Are background checks necessary?


PDA






Pages : [1] 2

monotonous_iterancy
December 30, 2012, 09:54 PM
I've been wondering, do you all oppose all gun regulation on principal? I do mostly, but I don't really have a problem with undergoing a background check, so long as it's decentralized.

Basically, my question has two parts.

1. Is there any level of regulation you're okay with?

2. Are 4473s and things necessary?

If you enjoyed reading about "Are background checks necessary?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
EBK
December 30, 2012, 09:57 PM
...Shall not be infringed.

That is all

bk42261
December 30, 2012, 10:09 PM
Just saw an ad for some car that can go from 0-60 in 4 seconds or something. No mention of background check to see if you're a repeat
speeding offender, or a check with your CLEO for approval.
Don't recall anything in the Constitution about private transportation, but seems like speeding kills more innocents than firearms yearly.
Following the background check is to save lives argument, shouldn't we be checking on people who want one of these "potentially deadly" cars?
Besides, who, except for police and military need to have such "high-
powered" vehicles?
Just sayin

browningguy
December 30, 2012, 10:22 PM
I think background checks are fine, I really don't want criminals and insane people to have an easier time getting weapons. The only people who's rights are infringed by a background check are those groups.

And to be blunt if I had the opportunity to use NICS I wouldn't even sell to another private individual without a background check.

bushmaster1313
December 30, 2012, 11:21 PM
Background checks are a good idea.
Some people should not be allowed guns.
I would support requiring all transfers to go through an FFL and a NICS check.

My $0.02

JVaughn
December 30, 2012, 11:27 PM
No check, no restriction, no regulation.
Shall not be infringed.

Vaarok
December 30, 2012, 11:33 PM
If there were an easy way to verify someone was a "good-guy" without hassle, most people would probably use it. Like the custom of flashing a CCW just out of courtesy if you're doing a parkinglot transfer. I have no strong opinion, but I approve of providing people such a way to reassure the other party in a transaction if they so choose.

BLACKHAWKNJ
December 30, 2012, 11:36 PM
No background check required to become a parent, no background check required for the purchase of alcoholic beverages or large amounts of gasoline or other flammable substances.

hso
December 30, 2012, 11:49 PM
but I don't really have a problem with undergoing a background check

Let's look at this from the standpoint of the law.

The requirement is on the FFL holders (dealers) because they are the ones regulated and THEY are the ones required to run a background check to verify that you are not a prohibited person. The regulation of a business.

Individual citizens aren't.

You'd have to create a new law that requires all citizens to have such a check performed before transferring a firearm to another. This is fundamentally different from a regulated business transferring a firearm to an individual.

In addition to a new law regulating the individual you have to create an infrastructure to make complying with the new law possible. Ideally, you'd need to make it not just possible but practical. Now you have to pay for that infrastructure to make it practical for you and me to transfer ownership of a firearm between the two of us. That's another burden on the budget unless you charge the individuals for the check and that's a burden on us.

All that laid out doesn't mean a thing in this case. The firearms used by the madman at Sandy Hook weren't legally transferred. He shot his mom in the head and took them and no law in the world requiring a background check would have made any difference at all. Nothing that has been proposed, other than mental health care at the right time, would or could have stopped Adam Lanza from slaughtering 20 little kids. So what's the point of background checks when this murdering monster wouldn't have been affected by them???

bikerdoc
December 30, 2012, 11:51 PM
Repeal the GCA of 68

rbernie
December 31, 2012, 12:00 AM
From a prior post on the topic:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....&postcount=229

Another interesting series of data points from the 2005 report on Brady check stats: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/bcft05.txt
* 1.6% of the 8.3 million applications for firearm transfers or permits in 2005 were rejected by the FBI (66,700 applications)or State and local agencies(65,200 applications).

* The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm and Explosive's(ATF) field offices investigated 9,575 National Instant Criminal Background Check System(NICS)denials that were referred by the FBI in 2005.

