Quote:
Originally Posted by miami_fan
If we take away the means to determine if weapons are legally acquired or not, it makes no difference if you are under suspicion or not. If there is no way to determine if it was legally acquired or not, there is no distinction between legal or illegal gun purchase as far as I can tell.
|
I don't agree with your premise. The means to determine if a weapon are legally acquired or not still exists, it has not been removed/taken away.
Using Politifact metrics, for at least 78-87% it is relatively easy as the background check exist. For the other 13-22%, it is more difficult. It is not instantaneous (e.g. cop calling it in after a car was stopped) but it can still be done for some of the 13-22%.
Quote:
|
If we have decided that we either can not make that determination without infringing on the 2nd amendment or we no longer have any interest in making that determination for whatever reason, it is what it is. I just don't see a legitimate reason to attempt to make the distinction at this point.
|
I assume you are referring the NRA as believing background checks infringe on the 2nd amendment? (can't think of anyone else that may believe background checks infringes)
I'm not a card carrying NRA and don't bother studying their materials. But from what I remember, the NRA supports background check but does not support expanded background checks. So they are happy with status quo (e.g. gun show and family/friend transfer) and the 13-22% that gets to buy/sell/transfer weapons without a background check.