Perhaps the NRA and gun-ban opponents will kill themselves off

No, I wouldn't mind because I don't fly into paranoid hysterics when the word "Government" is thrown around.

Can't yell "Fire" in a theatre; libel; profanity on TV etc.

I understand nuance and I understand things are different on a case by case basis.

In other words, I'm an adult.

 

Because what does "extensive" mean?

Does it mean -- anyone who has had a felony can't buy a gun? Fine.

Does it mean -- anyone who has an arrest on his record at all can't? Bullshit.

Does it mean -- anyone who has ever taken an anti-depressant can't buy a gun? Bullshit.

How far does it go - and that's the problem.

There is no need for long waiting periods or extensive background checks -- none at all -- you either have a felony on your record or you can buy a gun.

The only background check that should be legal and is necessary is this:

"Ever been convicted of a felony?"

If the answer is no, buy the gun.

That's middle ground.

 

So the shooter at Virginia Tech, who didn't have a felony conviction but had a history of mental illness, should have been allowed to buy a gun?

Interesting theory.

 

Simon, I understand your overall point and I'm probably closer to your side of the discussion than Zag's, but the thread title really is in poor taste and it only distracts from your argument.

 

I see, so you have no problem with some of the infringements on our civil rights under the guise of "war on terror" we've endured over the past six years?

And you probably have no problem with the ten commandments on a wall of a court room or the word God on money or a courthouse with a manger scene either, because, you know, you don't fly in to paranoid hysterics......

How about pornography? Or strip clubs? Or sex shops?

There is no legitimate reason, that I can see, that these things are helpful and given the clear link between porn addiction and everything from broken homes to creating serial killers -- I suppose you'd be OK with the government stepping in and legislating what is porn and what is not? Right?

Again, it is real easy to dismiss "slippery slope" arguments when they are being made by someone from the other side of the aisle.

But this is America, a big tent of tolerance, or so we are told, and that means one side doesn't always get to dictate when the slippery slope argument is proper and when it is not.

 

Again, I defer to Zag on the gun issue, considering he lived in a neighborhood with AK-47 toting teenagers.

Unless of course that was a lie. But he wouldn't lie. I mean, there's no reason to question his honesty.

 

As always, thanks for proving my point.

 

Again, how do you determine what a history of mental illness is?

Does a 30-year old guy who, when he was 19 years old failed out of college, had his mother die and his girlfriend dump him at his lowest point and thus went to get treatment for depression - get excluded?

How about the 35-year old mother of three who went through a very painful divorce and took antidepressants to get through it -- how about her?

And the same goes for so-called restraining orders and PFA's -- there is no way to determine which of them are legitimate and which of them are for revenge purposes, particularly in a divorce proceeding.

Those are legitimate circumstances and those, unfortunately could not be dealt with by a law which would be sweeping and universal and take guns out of the hands of far more people who are not a threat to use them than the law would be intended to.

And if you tried to make exceptions, there'd be so many loopholes that the law would be rendered meaningless and just another expensive layer of bureaucracy.

 

Your point being that you have no problem deciding which issues the "slippery slope" argument is OK to use and which ones you think amount to paranoid hysteria - and thus you are a hypocrite?

You're welcome but unfortunately for you it was as easy as shooting fish in a barrell.

 

You don't unilaterally get to decide where the middle ground is located.

An extensive FBI background check is required for anybody purchasing Class III weapons. You're required to provide two sets of fingerprints and a recent photo. It's been on the books for more than 70 years.

What would be wrong with expanding that to cover weapons not covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934?

 

Again, the question still remains because it hasn't been answered -- what, if found in a background check, is going to preclude an ordinary citizen from buying a gun?

I don't give a shit how much background checking you do -- what stuff, if it turns up, in your world, at least, will make it so a person cannot purchase a gun?

Is it just criminal record? Is it something more vague? Is it mental health issues?

 

Obviously felonies.

I'd even be in favor misdemeanors and restraining orders ... provided they happened within a certain window of time. For example, a judge grants your ex a restraining order or you get cited in a road rage incident. So for the next, let's say, year, you can't buy a new pistol. Once you've passed that probationary period, it no longer keeps you from making purchases.

If you've had a mental health issue, I'd be OK with requiring a doctor to sign off that you're no longer suffering from the affliction.