DanG

Sounds great. It should be required of all transfers. It should also be free, IMO, paid for by general taxes. The background check should not have any connection to the firearm. It should merely sate whether or not Joe Blow is allowed to possess a firearm. There shouldn't be any tracability to the gun, or to the seller. - Dan G

I have no idea what you are trying to say. To clarify my position, I think background checks should be extended to cover all gun transfers. It should be free, paid for by general taxes. I also think it is okay to require ID for voting, but that ID must not only be free, but must be easily and cheaply obtainable. What constitutes ID for voting purposes should be very broadly defined. Those states and localities that require a specific type of ID, only obtainable at certain DMVs at certain hours, are clearly trying to prevent people from being able to vote. - Dan G

I didn't say his post was factual. I said that I think part of his point is that private sales of guns are not controlled by the government. That is one way a criminal or terrorist can obtain a gun without the authorities being alerted. As I'm sure you know, many people wish to make background checks required for all gun transfers. To the voting question, I believe the OP's point was the GOP is trying to make voting more difficult for many citizens, while making sure purchasing guns remains very simple. I never said that I agree with his points, just clarifying what I thought his points were. - Dan G

Yep. Growing every day. I'm really not sure why I come here anymore. - Dan G

I think that's his point. - Dan G

I'm so glad you've joined the forum. You've really brought the level of discourse up a notch. And thank you for quickly identifying yourself as someone who's responses are not worth my time to read. Good luck with your trolling! - Dan G

Your logic is severely flawed. Either way, if he is killing the bag guys, good for him. That's what war is. I'm surprised he'd take offense at any implication that he may have killed some enemy soldiers. - Dan G

Huh, I was under the impression you had served. Was I wrong? Soldiers in a war zone absolutely have the right to kill the enemy. This is true whether or not they are on a mission. - Dan G

Never said he was killing. But if he was, and he was killing the right people, he'd be hailed as a hero, not a mass murderer. Because he's a soldier in a war zone, his rights and responibilities are different than a civilian back home. That was all I was trying to point out. For the children. - Dan G

Me too. But your rights change when you put on the uniform. Your free speech rights get limited, but your rights in terms of weapons and their uses gets expanded. I didn't say you are killing with impunity. I said that as a soldier you have different rights regarding the use of force in a combat zone. If you engage the enemy and kill him, you are well within your rights. There are special treaties with host countries that grant you different rights than civilians. Your argument is that you shouldn't have those rights. If you lose those rights, many soldiers who successfully engage the enemy (especially when they are not in imminent danger) should expect to be taken up on murder charges. Different peeople have different rights. I simply can't believe you don't understand that. - Dan G

As a soldier in the US military, you have been granted the right to travel to war zones and kill people without prosecution. "Regular" citizens don't have that right. Are you saying that you shouldn't have that right, or that any American should be able to go to Afghanistan and kill people with impunity? - Dan G

Exactly why the government is never going to take all our guns. The goverment is made of people, and most people, like you, know confiscating guns is against the Constitution. Evil Obama can make all the proclaimations he wants. He needs the rest of the government, mainly the police and military, to execute them. As long as most people in the government still believe in the rule of law, our guns are safe. That's why the government is kept in check, not becase private citizens are armed, but because citizens who get a paycheck from the government are essentially no different from those who get their paycheck elsewhere. - Dan G

Bill, I'm not sure why I have have to keep explaining this, but here it goes again: If it was bad, it was Obama's fault. If it was good, it only happened because Obama lacks the leadership ability to prevent it. - Dan G

So you're one of those soldiers who would follow orders to confiscate all citizens' guns? - Dan G

I disagree with those laws, but they are not the same as limiting firearms to muskets that throw bullets no faster than you can throw them yourself. I understand you were trying to use hyperbole, but overuse of hyperbole just makes you look like a radical. - Dan G

If you're sure some articulable rights have been removed, how about you articulate some? Would you say that changes to laws have been worse for your rights under Obama than previous presidents? - Dan G

It can be hard to tell the car is running with some small engine cars when the car is on a noisy street. At home in your garage where carbon monoxide becomes an issue? Not so much. - Dan G

Yes, there have been regulations. I disagree with most of them. No one has proposed anything like what jgoose71 has written. - Dan G

I've tried to explain this to people here before and gotten violent opposition. On the other hand, even rights enumerated in the Constitution are not without limitations. As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. So what rights do you think evil Obama has taken away from you? The list must be long. - Dan G

Which has been proposed by nobody in any position of authority. Nice fear tactic, though. The gun manufacturers thank you. - Dan G

Dude, you work for the government. Are you not a good person? - Dan G

It won't come to that because the Constitution guarantees your right to own a gun, and no one in power is actually trying to take it away. - Dan G

Auto-off (pun?) feature would suck. Now that it is cold, I get in my car, hit the start button, turn on the defrosters, and then get out of the car to scrape the windows. If the car shut off I would not like that feature. As it is, the car beeeps at me if I leave the driver's seat with the engine running. I'm not sure I buy this lawsuit's premise. With a gasoline engine car, how can you not tell that the engine is running in your garage? Modern cars are quiet, but not that quiet. Hybrids, on the other hand, maybe. I left my Prius on all night one time. - Dan G

Right, which is why I said the only thing stopping government overreach is the fact that most people in the government, including but not limited to the police and military, believe in the rule of law. Your gun isn't keeping the government in check. The good people who compose the government are doing that all by themselves. - Dan G

Because Jesus didn't go to law school, either. - Dan G