* In 2005 U.S. attorney offices accepted for prosecution 135 NICS denial cases investigated by ATF.
In 2005, 130,000 folks were denied legal access to a firearm, of which sixty seven thousand purchases were blocked by the FBI. Of those sixty seven thousand FBI-blocked transactions, less than ten thousand represented denials worthy of ATFE investigation and only 135 were cases suitable for Federal prosecution. H'okay......

161,000 appeals of denials from 1999 to 2005; 57,000 reversed
I'm sure that the more than TEN THOUSAND folk who were inappropriately denied the right to purchase a firearm every year didn't mind being inconvenienced; it did result in one hundred and thirty five Bad Guys getting their just rewards.

gbran
December 31, 2012, 12:09 AM
No background checks. Redefine what is a prohibited person (it's too broad right now), then deal with them appropriately when found in posession.

monotonous_iterancy
December 31, 2012, 12:31 AM
No background checks. Redefine what is a prohibited person (it's too broad right now), then deal with them appropriately when found in posession.

How would you define prohibited person?

gbran
December 31, 2012, 12:38 AM
How would you define prohibited person?

It would certainly continue to include those adjudicated mentally deffective. It would especially include violent and serious criminals and probably many others. I'm not real concened about the farmer who ran afoul of EPA or Endangered Species Act laws and was charged with a felony. There are many violators of victimless crimes that I don't have a problem with owning guns.... assuming they did their time.

Zombiekid
December 31, 2012, 12:39 AM
I am perfectly ok with background checks and the 4473. However a persons mental status and background are blocked by the ACLU. So the NICS can only check for felonies, not if the person is one missed dose of meds from something horrible. That's the part of the background check tags need to be corrected. But, like every other governmental program, it fails and is basically useless.

Sport45
December 31, 2012, 12:51 AM
I think once someone has been determined to be unfit to possess a firearm something should be branded on their forehead. Maybe 666 or something.

That way we wouldn't need to worry about background checks for FTF sales... :)

Seriously, I think private transfers are fine as long as the seller has no reason to doubt the buyer's legality. ID with birth date and state of residence is minimum proof for me.

monotonous_iterancy
December 31, 2012, 01:13 AM
I'll be honest, I'm a little surprised to see some of you concede private sales and transfers.

mljdeckard
December 31, 2012, 02:41 AM
If I believed that the protections written into the law protecting us from using 4473s as a tracking system were serious and bullet proof, I wouldn't have any problem with doing a background check with every transfer.

But I don't. The (ab)use of such a system as being de-facto registration is inevitable.

gdcpony
December 31, 2012, 08:34 AM
I have no problem being checked. It isn't flawless, but what is? My right is not infringed unless I have something in my past that has caused it. I used to get delayed every time until I got my CCW and was never overly distraught. I have a couple misdemeanors and was born outside the US (military parents), so I figured it was those and let it go. I would get my gun in three days.

However, I don't like the serial number being recorded every time I purchase. No way around it even if only for the dealer to track inventory.

LSMS
December 31, 2012, 08:44 AM
I don't have a problem with background checks. Costs me an extra 10 minutes. I've never had one go under further review though. Might change my opinion if I had to wait 3 days before I received what I paid for.

Sport45
December 31, 2012, 08:45 AM
Why does the 4473 form list anything at all about the firearm? It's supposed to be the buyer that going through the background check. What they're buying shouldn't have anything to do with it.

skeptical_in_Ohio
December 31, 2012, 09:12 AM
Background checks are a good idea.
Some people should not be allowed guns.
I would support requiring all transfers to go through an FFL and a NICS check.
My $0.02

I concur with this, but with one proviso (if it's at all possible). It seems that the biggest concern raised with background checks is that it creates a defacto registry. For example, if I buy (as I wish) a nice 1911 and undergo a check, and all sales are required to have a check, then it's pretty clear that I have the 1911 until another transfer is done.

The question is this - can a background check be run such that the individual is checked and approved to buy a given firearm, but the firearm itself isn't attached to the check?

