Second verse, same as the worst: Random Political Thoughts

No shit. I do understand the concept, I disagree with it, but I do understand it.


So is a knife, a book, fertilizer. I get that your knickers are in twist because the scary gun is scaring you, but what makes it intrinsically more dangerous than the three weapons I just named? Knives are simpler to use, effective, and even drooling morons like kzach could figure out how to kill someone with it (and they don't need to be reloaded). With a book and/or fertilizer you can kill a lot more people... from a distance keeping yourself to safe to continue a reign of Unibomber terror.


What paranoia? You've flat out admitted to your desire to restrict the rights of non-criminals to sell their own property.

You have no idea what is involved with a Firearm Background Check, you are placing additional burdens on ordinary citizens.  Requiring them to register that they are selling it and to whom is a restriction of the right's of the seller.

Saying it in the tone of "duh, it's easy-peasy stupid" doesn't suddenly make the fact you're in favor of federally* restricting the rights of others to protect your scared feelings.  Sad.



* Note, there are already many states that have enacted this restriction.  Ask Chicago how well it's working out for them, then ask yourself "why am I demanding more restrictions that already aren't working?"

"Doing Something!" is actually often worse that doing nothing. In this case, being aware of the laws actually on the books and maybe enforcing those might go a long way towards what you want. And by enforcing them, what I mean is actually having the Federal government hold up their end and do the checks in a timely manner. The ask to expand background checks would 1) not do much for the vast majority of these cases and 2) put even more burden on the government that isn't currently doing the currently job. Which, of course, is why most of these laws are written with as "when the government gets around to it" clause so that they can just soft-ban gun purchases by reducing funding for the background checks.

Any law that doesn't put a hard deadline on the government response and, if the government fails to meet the deadline, ends in approval is just a new avenue to soft-banning guns. That's the only effective outcome of these laws, right now, without major new funding and establishment of capability.

As of right now there is a hard limit. 3 days. If the Feds don't respond with a "No, don't sell that whacko a firearm" within 3 days of requesting a background check through the NCIS, then it's a legally allowed purchase.

I know it's hard, but maybe open a history book.

Still no facts. And no scientific démonstration that the number of bad stuff outnumbers the good stuff. It is just anti-government propaganda passing as "common sense". Can't you see it?