I'm for universal checks

[steveh_131]

I live in the real world. There is no purple to denote sarcasm.

If you'd read my later post you'd see I said I wouldn't expect ANYONE to submit to this.
I was just pointing out how absurd the idea was if you only change the object of discussion.

Oh I see. So you're good with decriminalizing drunk driving?

 

[Jarhead77]

You've not heard that Rush was addicted to drugs?

 

[kyotekilr]

"THEY'RE" wanting to make POT legal, so don't hold yer BREATH!!!!!

Or do hold your breath and exhale with glorious smoke rings!

 

[Mgderf]

You've not heard that Rush was addicted to drugs?

I guess I forgot that renders everything he's ever said untrue.

 

[Mgderf]

Oh I see. So you're good with decriminalizing drunk driving?

Reaching a bit, aren't we?

 

[jamil]

Individual freedom? No one NEEDS liberty. If it could save just one child's life, isn't giving up all your silly individual liberties worth it? Demanding individual freedom at the expense of all the cute little kiddies, who really belong to the goverment anyway, is just selfish. Shame on you.

 

[steveh_131]

Reaching a bit, aren't we?

No, I don't think so.

Allowing someone to have a few beers and then drive may result in someone getting hurt. Therefore it must be banned.

Allowing people to sell guns without universal background checks may result in someone getting hurt. Therefore it must be banned.

Not sure I see the distinction. It would be hypocritical to support one and not the other.

 

[eldirector]

I'll go out on a limb, here, and say that I would certainly consider lifting the "ban" on OWI. This ban is hardly effective, anyway. Much like any weapons ban. It is illegal to drive drunk, and thousands of people do it every single day. A very few actually cause a problem of any kind. More get "busted" during a minor traffic stop, and the vast majority are never even noticed.

On the flip side, I would strengthen the penalties for hurting someone while "under the influence". Everyone KNOWS drinking effects you. So, intentionally getting intoxicated, and intentionally driving, and then causing a collision = intentionally trying (or succeeding) in hurting someone.

So, the same for firearms. Don't BAN anything. The bans don't work. Concentrate on the actual illegal BEHAVIOR (like trying to hurt someone) and have stiff penalties.

 

[steveh_131]

So, the same for firearms. Don't BAN anything. The bans don't work. Concentrate on the actual illegal BEHAVIOR (like trying to hurt someone) and have stiff penalties.

This ^

More effective, protects liberty. I'll take it.