Posted: 4/18/2013 2:39:36 AM EDT
|
I'm already hearing it from colleagues at work:
Why are you against background checks? 90% of the country thinks it a good idea!! My argument is a bit lame, because I don't understand why reaction to a tragedy is to ban an inanimate object. So bolster my opinion.... |
|
Respond with this Gallup poll: Only 4% of Americans think Gun Control is the biggest issue facing the country at the moment. Then ask why Obama and the Senate are spending so much time and taxpayers money on something only 4% think they should be prioritizing.
|
|
Quoted:
I'm already hearing it from colleagues at work: Why are you against background checks? 90% of the country thinks it a good idea!! My argument is a bit lame, because I don't understand why reaction to a tragedy is to ban an inanimate object. So bolster my opinion.... Why not just get right to the point? You don't trust the government with that kind of power? You don't trust the government when they say it is for more safety and you believe other wise. We can go back and forth with them arguing "common sense", safety, and such but I believe on this side we know it is not about safety. It is about them government disarming us. It is about one set of laws after another despite that the previous set were suppose to solve things. And, as I have pointed out before, it's about the government keeping the populace 60-100 years behind in technology (ie, the dates of the AR- rifle introduction and the 1911). Don't argue with them on their points.....if you must, argue with them on what it is all about. Now that said, personally, I don't know which is worse, your problem......or me having a boss who is a conspiracist. _____________________________________________________________________________________ ("The simple point is we don't trust you."-Picard, (w,stte), "ST:TNG") |
|
Show them the results of the Gallup poll - Only 4% of Americans think gun control is an important problem.
The 90% that wanted UBC must have come from that 4%. So, if we run the numbers, the Gallup poll surveyed 1005 people and 4% thought gun control was important. That comes out to about 40 people. Of those 40, lets say that 90% wanted the UBC so that comes out to 36 people. Tell your coworkers that out of 1005 people, 36 wanted the UBC or about 3.6%. I can screw around with numbers too... |
|
Enacting more laws when current laws are not being implemented effectively is stupid, pointless, etc.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24070/gun-control-policy-universal-background-checks-aren-t-the-cure-all-people-think-they-are |
|
Quoted:
Show them the results of the Gallup poll - Only 4% of Americans think gun control is an important problem. The 90% that wanted UBC must have come from that 4%. So, if we run the numbers, the Gallup poll surveyed 1005 people and 4% thought gun control was important. That comes out to about 40 people. Of those 40, lets say that 90% wanted the UBC so that comes out to 36 people. Tell your coworkers that out of 1005 people, 36 wanted the UBC or about 3.6%. I can screw around with numbers too... 
|
| The 90% number is utter BS and should be challenged. Remind them that "lynch mob" mentality, and that's what a "democracy" is has been proven to be brutal towards the rights of a minority. Ask the blacks that lived in the south in the 50s and 60s. Also inquire as to how a background check will inhibit crime. The dick head in CT couldn't pass the background check, was denied a gun, so he went home and KILLED his own mother first and then set off on a murderous rampage. Again, how does a background check prevent a criminal, a law breaker by definition, from committing a crime? Check out this article for much better info: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=219889 |
|
A few arguments:
Where did that 90% statistic come from? It came from a poorly worded poll. If I asked you to participate in the following poll how would you answer: Have you stopped beating your kids? a. Yes b. No It doesn't matter how you answer that poll. The inherent response is that you beat your kids. The question isn't if we want background checks, most people don't give two shits about the background check itself. The question is about how the background check system would be facilitated. But let's not even go there yet. Let's talk about what is the current process for purchasing a firearm. You have a go to a FFL, fill out a 4473, an affidavit stating that you can purchase the firearm in question, and provide current photo ID. Once all that has been provided the FFL will call in to NICS to perform a....get this shit...BACKGROUND CHECK on you!!! Holy fucking shit...that goes on right now...today. So what happens if you fail the background check? According to the law you are subject to federal prosecution. Otherwise known as, you weren't supposed to buy a firearm, you tried to lie to get one, the system stopped you, and now we are going to lock you up. But what really happens? Let's use NICS numbers themselves as provided by the FBI. From 1998 to 2012 a total of 160,000,000 background checks have been performed. Out of those 998,000 have been denied! Almost 1 million! All of those denials warrant prosecution under the law...so how many of those people were prosecuted? 14. Yea...14 out of 998,000. Out of that, how many went to jail? 0. So what's the point of a background check system if we don't prosecute the offenders? Now moving on to the UBS and why its implementation is bad compared to NICS. NICS only tracks purchases that go through an FFL...either new firearms that are being sold for the first time, or used firearms that are traveling interstate. The NICS system is a check and delete system, once a NICS check has been performed (theoretically) all information related to that check is deleted if the transaction was not denied. So no records are kept (theoretically). The UBS however would have to cover every firearms transaction (which by the way is an infringement of the federal government's ability to only regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce). Because it would have to track every transaction, it would have to know if that transaction was legitimate. Did that .22lr rifle really belong to Jimmy in the first place for him to sell it to Bobby? As such that .22lr rifle would have to be registered to Jimmy, there would have to be a database of every firearm somewhere. THAT is the problem. You want to know how confiscation