USA should have more restrictions on guns

argument, hard to enforce private background checks. still, it can be done, all one has to do is bring the gun to some place to ensure a background check. same way cars are transferred. to help pay for this enterprise, they can charge a nominal fee, just like with car sales. would it always be worth enforcing? maybe not, but that doesn't mean we dont have laws and enforce it some times. just like marijuana sales and how lax yet sometimes not they are about it. and on that point, should we just get rid of all drug laws just because people won't always follow them, no of course not. perhaps you might be against most drug laws for libertarian purposes, but the point remains that you can't just argue it won't make any difference when it would make some difference. it would all make a difference. i'm not really sure what you want me to say about the background check points. all you really said was that it's hard to belive so many people support it, and question the validity. but you seem to be familiar with it, and it's very well established. just type ninety percent background checks into google, and tons of reputable websites report it. 74% of NRA member support background checks, check that out while you're at it. it's not hard to believe about background checks, cause they don't really cause much of any hindrances aside from mere inconvenience. it might seem like it is controversial, but that's only because of the way the media reports stuff. they make people think there's division here there's not. they even make people who don't think for themselves adhere to whatever issue they're suppose to, like 'im republican so i must follow all republican gun talking points'. even ronald reagan was against assault rifles being legal and stuff like that.... just a show of what it was really like before media partisianship, and what 'common sense' used to be. and to a big extent still is. the washington post and yahoo news were top google hits. here's another. http://www.politifact.com... a total ban is not the only way to make some difference. i agree the political support isn't there for a total ban. but it's just common sense and statistical that if you don't have a gun when you'd commit a crime, the crime might not be committed. and that not all people are black hoodies who will stop at nothing to get a gun, thus not having a gun hwen a crime would be committed prevents the crime. i agree that guns are at least legally rights, and cars are treated differently, but that doesn't mean we can't treat them the same, all the legality aside. your point is more just good to note but doesn't change anything about the fundamental policies that we're trying to determine and talk about. plus if you wanted to argue driving is a right, you could. it's only legislatively created and not constitutional, but it's still debatealy very similar. and guns are similar to something that could be driven on the roads, because they can be used to kill people.... more so than most weopons. that's what they are designed for. and it's not just hunting, and it wouldnt matter if it was. handguns aren't primaril made for shooting a moose, for example. we're not trying to stop most people from having guns, just making it all more tranparent and preventing some from getting them as easy or at all. yes the second amendment is designed for protection against the government. but that doesn't prevent you from having a gun if we just have more checks, so you are still protected. it's still your right. and that was then that the concern was so real for guns, and this is now where it's not that huge of a concern.... which means we focus on the real world now reality of murders, instead of far fetched future concerns of government take over. maybe we shouldnt get rid of guns for this reason, but it doesn't mean we cant have more checks etc. so all you've basically said was 'yes but it was designed for protection against the government' and haven't really established how that changes anything.