Current Events > Fingerprinting gun owners approved by Illinois lawmakers

(+) Yeah! (+)

because the gun laws works in Chicago

BandofMedz posted...

because the gun laws works in Chicago

Laws exist and yet people still break them, so should all laws stop existing? Not saying this is going to do much, since most people who want to kill will find a way, still better than nothing.
---

You get fingerprinted for getting caught with a small amount of cannabis. I wonder if a plant or a gun is more dangerous.
---

LightHawKnight posted...

BandofMedz posted...

because the gun laws works in Chicago

Laws exist and yet people still break them, so should all laws stop existing? Not saying this is going to do much, since most people who want to kill will find a way, still better than nothing.

Laws should mainly exist to give the state authority to punish those and only those that do wrong, not make life more difficult for everyone because of a few bad apples. Laws against murder are good. Laws increasing penalties for using a gun during the commission of a crime are good. Laws increasing the number of hoops one must jump through just to exercise their 2nd amendment right just because the state failed to do their due diligence in preventing the wrong people from buying a gun are not.
---

Good, this will help keep all those legal and registered gun owners accountable for all of the people they kill every year..... o wait

Paragon21XX posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

BandofMedz posted...

because the gun laws works in Chicago

Laws exist and yet people still break them, so should all laws stop existing? Not saying this is going to do much, since most people who want to kill will find a way, still better than nothing.

Laws should mainly exist to give the state authority to punish those and only those that do wrong, not make life more difficult for everyone because of a few bad apples. Laws against murder are good. Laws increasing penalties for using a gun during the commission of a crime are good. Laws increasing the number of hoops one must jump through just to exercise their 2nd amendment right just because the state failed to do their due diligence in preventing the wrong people from buying a gun are not.

Aint preventing the wrong people from buying a gun against the 2nd amendment?
---

Foppe posted...

Paragon21XX posted...

LightHawKnight posted...

BandofMedz posted...

because the gun laws works in Chicago

Laws exist and yet people still break them, so should all laws stop existing? Not saying this is going to do much, since most people who want to kill will find a way, still better than nothing.

Laws should mainly exist to give the state authority to punish those and only those that do wrong, not make life more difficult for everyone because of a few bad apples. Laws against murder are good. Laws increasing penalties for using a gun during the commission of a crime are good. Laws increasing the number of hoops one must jump through just to exercise their 2nd amendment right just because the state failed to do their due diligence in preventing the wrong people from buying a gun are not.

Aint preventing the wrong people from buying a gun against the 2nd amendment?

Supreme Court has already ruled that such restrictions can be constitutional. It is what it is until they rule differently.
---

Foppe posted...

Aint preventing the wrong people from buying a gun against the 2nd amendment?

2nd amendment states "keep and bear arms" - there's no explicit mention of a right to acquire.

I dont get it...
It is alright to prevent the wrong people from getting bear arms as long as they are not trying to make it harder for the same group of wrong people to get bear arms.
---

Foppe posted...

I dont get it...
It is alright to prevent the wrong people from getting bear arms as long as they are not trying to make it harder for the same group of wrong people to get bear arms.

You may want to try thinking again.
---

Foppe posted...

I dont get it...
It is alright to prevent the wrong people from getting bear arms as long as they are not trying to make it harder for the same group of wrong people to get bear arms.

Close.
It's alright to prevent the wrong people from getting bear arms, but it's going too far to insist everyone ("wrong people" or not) who already has bear arms sign up for some bear-arms list and pay a bear-arms fee.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Foppe posted...

I dont get it...
It is alright to prevent the wrong people from getting bear arms as long as they are not trying to make it harder for the same group of wrong people to get bear arms.

Close.
It's alright to prevent the wrong people from getting bear arms, but it's going too far to insist everyone ("wrong people" or not) who already has bear arms sign up for some bear-arms list and pay a bear-arms fee.

But if the "wrong people" are already prevented from getting bear-arms, then why do they still have them?
---

Foppe posted...

But if the "wrong people" are already prevented from getting bear-arms, then why do they still have them?

Because, criminals don't obey the law. It's really that simple.

Which brings us back to, what will this law actually accomplish? Do we really expect a criminal with a questionably-obtained weapon to show up and pay the ten dollars?

Questionmarktarius posted...

Foppe posted...

But if the "wrong people" are already prevented from getting bear-arms, then why do they still have them?

Because, criminals don't obey the law. It's really that simple.

Which brings us back to, what will this law actually accomplish? Do we really expect a criminal with a questionably-obtained weapon to show up and pay the ten dollars?

But this criminal wouldnt have been able to get this gun with this law...
---

Foppe posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Foppe posted...

But if the "wrong people" are already prevented from getting bear-arms, then why do they still have them?

Because, criminals don't obey the law. It's really that simple.

Which brings us back to, what will this law actually accomplish? Do we really expect a criminal with a questionably-obtained weapon to show up and pay the ten dollars?

But this criminal wouldnt have been able to get this gun with this law...

Considering his prior felony conviction was not reported by the NICS background check system, I highly doubt that.
---

Foppe posted...

But this criminal wouldnt have been able to get this gun with this law...

There's more guns than people in the US. He'll find a way.

Criminals wont follow the law so we shouldnt have the law is the dumbest logic this board tries to force sometimes. Yes, some criminals wont follow the law, that doesnt mean its a bad thing to make it harder on them with things like this. I mean by that logic why even do background checks?
---

VipaGTS posted...

Criminals wont follow the law so we shouldnt have the law is the dumbest logic this board tries to force sometimes. Yes, some criminals wont follow the law, that doesnt mean its a bad thing to make it harder on them with things like this. I mean by that logic why even do background checks?

LOL by definition the law must be broken to become a criminal so you're not making much sense here. There is no some. The point is it won't make it harder and only burden law abiding citizens, with a money grab to boot.
---

If people consider $4 a year a huge money grab, you're going to be in for a real surprise once you get a job and start paying taxes

I don't know how the FOID card law was passed in the first place. You have to have a government issued card to exercise your constitutional right of owning a gun or ammunition? This isn't for carrying a gun, this is just for right to own one.

Fingerprinting is being touted as a preventive measure, when in reality it's not used for that at all. First off, you have the issue of literally creating a database of gunowners. Secondly, I think people have an unrealistic assumption of how a fingerprint is checked. It's not electronic and it won't be done by vendors that sell guns. It's done by trained police officers with the actual pictures of fingerprints.

The problem isn't that the person wasn't fingerprinted, and the problem isn't that the FOID cards are too cheap and issued for too long of a period. The problem is, when this guy committed a felony, the Illinois government failed to revoke his FOID card. It should have been surrendered immediately, but due to ineptitude on a very basic level, that wasn't the case. This is a tax on gun owners, masked as a guise for public safety. Money is the sole objective.
---

VipaGTS posted...

Criminals wont follow the law so we shouldnt have the law is the dumbest logic this board tries to force sometimes. Yes, some criminals wont follow the law, that doesnt mean its a bad thing to make it harder on them with things like this. I mean by that logic why even do background checks?

"This law won't accomplish a goddamn thing against the people it intends to punish" is the logic.

It's already illegal for a felon to have a firearm. All this law would do is coerce and/or punish not-felons.