I guess my problem is that when you say you favor increased background checks (or any other measure for that matter) than you ARE in favor of limiting the extent of the 2nd Amendment. So when you object to any particular action solely on the grounds that it will "limit the 2nd amendment" without giving any other reason, it sounds as though you don't think there should be any limits whatsoever.
When you (as you state) DO favor limits on the 2nd amendment (or to put it more specifically, limits on the extent of the rights granted under the second amendment) than it seems there should be specific reasons to object to specific restrictions, such as: it would not be effective, it would be too much of a hardship on gun owners, it would be too difficult to enforce etc etc etc. But just saying "it's wrong because it limits the 2nd amendment" isn't really a reason at all.
Then again, maybe those reasons have already been stated and I've missed it. There's an awful lot of extraneous verbiage in this thread, and my reading skills aren't quite up to the challenge of slogging through it all.
Moe I see this post as the first reasonable attempt at discusion on this topic in the last 20 pages so I am more than willing to answer.
When I talk about increased background checks I am specifically refering to linking medical and criminal records to background checks. That will go farther to prevent the mentally unstable and criminally violent from purchasing weapons. I have no problem proving that I am not some violent, wacko nutjob when I buy a weapon.
However I do have a problem with rights and/or services being taken from me because someone else decided to break the law. In this very thread, by those most familiar with guns such as gameface, it has been explained why a ban or limit on clip and mag sizes will have no affect on gun crimes.
Take the assault weapons ban for example. Part of that legislation makes a rifle illegal if it has certain cosmetic features. Such as certain stocks and hand grips. The rifle still shoots the same as it did before. It does not shoot bigger shells at a faster rate. Moronically stupid idea.
Take the AR-15. It shoots a .223 bullet. That is an extremely popular bullet used by many different hunting rifles. The AR-15 is not an automatic so it cannot shoot faster than the other rifles. So why is there an attempt to ban it, by name, when others are excluded, by name? Makes no sense.
It all boils down to some one thinks I should not own it and that does not work for me. The Vice President himself is on record as saying that his proposed measures would not stop the shootings that happened.
So if the goal is to prevent those shootings and they have stated that these measures proposed will not...than why pass it?
I am for some reasonable laws:
- I think you should be required to show a working knowledge of a firearm before you can conceal carry.
- Making CC permits valid nationwide, so there should be one standard.
- More inclusive, criminal and mental health records, background checks.
- A fine for having a weapon that was stolen used in a crime when you did not report it stolen.
So to quote Uncle Ben "With great power comes great responsibility". I agree with that.
