Why I have NO problem with background checks...

[StrikeFire83]

Okay, now I understand that "creeping incrementalism" is a tool of the trade for the gun banners. I understand that calls for “responsible ownership within the bounds of law” will quickly turn to “BAN EM ALL” as soon as they start winning victories again.

That said, I have NO PROBLEM with background checks for gun purchases! There, I said it. I don’t lose any sleep over that fact that VIOLENT felons, child abusers, etc cannot easily obtain legal firearms.

Now before you accuse me of being a traitor, remember that I’m a CCW holder and owner of pistols and firm believer in the 2nd Amendment.

Things I do not support.

1) Waiting period.
2) Any kind of AWB
3) Any kind of “sporting clause”
4) The 1934 machine gun ban.
5) Pretty much all the others.

I believe that if you are a non-felon CITIZEN of the United States there should be ZERO restrictions to your ability to own firearms.

That said, background checks are fine with me.

 

[Zundfolge]

So during times of national crisis when the Fed.Gov shuts down the NICS thus preventing people from buying guns when they really need them you see no problem with that?

All background checks do is prevent criminals and crazy people from paying inflated prices for guns at gun shops ... instead they get their guns from the trunks of illegal gun dealers' cars (and usually at a better price).


I'm glad background checks meet with your approval though ... we were all worried that YOU might be offended

 

[El Tejon]

Does ZERO restrictions include prior restraint?

Why is prior restraint illegal under the First Amendment but something you support for the Second Amendment?

Why am I presumed guilty in order to exercise a Constitutional right?

Should there be background checks for books, movies and the Internet?

 

[General Geoff]

The term "felon" here disturbs me. The way it should work is thus:

If you are literally a felon, and are a fugitive from justice (after being convicted of a felony), you should be in jail, and thusly any background check performed on said person should result in their summary arrest.

A person who committed a felony in the past, and has served their time/debt to society, should NOT have their second amendment rights abridged just because of a mistake they made in the past. Granted, this goes on the assumption that people are actually rehabilitated after a jail sentence.

 

[Zundfolge]

The term "felon" here disturbs me.

Same here, but for different reasons.

There are a TON of very minor offenses (things that aren't even "wrong" or "evil") that can get you convicted of a felony ... hell, I own a carbine kit for my Steyr M40 ... if I just assemble the damn thing in the wrong order I've committed a felony.

 

[Zero_DgZ]

But they very frequently are not.

However, I agree that this is not a problem we have to punish the guns for, but the repeat criminals and the socioeconomic system that creates them, not to mention the "rehabilitation" system that doesn't do any actual rehabilitating at all - just hardening into better criminals.

The problem is that the career politicians are attacking the problem from the wrong end. Instead of picking at guns and gun laws they should be picking at the judicial and prison systems.

 

[tcgeol]

A background check allows the government to gain information on me that is none of anyones business and makes it possible to keep an unofficial registration without using the term. Therefore, I am not okay with a background check.

We all know how criminals will only buy a gun through proper channels, anyway.

 

[Zundfolge]

The problem is that the career politicians are attacking the problem from the wrong end.

True ... to quote Marx (Groucho, not Karl);

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it and then misapplying the wrong remedies.”

 

[duckslayer]

A person who committed a felony in the past, and has served their time/debt to society, should NOT have their second amendment rights abridged just because of a mistake they made in the past.

I strongly disagree with the premise of "If you are let out of jail, then you are no longer a danger and you can get all of your rights back."

It is unrealistic to think that we can afford to keep all those people in jail for the rest of their lives. Although there should be a legitimate process to have rights restored (because realistically there are probably too many things that are felonies), just because they let a felon out of jail doesn't mean they should get to go back to the way things were. They made their choice to do whatever they did to infringe other people's rights, they should have to live with the consequences.

 

[StrikeFire83]

So during times of national crisis when the Fed.Gov shuts down the NICS thus preventing people from buying guns when they really need them you see no problem with that?

Yes, because your local gunshop owner is going to open his doors to hoards of "paying" customers during a national crisis or Katrina-like situation. Who's living in fantasy land here?

All background checks do is prevent criminals and crazy people from paying inflated prices for guns at gun shops ... instead they get their guns from the trunks of illegal gun dealers' cars (and usually at a better price).

I don't care where criminals buy their firearms or what prices they pay, just so long as their acquisition is from a source that cannot be linked to LEGAL, LAW-ABIDING gun owners and thusly their actions cannot be conflated with simple gun ownership.

As for my personal approval, I was simply stating an opinion. Perhaps a reaction to some of the tin-foil plated rhetoric streaming around on this board.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Any restriction is one too many.

