Community Chat

[Maudelynn]

---

@Mominohio wrote:

---

@YorkieonmyPillow wrote:

---

@RainCityWoman wrote:

---

@deepwaterdotter wrote:

I underwent a background check when I purchased my firearm, it was painless and went smoothly.  I didn't feel violated or intruded upon. 

---

Exactly. So you have to wonder what some who are so vehemently against it are hiding. 

---

  Because a person doesn't agree with background checks doesn't mean they are "hiding something." A person has a right to privacy, or at least, they should.

   I wouldn't do a background check to get a firearm.

  It's none of the government's business.

---

AMEN!  @YorkieonmyPillow

---

Should we deduce from your statements that neither of you own a firearm?  Or should we imagine that you do own them, but have gotten them illegally? 

[Maudelynn]

---

@HappyDaze wrote:

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

People can squawk and yell all they want.  We won't know what impact it will have until we've tried.  Thank you Mr. President, for thinking enough about the safety of our citizens to force this change.  We'll have an entire year to judge the effects.

Funny that we're so willing to give up other freedoms- it's ok for our phone calls to be monitored, it's ok to go through the 3rd degree when travelling, it's ok that our internet activity can be tracked- when we think we may be in danger of middle eastern terrorists.  But when the terrorists live in our neighborhood, we're reluctant to impede on their "rights".

---

Many of the states where mass shootings took place already HAVE background checks in place, that is the point. So we already DO know what impact they have (little to none) since we have tried it. Oregon has background checks, even at their gun shows despite what the media has told you, so does California. Both have had mass shootings or other horrible incidents occur.

I know you would like to think the background checks will solve all our gun problems but it won't and you ignore the facts that many here have presented to you regarding background checks. We need to enforce the laws already in place and fix the broken system- like not allowing people with criminal histories THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH BACKGROUND CHECKS to still obtain guns That is a flaw in the system and should never happen, yet it does, on a regular basis. So you can pile on more and more laws but until those laws are actually enforced, they mean nothing and hold no weight and the shootings will continue..

---

All well and good.  But the fact remains we do not have universal background checks.  Good for the states that require them.  However, many don't.  That is about to change.  If it saves one mass shooting rom happening, it's a success.

[Hoovermom]

I really don't think you have to deduce anything.  They can share with you what they want to or not.  Do you want the same thing for you?

[HappyDaze]

---

@JustJazzmom wrote:

---

@hckynutjohn wrote:

---

@JustJazzmom wrote:

Guns should have the ability to only fire if the owner has it in their hands (this will cut down on accidental obtaining of guns by those who steal them out of homes or of children handling them).

But you know the NRA is against having this put into place with gun manufacturers. I think its a great idea.

---

Just as with motor vehicle safety. Add more technology/add a couple or more zero's to the price. A good dependable handgun is not what I consider to be cheap purchase right now. I belong to the NRA and I seen nothing in the many things they send me about being against technology. 

Looked at all the people that were killed and critically injured because GM decided saving $16 on an ignition switch was more important than their customers lives. And some talk about the NRA?

hckynut(john)

---

The number of people killed due to a faulty ignition switch does not compare to the number accidental shootings/ deaths of people caused by toddlers, children and adults getting a hold of someone else's gun and firing it.

I would be in favor of adding more zeroes into the price for this kind of technology-- if it saves toddlers and children from being accidentally shot by other toddlers/children who happen to get a hold of the firearm, it would be worth it. I'm interested in saving lives; not lining the pockets of the lobbyists and gun manufacturers in this country who benefit from this technology not being put into place.

---

You can't always save people from themselves. It is the PARENTS and ADULTS fault that children are able to get ahold of guns, not the guns fault!  Let's not resort to the least common denominator all the time on everything and actually focus on fixing the problem directly, which is the fact that, despite ALL the warnings, adults still leave guns in places a child can get to. THAT is the true problem here. And no amount of regulation and adding additonal security measures on the gun will stop that. We already have gun safetys on guns but the idiots will still not put the gun safety on and leave it in areas where kids can get to it.

Maybe that will be next- an idiot screening/check for gun ownership, mandated by our government, of course. By executive order, lol.

[Mominohio]

---

@RoughDraft wrote:

---

@YorkieonmyPillow wrote:

---

@RainCityWoman wrote:

---

@deepwaterdotter wrote:

I underwent a background check when I purchased my firearm, it was painless and went smoothly.  I didn't feel violated or intruded upon. 

---

Exactly. So you have to wonder what some who are so vehemently against it are hiding. 

---

  Because a person doesn't agree with background checks doesn't mean they are "hiding something." A person has a right to privacy, or at least, they should.

   I wouldn't do a background check to get a firearm.

  It's none of the government's business.

---

Until you or someone dear to you is harmed by someone with a weapon.  That's when most people start demanding that the "government" should have known.

---

The government can't begin to know. Yes, a background check will keep, say convicted felons from obtaining a gun through legal means, but won't EVER keep people who really want a gun from getting one. If the drug situation doesn't make people realize that you can  legislate, punish, shame or rehabilitate till your blue in the face, and people who want something (anything) for the wrong reasons will find a way to get it. Period. 

All the gun control, registration, background checks, seller/buyer restrictions isn't really going to keep anyone with bad intent from obtaining a firearm and causing harm with it. It really only inhibits those type of people from getting a firearm legally, but won't stop them totally.

