Gun control advocates insist that instituting universal background checks is neither a limit on the Second Amendment or an attempt to inhibit gun ownership. It is touted as “common sense gun safety measures”. Yet these same pols insisted as recently as this past November that requiring a photo ID to vote is an intentional attempt to limit the right to vote.
I’m grasping here to see how if requiring proof of identity to vote is an attempt restrict the right to vote, but requiring a background check for gun purchases is nor an attempt to restrict the right to own a gun.
Perhaps one might suggest that background checks are an effort to ensure a person who shouldn’t own doesn’t purchase one. But isn’t that the same argument supporters of voter ID made?
Regardless of the nobility of intention behind background checks, it seems a bit hypocritical when arguing that it is not an attempt to limit the right to own guns.
Sifting Reality 
Perhaps this is an opportunity for compromise.
I want some check on a person’s eligibility to vote. They want some check on a person’s eligibility to buy firearms.
I’d be for a bill that does both, as long as there’s no list collected. I think gun shop owners would be glad to destroy any paper trail between the check and the sale.
Government doesn’t need to know which candidates I vote for. Neither do they need to know which guns I buy.
My feeling on gun-control is this….
“My permit to carry, officer?”
“Yes.”
“The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
Game. Set. Cuffs. (Unfortunately.)
My feeling on the Second Amendment of the United States is:
“My permit to carry a nuke, officer?”
“Yes.”
“The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.”
“You can go on.”
“Thank you, how do I get to the Pentagon Metro Station.”
Isu
So you liken a nuclear weapon to a gun?
John,
I haven’t do so. The Second Amendment says “arms” not “guns”.
A nuke is an arm, so the right to keep and bear it is included in the 2nd Amendment.
Glad to see you’re approaching this from a reasonable position.
John,
There is no coherent reason for hard-asses on the 2nd Amendment to deny the right to keep and bear a nuke.
Glad to see you have stopped asking questions about what I haven’t done.
Two thoughts.
1. Honest liberals will admit that the background check is a limit on gun ownership. Of course it is a “reasonable” restriction, and that makes all the difference.
2. I’m not sure why I should have any fear of an normal, sane law abiding person owning ANY weapon. Including nukes.
Craig
You have a point. People are people. Governments own nukes all over the world. There has yet to be a nuclear holocaust as a result. The weapon of choice is irrelevant to a sane responsible possessor. I own guns and knives and any have yet to go on a shooting or stabbing spree. If guns are the problem, mine must be defective.
Craig,
1. The fact is that failing background check is what limits gun ownership. I have yet to see a 2nd amendment hard-ass saying that convited prisioners have the inalienable right to own and bear arms.
2. One problem is telling apart a normal and sane law abiding person from one who is not. Another problem is that normal and sane law abiding persons can be surrounded by ones who are not. If Lanza’s mother would have had a nuke, we would be talking about the Connecticut blowup instead of the Connecticut massacre.
Isu,
1. In the US convicted FELONS, (not prisoners) (a felony is a more severe class of crime such as murder. However people do serve jail/prison time for misdemeanors as well), lose several of the rights granted that other citizens have. Voting and owning guns are two of those rights. The fact is that convicted felons “have” the right to own weapons, but they forfeited that right when they were convicted. You are correct, that no one is pushing for convicted felons to regain their right to own guns.
2. You quite obviously completely missed my point. If my point had been that normal sane people need to take normal sane precautions to prevent their weapons from being taken by others, then your comment might have made sense. However, my comment was what I actually said, not what you think I should have said. If you’d like to address what I actually did say please do.
“Connecticut blowup” , seriously.
Craig,
1. That’s a limit on rights.
2. I wasn’t addressing what you actually said, but telling the problems derived from what you say.
Isu,
1. No one is arguing that it is not a limit on rights. Perhaps had you read my original comment more closely, you would have gotten my point. But, just to be sure, I’ll clarify. For all intents and purposes, NO ONE, is suggesting that there be ZERO restrictions on gun ownership in the US. The problem is that there are those on the left side of the argument who suggest that we need “reasonable restrictions”. Yet, these same folks say that it is “reasonable” to prohibit law abiding sane citizens from owning certain weapons because of their cosmetics. The problem is not whether or not there will be restrictions, but what those restrictions should be and what constitutes “reasonable”. Again, NO ONE, is seriously advocating that there be ZERO restrictions on weapons. Having said that, fully automatic weapons are legal to own in the US. They carry more restrictions than other weapons. No one is arguing that this is unreasonable. In the same vein, I have no problem (in theory) with a law abiding sane citizen owning whatever weapons they would like for whatever reason they like. Obviously (to your hypothetical), this assumes a reasonable degree of responsibility on the part of the law abiding sane owner.
2. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Actually you were “pointing out” a possible hypothetical that could result from my point. There is a difference..