Assault Weapon Ban v.s. Muslim Ban

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by bklynkenny

Can't speak for anybody else, but there should be extensive background checks for all gun sales, as well as all potential immigrants. Neither should be banned, whether temporary or not.

"Can't speak for anybody else, but there should be extensive background checks for all gun sales,"

Are you willing to APPLY EVERY gun law to the 1st amendment rights as you do the 2nd amendment rights?

Fair is fair after all.

"The pen is mightier then the sword"

"as well as all potential immigrants. Neither should be banned, whether temporary or not.'

The Obama admin has ADMITTED that the vetting process does NOT work.

So, why should we let ANY Muslim in UNTIL we CAN be sure of the vetting system?

[katygirl68]

Originally Posted by scarabchuck

So what is the difference between a background check and an extensive background check ?

Good question. If it means a little more information if someone has been diagnosed with psychosis, paranoid schizophrenia, or something like that, then I am okay with that. But if it means they can look at social media, review all your associations, or politics, then no. And while the no fly list sounds like a good idea for a background check, it loses its appeal once you realize how people get on the no fly list and how hard it is to get off the no fly list.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by trlhiker

And how many Muslims have committed mass murder in America in the last 2 years? Three, just three.

Why do you only go back 3 YEARS?

3 Muslims on a airplane killed over 3 THOUSAND WITHOUT the use of a gun.

Why DON'T we ban box cutters?

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by bklynkenny

So is the temporary ban on Muslims that Trump is proposing really a permanent ban? If so, he should say so. Many posts that have defended it have used the fact that it will be temporary..

The usual out of context and attempt to change what was said.

Let me say it r e a l s l o w for you.

Ban ALL Muslims UNTIL we can be sure the vetting process WORKS even if it takes a year, 5 years or whatever time frame it takes.

WHEN we have working vetting system we can let them in NOT UNTIL.

Is THAT plain enough for you?

[katygirl68]

Originally Posted by lifeexplorer

You! No self-respecting human would even want to purchase a firearm whose sole purpose was to kill another human being.

The government should never allowed its citizens to own firearms in the first place.

Wow!

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

The conservative male mind is a strange thing.

At least we have one!

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by NVplumber

A simple (you would think) and valid question. I used to help out at my friends gun shop. During that time, we had quite a few convicted felons try to buy guns. Some with serious records, many with weapons violations, tied to drugs. You would think that the failed attempt would be forwarded from the State Troopers who perform the check, to local LE. Nope. Even when we contacted the locals, ourselves, about a felon trying to buy a gun, no action was EVER taken.

So, I'm sure these people just went on and procured weapons via illegal means, when they could easily have been stopped in their tracks. Yet, the anti firearms rights clowns, blame the actions of violent criminals on lawful gun owners. Even to the point of shrieking that "the blood of CHILDREN is on our hands".

Yet, its LE that let's violent felons walk. They violate parole, try to buy guns at a gun store, their record pops, and they just walk away to buy illegal guns off the street. And this is the fault of lawful citizens? Who is it that's dropping the ball here?

I don't really think it is LE fault.

They only do what the elected politicians tell them what to do

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Blind Cleric

Incorrect. The number is much higher than that, when counting "assault weapons" and high capacity mags used in mass shootings.

I don't think a single assault weapon was used.

Just calling an item something it is NOT, does NOT make that item what it is called.

The ONLY reason the anti's use the term "assault weapon" is because it stirs up the emotions of those that do NOT know anything about guns.

[ContrarianEcon]

Originally Posted by froglipz

Maybe just ban crime!

best one ever. Laws only apply to the law abiding. Never stopped a criminal from doing anything. Shooting them before they shoot you that does stop them from doing something.