[Maudelynn]

---

@Hoovermom wrote:

I really don't think you have to deduce anything.  They can share with you what they want to or not.  Do you want the same thing for you?

---

You're right.  I can also ask the question. Or not.

[HappyDaze]

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

---

@HappyDaze wrote:

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

People can squawk and yell all they want.  We won't know what impact it will have until we've tried.  Thank you Mr. President, for thinking enough about the safety of our citizens to force this change.  We'll have an entire year to judge the effects.

Funny that we're so willing to give up other freedoms- it's ok for our phone calls to be monitored, it's ok to go through the 3rd degree when travelling, it's ok that our internet activity can be tracked- when we think we may be in danger of middle eastern terrorists.  But when the terrorists live in our neighborhood, we're reluctant to impede on their "rights".

---

Many of the states where mass shootings took place already HAVE background checks in place, that is the point. So we already DO know what impact they have (little to none) since we have tried it. Oregon has background checks, even at their gun shows despite what the media has told you, so does California. Both have had mass shootings or other horrible incidents occur.

I know you would like to think the background checks will solve all our gun problems but it won't and you ignore the facts that many here have presented to you regarding background checks. We need to enforce the laws already in place and fix the broken system- like not allowing people with criminal histories THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH BACKGROUND CHECKS to still obtain guns That is a flaw in the system and should never happen, yet it does, on a regular basis. So you can pile on more and more laws but until those laws are actually enforced, they mean nothing and hold no weight and the shootings will continue..

---

All well and good.  But the fact remains we do not have universal background checks.  Good for the states that require them.  However, many don't.  That is about to change.  If it saves one mass shooting rom happening, it's a success.

---

whatever you need to think to make you feel safer. The president's plan is working lol.

[Maudelynn]

---

@HappyDaze wrote:

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

---

@HappyDaze wrote:

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

People can squawk and yell all they want.  We won't know what impact it will have until we've tried.  Thank you Mr. President, for thinking enough about the safety of our citizens to force this change.  We'll have an entire year to judge the effects.

Funny that we're so willing to give up other freedoms- it's ok for our phone calls to be monitored, it's ok to go through the 3rd degree when travelling, it's ok that our internet activity can be tracked- when we think we may be in danger of middle eastern terrorists.  But when the terrorists live in our neighborhood, we're reluctant to impede on their "rights".

---

Many of the states where mass shootings took place already HAVE background checks in place, that is the point. So we already DO know what impact they have (little to none) since we have tried it. Oregon has background checks, even at their gun shows despite what the media has told you, so does California. Both have had mass shootings or other horrible incidents occur.

I know you would like to think the background checks will solve all our gun problems but it won't and you ignore the facts that many here have presented to you regarding background checks. We need to enforce the laws already in place and fix the broken system- like not allowing people with criminal histories THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH BACKGROUND CHECKS to still obtain guns That is a flaw in the system and should never happen, yet it does, on a regular basis. So you can pile on more and more laws but until those laws are actually enforced, they mean nothing and hold no weight and the shootings will continue..

---

All well and good.  But the fact remains we do not have universal background checks.  Good for the states that require them.  However, many don't.  That is about to change.  If it saves one mass shooting rom happening, it's a success.

---

whatever you need to think to make you feel safer. The president's plan is working lol.

---

He hasn' put his plan in place yet.  We'll soon find out.  I hope he bans the purchase of certain kinds of ammo as well.  He's set to announce next week.

[Mominohio]

---

@JustJazzmom wrote:

---

@hckynutjohn wrote:

---

@JustJazzmom wrote:

Guns should have the ability to only fire if the owner has it in their hands (this will cut down on accidental obtaining of guns by those who steal them out of homes or of children handling them).

But you know the NRA is against having this put into place with gun manufacturers. I think its a great idea.

---

Just as with motor vehicle safety. Add more technology/add a couple or more zero's to the price. A good dependable handgun is not what I consider to be cheap purchase right now. I belong to the NRA and I seen nothing in the many things they send me about being against technology. 

Looked at all the people that were killed and critically injured because GM decided saving $16 on an ignition switch was more important than their customers lives. And some talk about the NRA?

hckynut(john)

---

The number of people killed due to a faulty ignition switch does not compare to the number accidental shootings/ deaths of people caused by toddlers, children and adults getting a hold of someone else's gun and firing it.

I would be in favor of adding more zeroes into the price for this kind of technology-- if it saves toddlers and children from being accidentally shot by other toddlers/children who happen to get a hold of the firearm, it would be worth it. I'm interested in saving lives; not lining the pockets of the lobbyists and gun manufacturers in this country who benefit from this technology not being put into place.

---

Where is the cry for technology that requires a driver to 'blow' before they can start the car. That would save many more lives as well, but it never becomes a topic of debate here or elsewhere.

[Mominohio]

---

@Lila Belle wrote:

---

@esmeraldagooch wrote:

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

Background checks.  Bring it on!

Let's hope it has an impact.  We'll never know if we don't try.

---

These were already there..... It's federal law.

Look at anything he comes up with and ask yourself. If this was already done earlier in the year, would it have had any impact on stopping even one gun death this year.  If so which one and why?  Gun killings daily on the street in Chicago, San Bernadino, Chatanooga Marine reserve center, Charleston Church shooting?

---

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Yeah, look at everything he's  tried to do and ask yourself if it were another president would it have easily passed into law.... ?

---

No, it wouldn't have.