Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "House Democrats Pass Background Check Bill" video.

True. There are several problems here. One, these bills don't have as much a support as Kyle claims. Similar bills were pushed in Maine and NV and in Maine the voters said no and in NV it based by 0.45% where it is not being enforced. In Illinois there was a shooting and the person who done it recently passed a background check but later on failed another one. The cops simply mailed him a letter asking him to return his guns, of course he didn't. These laws don't get enforced due to lack of man power. It is, once again, the far left feeling that all we have to do is create some magical law and these problems will all be solved and not understanding that government lacks resources to actually enforce anything.
4
Kylem , bad argument. For the most part people are good people, we have laws for those that aren't. Here is the thing on guns, restrictions on guns only harm law abiding citizens and enforcing those laws take up limited resources. The action of murder is already illegal. When you place restrictions on guns you are restricting the object when the action is already illegal. Instead of using limited resources to do these background checks we should use our resources to go after actual criminals and find a way to help people so they don't want to commit murders. This all or nothing argument from you is incredibly asinine. But on your argument on theft, yes, many people get away with it because of limited resources. When the theft is of high amounts than we take action.
4
You do as this makes it harder for law abiding citizens to buy a gun. Also, how would this law stop any of these shootings going on?
4
How would this law lower shootings?
3
@Kori114 , exactly. I can easily argue that randomly searching people's homes can drastically lower crime. Think of all the people who have been kidnapped and held captive for years that could have been saved if we just randomly search people's homes without a warrant? If you are a law abiding citizen you should have no problem allow search and seizure.
3
@bunceman4613 , background checks are, arguably, a restriction. Also, the argument that is being made is that if you are a law abiding citizen you should have no problem with this law. Essentially it is saying if you have no problem allowing the government to tell you what to do and run your life than you should have no problem with any law.
3
@theonewingedangel8680 , so you support the government randomly searching your home? What about this, do you support the government randomly stopping you on the street to search you?
3
@Halcyonix , exactly. Overall it is also saying "as long as you do what the government tells you than you should have no problem with government controlling your life.".
3
@Wigggy , how do you enforce it without a gun registry?
2
@theonewingedangel8680 , it isn't a false equivalency. The only way a cop can get a warrant is through the court through due process. Just like you can only be restrictive from guns through due process. If you are a law abiding citizen you should have no problem allowing the police to randomly search your home. What are you hiding?
2
Kyle keeps pointing to polls but recent voting results go against the polls. For example, in Maine expanded background checks were voted down and in NV it passed by only 0.45% and is essentially not being enforced.
1