 

[Professor K]

Well, if a background check were optional, like if a guy seemed suspicious and you wanted to run one on him, that'd be OK with me. Like a number that a gun dealer who proclaims selling guns as his profession (see below) can call to check out someone he's selling to.

In my guncontrollless utopia, firearms sellers could still sell firearms without saying their business is a gun shop, like if he was a pawn shop or whatever, he wouldnt have to say when he started his business that he was a gun shop, but if a guy starts a business as a gun shop, then he'd be a gun shop. I guess both pawn shops and gun shops would get access to the number, too. Other than that, weapon ownership would be unregulated, for anything not NBC.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

OK--you are fine with background checks--would you like us to try and talk you out of your conviction on this subject or agree with you or----just WHAT exactly is the point?

The only 'perk' of background checks is that they occasionally stop someone from unlawfully buying a gun who could not lawfully buy one anyway owing to legal disability. This MIGHT be of minor use if those individuals were sent up the river for the ATTEMPT they made to break the law, but this never happens. The speed bump slows down the criminal and infringes on the rights of the free man/woman.

Once again, the citizen as applicant and suplicant. What happens on that day when permits are no longer being issued?

If I seem put off by the subject, it is because I live in Illinois--where you CAN'T carry concealed or otherwise, MUST have a FOID card, and they are anxiously trying to ban anything they can all of the time. No permit will be required for surrendering your rights--at least not yet.

 

[StrikeFire83]

I strongly disagree with the premise of "If you are let out of jail, then you are no longer a danger and you can get all of your rights back."

It is unrealistic to think that we can afford to keep all those people in jail for the rest of their lives. Although there should be a legitimate process to have rights restored (because realistically there are probably too many things that are felonies), just because they let a felon out of jail doesn't mean they should get to go back to the way things were. They made their choice to do whatever they did to infringe other people's rights, they should have to live with the consequences.

Thank you, sanity prevails.

I have a question for those of you "zero background check" folks:

A violent criminal murders your entire family when you are away on business, gets caught by police, and arrested. Some touchy-feely jury/prosecutor gives this person a suspended 5 year sentence due to a technicality combined with the usual BS "he had a bad childhood" excuse.

So when this person, released after THREE years in prison due to good behavior, hits the streets, having "paid his debt to society," he should be able to LEGALLY obtain a firearm...that day?

Wow, yall have a better opinion of human nature than I do.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Violent criminals who pose such a risk to society have no place on the street. They should be dead and buried.

So, instead of seeking the correct punishments for violent felons, you want to regulate the law abiding person buying a gun?

 

[rbernie]

If we accept the fact that the object is blameless and that only the act of its misuse should be criminal, then how can we state that *anyone* should be prohibited from owning one? That's turning the preumption of guilt on its ear, and is effectively stating that someone (e.g. a released felon) is presumed to be guilty of misuing the object before he/she even owns it.

Why is prior restraint illegal under the First Amendment but something you support for the Second Amendment?

Why am I presumed guilty in order to exercise a Constitutional right?

Exactly.

I don't care where criminals buy their firearms or what prices they pay, just so long as their acquisition is from a source that cannot be linked to LEGAL, LAW-ABIDING gun owners and thusly their actions cannot be conflated with simple gun ownership.

Your premise presumes that the SOURCE of the object is a matter of concern. It's not. It's the USE of the object or the PRESENCE of the object that matters to both the RKBA folk and their opposition.

I guarantee you that Nancy Pelosi doesn't care if the next a$$hat that goes nutsiefagen with a firearm acquired it legally or not. All they care about is that they consider the object's PRESENCE to be offensive.

The background check is a red herring that solves nothing.

 

[StrikeFire83]

Violent criminals who pose such a risk to society have no place on the street. They should be dead and buried.

So, instead of seeking the correct punishments for violent felons, you want to regulate the law abiding person buying a gun?

Sir, you assume that because I'm in favor of background checks I somehow don't believe that violent murders should be executed. That would be incorrect.

But you know what they say about ASSumptions.

 

[45/70]

Yeah, well . . .

I think if you're legal to own a firearm, you're legal to carry. No permit, no restrictions except maybe on an airplane, courtrooms, jails/prisons.

Post Office, City Hall, Federal military facilities -- which require ID to get onto in the first place. You're legal to own, you're legal to carry.

"Shall not be infringed." That's what it says. That's what it means.

 

[Zundfolge]

Yes, because your local gunshop owner is going to open his doors to hoards of "paying" customers during a national crisis or Katrina-like situation. Who's living in fantasy land here?

Not fantasy, history.

During the LA Riots people rushed to gun shops to arm themselves only to be turned away by the waiting period.