From my review of 4473 (http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf), the arm is recorded on this form along with the buyer/seller. It seems that who bought the arm shouldn't be recorded, so long as whoever it was passed the background check at the time of purchase.

It seems that a 4473 should be separated between the two parts - one that the buyer passes the check, and two that an arm has been released from somebody to somebody. It seems that there's not a compelling reason to store who actually received the arm so long as this person is the one who passed the check (easily done by checking ID, which is done already). For a person to dispose of an arm, it would have to be either lost/stolen (reported as such and would hence go on a registry as such) or legally transferred (again to somebody who can pass a check).

Mousegun
December 31, 2012, 09:28 AM
Nothing that has been proposed, other than mental health care at the right time, would or could have stopped Adam Lanza from slaughtering 20 little kids. So what's the point of background checks when this murdering monster wouldn't have been affected by them???

You are forgetting that a gun in the possession of a tactically trained teacher would have done the trick.

That is the most immediate and useful solution to the problem in the opinion of probably as many people that think mental health care is the complete answer.

A gun in the hands of a teacher is a solution today. Mental health care, although a viable solution, is a much longer term process.

BogBabe
December 31, 2012, 09:36 AM
We never used to have background checks.

Background checks are ineffective -- they don't stop bad guys from getting guns.

Background checks impose a lot of cost and require the use of resources for very very little ROI -- resources that could be better used elsewhere.

Background checks only inconvenience good guys; the bad guys don't undergo background checks when getting their guns.

Background checks are an imposition on a Constitutionally guaranteed right. They're no more acceptable than would be requiring background checks for journalists before they can journal or for gamers before they can game.

I say no.

Sergei Mosin
December 31, 2012, 09:38 AM
I have no problem with background checks. Rights of citizenship (including 2A rights) can be lost through due process of law. Having those rights verified through NICS is not an infringement, and it keeps a lot of guns out of the hands of people who do not have the right to own them.

As for private sales, I've never sold a gun, but I wouldn't sell to anyone who couldn't produce some proof of a current background check. In my state that would mean a purchase permit, carry permit, or FFL. I'm not going to take a chance on transferring a gun to a prohibited person.

rbernie
December 31, 2012, 09:39 AM
We never used to have background checks.

Background checks are ineffective -- they don't stop bad guys from getting guns.

Background checks impose a lot of cost and require the use of resources for very very little ROI -- resources that could be better used elsewhere.

Background checks only inconvenience good guys; the bad guys don't undergo background checks when getting their guns.

Background checks are an imposition on a Constitutionally guaranteed right. They're no more acceptable than would be requiring background checks for journalists before they can journal or for gamers before they can game.

I say no.
And that is the great unspoken truth - background checks, for all their vaunted 'common sense' restrictions, have had NO discernible effect on crime.

At all.

They are the equal of TSA security - theater without utility.

tarosean
December 31, 2012, 09:45 AM
The question is this - can a background check be run such that the individual is checked and approved to buy a given firearm, but the firearm itself isn't attached to the check?

watching my FFL put my name and information in the NICS system countless times. The firearm is not mentioned by make/model etc. Only the general term of Handgun - Longgun - Other.

M-Cameron
December 31, 2012, 09:56 AM
I am perfectly ok with background checks and the 4473. However a persons mental status and background are blocked by the ACLU. So the NICS can only check for felonies, not if the person is one missed dose of meds from something horrible. That's the part of the background check tags need to be corrected. But, like every other governmental program, it fails and is basically useless.


so you are saying a persons private medical records should be made public...?

psychology isnt an exact science, you cannot accurately predict how someone will react to any given scenario...

hell, i can go to 10 different doctors, and get 10 different diagnoses as to whats wrong with me......how is that going to play into the background check system?

millions of people take Zoloft every year....but a few develop suicidal tendencies and kill themselves.....so should anyone who takes Zoloft be denied a firearm?

the only thing this would do would be to discourage people from seeking mental health.......this wouldnt do a thing to stop crime, and it would be detrimental to the mental health industry because it would add yet another stigma to overcome.