starts? It starts first by tracking where everything is. Why can the government not confiscate arms right now? Cause they don't know where they all are. You give them the means to track where every firearm is, then in 50-70y another liberal agenda gets pushed to fully ban everything and lo and behold....cops show up at your door for your firearms. Wait you don't have any? It says you do in the database. Prove you legally got rid of them or you are going to prison. But all that is tin foil talk to most of the population who don't look at Germany, Mexico, and Great Britan; who all did the EXACT SAME THING. Since all that is tin foil speak, harp on the fact that we denied almost 1 million transactions in the last 14y and only prosecuted 14 of those cases. Ask, if we only pursue .001% of these criminals now...what makes them think that a new background check system will increase those numbers? Ask them... No TELL them, to point this atrocity out to their reps, and bring Eric Holder to the floor of the Congress to ask him why he isn't litigating these cases. ETA: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3] [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; Congress doesn't have the power to regulate commerce inside of a state...so without attacking the first article of the constitution and the second amendment of the constitution, exactly how will a UBS be enforced? |
|
Ask where the 90% number comes from. Ask them to define exactly what a background check will entail, and exactly what will disqualify someone from being allowed to defend themselves. If they make it that far, then we can have a conversation. If it is in fact true that 90% of Americans support this, then they should have no problem passing a Constitutional amendment, the only legit way to modify the Constitution. Also, if the reason they give or background checks is to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous individuals, then we have another issue to talk about. Taking that train of thought to its logical conclusion, we must also enact background checks for all politicians, since they would be in positions to direct the massive weapons the government has. Also, we must enact background checks for voters, we cannot afford to have dangerous or mentally ill people, choosing who has the control of such deadly weapons! Its a slippery slope and it never stops. Defined limitations on things like this either make no logical sense, or aren't limitations at all.
|
|
How is the part in red supposed to work? When peacefully assembling and petitioning the government for the redress of grievances is insufficient, what then? . . . We have guns BECAUSE we have government. Is there any wonder the government (and those who worship at its altar) would seek to disarm THE PEOPLE?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
|
|
Also, remind them that we already have a NICS system that EVERY newly manufactured gun is sold through but that non-FFLs are prohibited BY LAW from utilizing for legal private transfers.
Ask them about Fast & Furious in which the .gov facilitated the transfer of firearms to Mexican criminals in the hopes of generating a headline demands for "more gun control". Remind them that the Newtown shooter stole the weapons he used. Remind them that the Aurora shooter successfully "passed" a background check. Remind them that the Columbine shooters got at least some of their weapons from a "Strawman". REMIND THEM THAT NONE OF WHAT WAS PROPOSED WOULD HAVE PREVENTED ANY OF THIS! REMIND THEM THAT WHAT ALL THESE SHOOTINGS HAD IN COMMON WAS LOCATION ie; "GUN FREE ZONES" 
Ask them what Congress is doing about Psychotropic Drugs which are dispensed like PEZ to kids with very little clinical study of the long term effects. |
|
90% of who? |
|
Explain what the bill would actually do.
It would prevent you from loaning a gun to a female friend with a stalker problem. It would prevent you from loaning a gun to your cousin for his first hunting trip. It would increase the cost of used guns due to transfer fees. It would not decrease the number of stolen guns. It would not have prevented aurora or sandy hook. Etc |
|
the 90% is bullshit. Tell him in none of you many conversations you have never seen 90% Tell not even 90% of the DU which pretty much universally hates guns is not 90% The 90% is a lie. not tat any of the bills would do anything they are purported to, So the entire argument is stupid. and republic protect the minority the majority does not matter in a republic.
I would not talk about it at all at work. In fact go to HR and tell them they are making a hostile work place for you! |
|
Quoted:
You can't make a response against the 90% because it's indicative of societal stratification. In this case 90% are using logical and rational thought to expand the background check process, 10% are just being buttheads. ?? Moronic statement right here. The system should not exist in the first place. |
|
Quoted:
Take them to a gun shop, tell them to bring cash. Have them ask the gun clerk for a machine gun. Enjoy the fun. Years ago, I was flipping through an issue of Shotgun News when a libtard coworker lamented that "anybody can buy a gun through the mail". I handed her SGN and told her that if she could order a gun and have it sent directly to her home, I would give her 2X the cost. She did not take me up on the offer but another coworker bit and placed a call and was politely told to go fuck themselves. |
|
I am going to ignore the "90%" since it is BS.
I had this discussion with a friend and his wife earlier this week. My rights aren't subject to 51%, 60%, or 90%. The guys wife said that if 90% of the population agreed on anything it should be law. I asked his wife if 90% of Americans think that women should stfu and stay in the kitchen would she be ok with that. Talk about getting pissed. The Constitution and the BIll of Rights are not subject to a majority. They are not subject to a vote. |
| Look at the poll. Quinnipac College in Maine? Really? 90% of their liberal arts or "studies" majors maybe. Polls by other organizations ran from 14% in favor to just over 50%. So they picked the numbers that looked like they supported them, knowing they were skewed, and don't understand why we poor plebes don't realize it's for our own good. And did you notice that was the only number thrown out? Everything else was about "emotion" after a tragedy, not a word about facts. |
|
I just want to say thank you great post!
