State Senator/Attorney Justin Jones kicked off a campaign to get universal background checks on gun sales before the public in a 2016 ballot initiative. [RJ]
The Cordish Cos., the company hired by the City of Las Vegas to help get it a stadium, is the subject of racial discrimination lawsuits and complaints in three states. Of course, this news was a surprise to the Mayor and City Council. Since Cordish wants public funding, will this affect Las Vegas’ chance at getting a Major League Soccer team and stadium? [RJ]
The State Transportation Board decided to go forward with the bond/design-build version of Project Neon to expand I15 between Sahara and the Spaghetti Bowl. [8NewsNow]
Judge Carolyn Ellsworth closed the battery case against Flavor Flav after he completed a required domestic violence counseling course. [Las Vegas Sun]
Because, for the most part, the people liberal nut jobs want to keep away from guns, are not going through the channels where a background check would be done. This means you have good honest citizens unnecessarily being subjected to a governmental background check. In other words, we hate background checks because constitution.
So 10:27 makes an incomplete argument or a typo that results in an incomplete thought, and 10:41 is the idiot (not 10:41 here BTW) because he/she points it out. Then, to support 10:27's incomplete thought/argument, we are supposed to rely on the incredibly lazy "because reasons," which just gives someone a pass that cannot really articulate his/her position?
Simply saying a certain group hates something because of the Constitution does not make sense. In this context, the Constitution does not say anything about background checks, so I think 10:27 should clarify his/her point.
I do not care if 10:41 was making fun of 10:27. Without more information, 10:27's comment is stupid. Try and use 10:27's argument in court and watch everyone (including the bailiff who is just counting the minutes until he gets to go home) laugh.
10:27 made a complete argument, but summed it up as "because constitution." 10:41's statement was obviously in agreement with 10:27.
The point is that background checks needlessly hamper the 2nd amendment rights of citizens in an effort that is easily circumvented by people who don't obey laws in the first place. Although background checks make it slightly more difficult for a criminal to get a gun, what is really does is force people to incur additional costs and bureaucracy.
Then, you have the issue of what standard of review would be applied to this kind of law. It hardly passes muster if you apply strict scrutiny or a lesser level. Anyway, it is not clear cut that these type of background checks are constitutional.
So basically a criminal conviction, even domestic battery, shouldn't impair your ability to purchase a firearm by way of a background because of the Second Amendment. Got it.
Theoretically, under the same guise, a background check should not be necessary for people to obtain CCWs. Second Amendment!
Yep: "we hate background checks because constitution".
Guest
Anonymous
August 19, 2014 9:16 pm
Answering 10:12 – It is because those laws on the books have done nothing to deter the criminals that have guns. Check the laws broken by the Sandy Hook Shooter, Virginia Tech, Columbine, or your "mundane" hood shootings on a daily basis. Each and every one of them violate a laundry list of crimes, yet not a single one of them stopped those shootings. Heck, Dem's admitted that not a single one of the proposed "gun control" measures they suggested in response the Sandy Hook shooter would have stopped it. Justin Jones failed legislation was modeled after those admittedly ineffective measures. Why would he propose measures "in response" to the shooting that would have done nothing to stop it? Seems like political opportunism to make gun ownership more burdensome with no discernible benefit.
I thought he was at ESPN and had a ponytail.
Why do right wing nuts hate background checks for firearms sales? Seriously…someone explain why this is even an issue.
Because, for the most part, the people liberal nut jobs want to keep away from guns, are not going through the channels where a background check would be done. This means you have good honest citizens unnecessarily being subjected to a governmental background check. In other words, we hate background checks because constitution.
I think "we hate background checks because constitution" says it all.
^^^ your takeaway from 10:27's comment was that he must be stupid because of a simple mistype. WOW!
Pretty sure it wasn't a typo and pretty sure he wasn't making fun of him. Have you ever hear of "because ___________"?
10:48, do you even Internet?
So 10:27 makes an incomplete argument or a typo that results in an incomplete thought, and 10:41 is the idiot (not 10:41 here BTW) because he/she points it out. Then, to support 10:27's incomplete thought/argument, we are supposed to rely on the incredibly lazy "because reasons," which just gives someone a pass that cannot really articulate his/her position?
Simply saying a certain group hates something because of the Constitution does not make sense. In this context, the Constitution does not say anything about background checks, so I think 10:27 should clarify his/her point.
I do not care if 10:41 was making fun of 10:27. Without more information, 10:27's comment is stupid. Try and use 10:27's argument in court and watch everyone (including the bailiff who is just counting the minutes until he gets to go home) laugh.
10:27 made a complete argument, but summed it up as "because constitution." 10:41's statement was obviously in agreement with 10:27.
The point is that background checks needlessly hamper the 2nd amendment rights of citizens in an effort that is easily circumvented by people who don't obey laws in the first place. Although background checks make it slightly more difficult for a criminal to get a gun, what is really does is force people to incur additional costs and bureaucracy.
Then, you have the issue of what standard of review would be applied to this kind of law. It hardly passes muster if you apply strict scrutiny or a lesser level. Anyway, it is not clear cut that these type of background checks are constitutional.
Your argument actually makes sense. Thanks for the response.
So basically a criminal conviction, even domestic battery, shouldn't impair your ability to purchase a firearm by way of a background because of the Second Amendment. Got it.
Theoretically, under the same guise, a background check should not be necessary for people to obtain CCWs. Second Amendment!
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Yep: "we hate background checks because constitution".
Answering 10:12 – It is because those laws on the books have done nothing to deter the criminals that have guns. Check the laws broken by the Sandy Hook Shooter, Virginia Tech, Columbine, or your "mundane" hood shootings on a daily basis. Each and every one of them violate a laundry list of crimes, yet not a single one of them stopped those shootings. Heck, Dem's admitted that not a single one of the proposed "gun control" measures they suggested in response the Sandy Hook shooter would have stopped it. Justin Jones failed legislation was modeled after those admittedly ineffective measures. Why would he propose measures "in response" to the shooting that would have done nothing to stop it? Seems like political opportunism to make gun ownership more burdensome with no discernible benefit.
So your argument is that "criminals will buy guns illegally, so we should make it easier for everyone to get one." Got it.