chicago ), tough gun laws does not equal less gun crime. Obama said in October, during a debate . That military style weapons should not belong in the hans of civilians, and he plans to make stricter gun laws. He is using New Town and that is sad. So you are also ok with the government making us have "gun insurance", a higher ammo tax"? Both of those new proposals are an infringement on the 2nd ammendment.
All the people you mentioned did indeed have a long history of very questionable sanity, and yes, they were able to legally buy weapons - which is my whole point. A mental health evaluation system MUST be incorporated into the system so that people like Loughner - with a history of bizarre behavior - doesn't have access to weapons. As far as your point on infringement on the 2nd Amendment, there have for many years been common sense restrictions on rights. For example, you have Freedom of Speech, but it's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. The Supreme Court has ruled countless times that common sense restrictions are well within the boundaries of the 2nd Amendment.

Level 1

Since: Jun 12

Madisonville, KY

#19 Apr 4, 2013
you are all sheep wrote:
<quoted text>We don't do that now. Criminals dont buy guns from dealers. When you disarm the public you are just making it easy for the thug to take what he wants.
They don't buy guns from dealers because it's legal to buy them countless other ways. ALL gun transfers should require a background check - not just those bought from a dealer.
Stephie

Owensboro, KY

#20 Apr 4, 2013
you are all sheep wrote:
<quoted text>
See, filling up a page with empty words doesn't answer the question. Just be honest. Laughner, the Aurora shooting and Lanza had NO MENTAL HEALTH BACKGROUND...NONE, NATTA, ZIP. So, how would your new background check detect such an animal? It can't. So back to my question. I have no problem with background checks. I have nothing to hide. I am just saying the problem is not law abiding citizens. It has been proven time and time again ( See Chicago ), tough gun laws does not equal less gun crime. Obama said in October, during a debate . That military style weapons should not belong in the hans of civilians, and he plans to make stricter gun laws. He is using New Town and that is sad. So you are also ok with the government making us have "gun insurance", a higher ammo tax"? Both of those new proposals are an infringement on the 2nd ammendment.
Clearly you have not read the 2nd admendment in depth. Also, do you think the fore fathers could imagine what weapons we would create? That is why it was left open to "changes". It was wrote in a much different era.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Owensboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
cody wedding (Jan '12) 16 min Hmmm 60
Meagan Hagan running for city commissioner 16 min I saw it 5
Mr. Tines 17 min Scout 5
Tiffany basham 22 min Kala 4
Josh tolson erin mclimore baby 39 min lawl 5
Audra mayfield 40 min lawl 1
adrianna miles 55 min Sammie 30
Mudsharks at TTMA 9 hr NoStandards 30

Owensboro Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Owensboro Mortgages