So this background check is for what? Felonies? Mental health records? I suppose there's a fee associated with this? And the amount of time. And is this all guns or just certain guns. And for the ammo, is this for all types of ammo, finished rounds, or does it include the raw material components as well?
And then just to say this, do you think that we should have background checks for Freedom of Religion issues? How about Freedom of Speech stuff? Those rights are as articulated as the right to have a gun.
Ok, so define "violent". Does someone have to get hurt, or can they just have a weapon while in commission of the crime? What if someone is the accomplice, but they don't have a weapon? Does it have to be an actual weapon, or something that could be a weapon (a picked up rock, for instance).
And then to bring it up again, once a felon has served their time, they still retain their freedom of religion/speech/etc....
Ok...so this would do what exactly? How would this be anything but unnecessary paperwork?
As alluded to before, should we also register everyone who wants to exercise their free speech, religion, and press? What's involved in this registry? I fill out more paperwork, pay a fee (?) and then I get my Constitutional rights? And then what does this registry actually serve? It would essentially be a very big list of a pretty big section of America. What if you weren't on that list? Is that a crime? That I didn't register for my Constitutional right?
So we've kinda covered this one before....or something akin to it. Keep in mind that I live in California, which is pretty hard core about gun laws...not that they make a huge difference.
Now this one I'll certainly jump on board with. At my heart, I'm a scientist. Collecting data is second nature.
1) Felonies, mental health etc. And yes, all guns, all bullets. (Don't come up with the nerf gun argument)
2) So people in prison should be allowed to have guns? Children? Lots of states already do this, the constitution doesn't protect your right to have a gun in all circumstances.
3) This one is simple, and implemented in several states already. There's no debate about what constitutes a violent crime in the US (well, there is the argument that it doesn't go far enough like Canada's does). If someone has committed a violent crime they shouldn't be allowed to access a gun.
4) It allows the government to track guns that have been lost and stolen in the same way states track cars.
5) This has been covered by the supreme court, it's constitutional to put constraints on gun ownership.
I'm Israel, he's Palestine, its more fun when you pick sides.