During Katrina there were plenty of businesses that were not destroyed by the storm and could have remained open.


The point is, all we need is a major event to happen in one part of the country and the Fed.Gov use it as a pretext to shut down gun sales nationally and not reopen them until "The Crisis" is over (how long do you think the "War on Terror" will last?).

If you require background checks, you give the government a back door to shut down every gun shop in the country instantly.

I have a question for those of you "zero background check" folks:

A violent criminal murders your entire family when you are away on business, gets caught by police, and arrested. Some touchy-feely jury/prosecutor gives this person a suspended 5 year sentence due to a technicality combined with the usual BS "he had a bad childhood" excuse.

So when this person, released after THREE years in prison due to good behavior, hits the streets, having "paid his debt to society," he should be able to LEGALLY obtain a firearm...that day?

You're awful hung up on the word "LEGALLY" as though the legality or illegality of a thing will prevent or allow someone from possessing a thing.

Every day criminals who have been Felons, addicts and mentally ill arm themselves and there's not a damn thing the law can do about it.

Every attempt to make it harder for criminals to posses arms does NOTHING but make it harder for the law abiding to posses arms.

I'm lucky, my name is uncommon, but I feel sorry for every law abiding John Smith, Katherine Miller or Juan Garcia that will NEVER be able to buy a gun without having to wait and come back later because their names are almost GUARANTEED to be shared with a "Prohibited Person".

 

[Outlaw Man]

Is there any evidence (there may not be any way to get it) that background checks reduce the number of guns in the hands of criminals? Ideally, there would be no way to get a gun without a background check, and failing a background check because of a prior record would result in your arrest. But we all know neither of these happen.

Only one legally aquired machine gun has been used in a crime since 1934, yet there are several cases of machine guns being used in crimes in that time period. It doesn't seem to be stopping criminals, yet such an in-depth background check is a hassle to law abiding citizens.

My liberties should not be restricted because someone else doesn't know how to behave or someone else doesn't feel safe. Just ask Ben Franklin.


I understand the "background checks are ok" stance. I just don't agree with it.

 

[General Geoff]

"he should be able to LEGALLY obtain a firearm THAT day?"

Yes.

Firearms should be sold just like power tools at a hardware store. They're really no different in the end.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Strikefire: I don't know what you think background checks would accomplish if A) any violent felons convicted are executed and B) the ones on the loose are buying from cheaper, illegal sources or just stealing them

Seems to me this is a pointless discussion that'll go absolutely nowhere, but that's just my opinion.

 

[jeep-2]

Okay, now I understand that "creeping incrementalism" is a tool of the trade for the gun banners. I understand that calls for “responsible ownership within the bounds of law” will quickly turn to “BAN EM ALL” as soon as they start winning victories again.

That said, I have NO PROBLEM with background checks for gun purchases! There, I said it. I don’t lose any sleep over that fact that VIOLENT felons, child abusers, etc cannot easily obtain legal firearms.

Now before you accuse me of being a traitor, remember that I’m a CCW holder and owner of pistols and firm believer in the 2nd Amendment.

Violent felons are not going to use their own gun anyway when they can steel one, commit the crime and toss it away.
people that commit felonys with guns don't care about gun laws and the olny people that can't seem to get that in their heads in politions, they always use this as an excuse to make the voters happy, stupid voters will fall for anything.. longer prison time should be the answer.
child abusers do not use guns, they don't even belong out where they can buy one anyway, but it's after they've they've molested and harmed a kid that they can't have a gun, but to keep them from going legally hunting when they are out is not going to keep them from molesting a kid. casteration would thou probably.

what happends when all the guns are registered or taken, will it be bow-arrows then, after that what butter knives>.

 

[StrikeFire83]

During the LA Riots people rushed to gun shops to arm themselves only to be turned away by the waiting period.

During Katrina there were plenty of businesses that were not destroyed by the storm and could have remained open.

I see nothing in these statements where a BACKGROUND CHECK would have stopped people from purchasing firearms. Clearly, the LA riots situation was due to the WAITING PERIOD, which I've already stated that I'm expressly against.

Also, if being on the evil "federal.GOV" $hitlist scares you so much, why not simply purchase your weapons from LEGAL person to person sales, where no background check is involved.

I have a common name, and have purchased 6 guns over the past three years, with no problems.

If you believe that your rights are not dependent on the fickle will of the mass of sheeple who vote, or who polls say are LIKELY to vote, then that's great. I wish that were the case. For better or worse, I'll take background checks (which even the NRA supports, by the way) if I can have CCW, no AWB, etc.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

When the dealers have to call in a background check, and the govt. has shut down the system, well, no gun sales...see how that works as he described strikefire?