Quoted:
A few arguments: Where did that 90% statistic come from? It came from a poorly worded poll. If I asked you to participate in the following poll how would you answer: Have you stopped beating your kids? a. Yes b. No It doesn't matter how you answer that poll. The inherent response is that you beat your kids. The question isn't if we want background checks, most people don't give two shits about the background check itself. The question is about how the background check system would be facilitated. But let's not even go there yet. Let's talk about what is the current process for purchasing a firearm. You have a go to a FFL, fill out a 4473, an affidavit stating that you can purchase the firearm in question, and provide current photo ID. Once all that has been provided the FFL will call in to NICS to perform a....get this shit...BACKGROUND CHECK on you!!! Holy fucking shit...that goes on right now...today. So what happens if you fail the background check? According to the law you are subject to federal prosecution. Otherwise known as, you weren't supposed to buy a firearm, you tried to lie to get one, the system stopped you, and now we are going to lock you up. But what really happens? Let's use NICS numbers themselves as provided by the FBI. From 1998 to 2012 a total of 160,000,000 background checks have been performed. Out of those 998,000 have been denied! Almost 1 million! All of those denials warrant prosecution under the law...so how many of those people were prosecuted? 14. Yea...14 out of 998,000. Out of that, how many went to jail? 0. So what's the point of a background check system if we don't prosecute the offenders? Now moving on to the UBS and why its implementation is bad compared to NICS. NICS only tracks purchases that go through an FFL...either new firearms that are being sold for the first time, or used firearms that are traveling interstate. The NICS system is a check and delete system, once a NICS check has been performed (theoretically) all information related to that check is deleted if the transaction was not denied. So no records are kept (theoretically). The UBS however would have to cover every firearms transaction (which by the way is an infringement of the federal government's ability to only regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce). Because it would have to track every transaction, it would have to know if that transaction was legitimate. Did that .22lr rifle really belong to Jimmy in the first place for him to sell it to Bobby? As such that .22lr rifle would have to be registered to Jimmy, there would have to be a database of every firearm somewhere. THAT is the problem. You want to know how confiscation starts? It starts first by tracking where everything is. Why can the government not confiscate arms right now? Cause they don't know where they all are. You give them the means to track where every firearm is, then in 50-70y another liberal agenda gets pushed to fully ban everything and lo and behold....cops show up at your door for your firearms. Wait you don't have any? It says you do in the database. Prove you legally got rid of them or you are going to prison. But all that is tin foil talk to most of the population who don't look at Germany, Mexico, and Great Britan; who all did the EXACT SAME THING. Since all that is tin foil speak, harp on the fact that we denied almost 1 million transactions in the last 14y and only prosecuted 14 of those cases. Ask, if we only pursue .001% of these criminals now...what makes them think that a new background check system will increase those numbers? Ask them... No TELL them, to point this atrocity out to their reps, and bring Eric Holder to the floor of the Congress to ask him why he isn't litigating these cases. ETA: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3] [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; Congress doesn't have the power to regulate commerce inside of a state...so without attacking the first article of the constitution and the second amendment of the constitution, exactly how will a UBS be enforced? |
|
Criminals do not submit to the current (and broken) background check system, what in the proposed legislation would have compelled them to start?
Making something "even more illegal" has no affect on criminals bent on doing harm. Murder is illegal, with the harshest penalties of any crime. Forcing a criminal to commit one small infraction (not getting a background check when buying an illegally owned gun from his drug dealer) wouldn't even register in their minds as something to avoid. |
|
Ask em how many of them or thier family members have been treated for mild depression and anxiety and how many of them they think are "crazy" and should actually lose their rights to own a gun. Because thats the thing they didnt tell everybody and thats who this would punish.
Tell them that 99% of the stuff they were requesting was already being done and where it isnt is already not checked. Tell them the whole thing is smoke and mirrors to get us to "agree" to more restrictions in the future. and FBHO 
|
|
It's a bit late but something that occurred to me after I got home.
Ours is a system where it is possible to have majority rule while still protecting the rights of the individual. (and if they want to go further into that about majority rule, point out that it then takes an amendment to the Constitution) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ ("You are fortunate to live in a country where the rights of the individual are so protected. You should be in jail but I have no choice but to release you."--Judge to a drug dealer in an illegal search, (w,stte), "Adam-12") |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can't make a response against the 90% because it's indicative of societal stratification. In this case 90% are using logical and rational thought to expand the background check process, 10% are just being buttheads. ?? Moronic statement right here. The system should not exist in the first place. What's moronic is selling guns to ex-cons, kids and the mentally unstable and not giving a fuck. |
|
Quoted:
Respond with this Gallup poll: Only 4% of Americans think Gun Control is the biggest issue facing the country at the moment. Then ask why Obama and the Senate are spending so much time and taxpayers money on something only 4% think they should be prioritizing. TY. |