So, we have to remove our shoes, not carry liquids onto a plane, and submit to full body scans all..

[Yavin4]

in response to 9/11, not to mention other intrusions into our privacy.

But submitting a gun buyer to background checks represents the most egregious affront to our constitutional liberties tantamount to slapping Thomas Jefferson in the face.

[maxsolomon]

1. Who says that?

Background checks are generally accepted by Gundamentalists. Closing the Private Seller and Gun Show Loopholes, however...

[Yavin4]

2. The NRA. That's who. n/t

[maxsolomon]

3. They basically oppose "Universal" background checks.

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-NRA-opposed-to-background-checks

The loopholes, as I said.

Fuck them.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. The concepts of "arms" and "militia" have changed a lot since 1791...

I have no idea if the framers meant to include cannon, rockets, and naval mines in the 2nd amendment, but since they are not excluded, it's assumed they would be allowed.

Curiously, even the most extreme gun rights people have not demanded the right to own modern combat arms. I have seen no push to legalize personal ownership of modern rockets, land mines, machine guns, or artillery pieces.

Could I put a bomb bay in a Gulfstream? Torpedo tubes on a Chris Craft?

[Hekate]

5. This may sound dumb, because I don't really try to keep up, but years ago I read about surplus...

You know, military surplus. Some weird shit (if you'll pardon the expression) was mentioned as having been available for purchase by civilians. Rocket launchers or grenade launchers, that kind of thing. It was jaw-dropping to think of old military hardware floating around loose among our population of sovereign citizens and the like.

>sigh< I'm not mean: I'd be perfectly happy to let them all have single-shot flintlocks circa 1790. I've mentioned that before, only to have someone pick apart my terminology in painstaking detail.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. The military does have provisions for selling surplus, but...

they usually try to make sure that weaponry would be disabled.

Was a guy back in the 60's who bought a few hundred WWII surplus tanks. Before he could take delivery, they made sure to do a serious background check and disable all the guns. He was going to set up some kind of tank museum, he said. The Pentagon was glad to get rid of them, but wanted to make sure he wasn't planning a revolution.

This is not to say that there haven't been mistakes or black markets. I vaguely remember a surplus lot that was sold and nobody noticed there were poisons in the crates until the buyer asked "What's this?"

And stuff is stolen all the time. I don't know how it is now, but when I was in, security was quite variable. "Souvenirs" don't come only from the battlefield.

[IronLionZion]

7. "shall not be infringed"

I wish the founders had written an amendment against unreasonable search and seizure, while flying. (4th amendment)

Or something about US citizens don't have to be white. (14th amendment)

But yeah, let's go all in on the 2nd amendment and ignore the rest of them.

[The Bopper]

8. Unlimited

Boggles the mind these people think the right to kill 50 people and wound 500 in LESS THAN 10 minutes as the Las Vegas shooter did is a fundamental right.

[LittleGirl]

9. Yup,

Why I hate flying anymore.

[Auggie]

10. "We" don't have a lobby that is powerful, wealthy, or engaged enough ...

and ...

guns, like abortion, immigration, and religion, is an issue the 1% uses to polarize the nation (and distract us from their fascist takeover attempts of democracy).

[cwydro]

11. Spot on.

Rec.

[OMGWTF]

12. Thankfully the Underwear Bomber failed or else ...

[lunatica]

13. Ya know...

That’s a mighty good way of putting it. You cut right thru all the complexities and arrived at the very core of what the situation actually is.