'Inconvenience' a silly reason to block background checks

allvoices.com ^ | 1/25/2014 | Michael Rappaport

[rktman]

As I write this, some patriotic American is expressing his love of the Second Amendment at a mall in Columbia, Md.

We know two things will happen. A lot of people will talk about things that should be done, and nothing at all will happen because our political leaders are terrified of that tiny minority known as the National Rifle Association.

This isn't about taking anyone's guns away. It isn't about preventing anyone from buying and owning the most obscene weapons, weapons the founders would never have envisioned. It isn't even about those poor, sad men who believe they need state-of-the-art weaponry if the time ever comes to overthrow the government.

[andyk]

I did the same search, clicked on an NYT article, and I think Chris Cox explained the NRA’s position quite well.

I know I dont trust the fedguv to research fiddly. Nor is it in their purview to do so.

[William Tell]

From the linked article: "If we Americans ever did have the right to live secretly, it has been gone for a long time."

And yet don't these same people assure us that the right to privacy is what justified the killing of 50 million unborn people?

The only thing that keeps a liberal's head from exploding is the thickness of his cranium.

[andyk]

Chris Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, said his group had not tried to squelch genuine scientific inquiries, just politically slanted ones.

“Our concern is not with legitimate medical science,” Mr. Cox said. “Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.”

Here's the text from Cox to which I referred.

[rktman]

And the numbness. Even your best shaft and broadhead can’t penetrate there WT.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Thank you. That makes sense. In the scheme of things, it is difficult to find any research that is not tilted politically one way or another. In the case of citizen gun ownership, I cannot understand why it would *not* be in the interest of the NRA to bring to light incidences of accidents and abuse. I would think sound public policy would instill certain qualifications, among them personal training to be subsidized by . . . constitutionally informed producers.

[andyk]

I cannot understand why it would *not* be in the interest of the NRA to bring to light incidences of accidents and abuse. I would think sound public policy would instill certain qualifications, among them personal training to be subsidized by . . . constitutionally informed producers

What the heck are you talking about? Are you saying the RKBA should be constrained by government approved training? I think we have to part ways if that's the case.

[Georgia Girl 2]

” men who believe they need state-of-the-art weaponry if the time ever comes to overthrow the government.”

More when the time comes. :-)

[Blue Collar Christian]

C’mon now, the truth will never get in the way of these pansies pushing for registration/confiscation.

[andyk]

I cannot understand why it would *not* be in the interest of the NRA to bring to light incidences of accidents and abuse. I would think sound public policy would instill certain qualifications, among them personal training to be subsidized by . . . constitutionally informed producers.

I'll ask again. Are you saying that free citizens should be required to obtain governmental training and approval prior to exercising their 2nd amendment rights?

[Fester Chugabrew]

No. Private training would be best. “Constitutionally informed” means the trainers who understand the separate nature of a citizenry holding its government in check. Required? Not sure how that comports with the text we live under. Extreme example, but I don’t think we want to have 6 year olds purchasing firearms independent of legal supervision.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

the founders would never have envisioned.

The founders envisioned "progress of science and useful arts.” You could look it up. They also envisioned amendments to the Constitution; you could look that up, too. So I guess you need to get busy and convince Congress that it is “necessary” because of the particular progress you mention. If it’s “necessary,” it shouldn’t be hard to get a simple majority in 3/4 of the states.

[rktman]

No doubt that it should be a snap to get that simple majority in 3/4 of the states. Pretty simple. :>)

[Still Thinking]

'Inconvenience' a silly reason to block background checks

Well, you won't accept any of the real reasons, so what do you suggest people use?

Besides, you guys are always claiming the slightest "inconvenience" to your dead and/or illegal alien voting constituency constitutes disenfranchising them, so why isn't it adequate to protect an enumerated civil right?? (Don't have a car, agoraphobic and won't go to town, can't read, can't afford $4 for a photo ID, etc.)

[Still Thinking]

It isn't even about those poor, sad men who believe they need state-of-the-art weaponry if the time ever comes to overthrow the government.

I don't think it's so much about "overthrowing" the goobermint as being able to resist should the goobermint try to overthrow THEM.