303tom
December 31, 2012, 10:17 AM
I say YES on background checks...............But that`s all.............

skeptical_in_Ohio
December 31, 2012, 10:24 AM
watching my FFL put my name and information in the NICS system countless times. The firearm is not mentioned by make/model etc. Only the general term of Handgun - Longgun - Other.

I've not viewed the process that closely, but Section D of Form 4473 (http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf) seems to require Make/Model/SN/Type/Caliber of the firearm being transferred. I'd be happy to stand corrected on this.

Steel Horse Rider
December 31, 2012, 10:44 AM
#26 got it right. The background checks are the same type of theater to make the sheeple feel safer as is the TSA checks at the airport. Every year they show us the pile of nail clippers, fingermail polish, lotions, and shampoos they have confiscated from forgetful people. The background check people can give us a list of people to whom they have blocked sales but yet people who supposed to be unable to buy a firearm commit crimes with firearms they somehow acquired. Just as with the spending problem that is bankrupting this country, politicians want to fix something that isn't the real problem.

jim243
December 31, 2012, 10:53 AM
Just saw an ad for some car that can go from 0-60 in 4 seconds or something. No mention of background check to see if you're a repeat
speeding offender, or a check with your CLEO for approval.

Actually, you have a background check run on you each and every time you buy a new or used car, it is a federal requirement for all dealerships that has been in effect for years now.

Jim

Jim

Onmilo
December 31, 2012, 11:04 AM
Apply fir a job you will be background checked
Apply for any form of monetary credit, you will be background checked.
Buy a car and pay cash, even this will get you background checked.

I don't care if I am background checked, I haven't made it a focal point of my life to break the law, renege on my agreements, or refuse to pay my taxes.

tarosean
December 31, 2012, 11:05 AM
I've not viewed the process that closely, but Section D of Form 4473 seems to require Make/Model/SN/Type/Caliber of the firearm being transferred. I'd be happy to stand corrected on this.

Yes that is required on the form and kept by the FFL. However, it is not part of the NICS approval.

larryh1108
December 31, 2012, 11:14 AM
As a responsible gun owner, I have no problem with checks and balances to make sure that we don't sell guns to people who should not have them. No system is perfect but as responsible gun owners we should all want to keep guns in the hands of lawful owners.

"Shall not be infringed"?

Well, if you are a convicted felon you gave up your rights when you did the crime and were found guilty. Now, there is a fine line between violent and non-violent felonies but as of now there is no distinction. When you choose to commit a felony you are choosing to give up your rights. Pretty cut and dried.

hso
December 31, 2012, 11:21 AM
What's the basis for the question anyway?

Are we somehow assuming that requiring background checks would somehow reduce the violent crime rate in any way? That's not the case in California where all LEGAL firearms transfers have to go through and FFL and "background check". That's not the case in Chicago where you couldn't even legally transfer a handgun.

Individual sales of private property in the form of firearms doesn't contribute to the statistics for firearms related deaths since criminals don't obey the law and law abiding people ...

skeptical_in_Ohio
December 31, 2012, 11:28 AM
Yes that is required on the form and kept by the FFL. However, it is not part of the NICS approval.

Thanks for that information.

Please educate me more - the FFL keeps it, so does that mean that the arm and the individual are tied together in its bound book, that is subject to review by BATF? If so, that seems as if it would be a defacto registry (albeit a not very efficient one).

PedalBiker
December 31, 2012, 11:33 AM
Once again, many, many people are falsely denied a purchase due to errors in the database. Of the people turned down due to legitimate disqualification how many ended up in jail for attempting to purchase a prohibited (to them) weapon?

If it doesn't do any good, it's not OK, even if it "feels" OK.

Put this stuff into perspective. The guy gets into his 4000lb vehicle, drives it at a legal 55mph or more to the "gun" store. Gets turned down for a gun and drives off somewhere else.

I'm out on your roads and highways every day on a bicycle while these prohibited people drive past me at 55mph or more with only a foot or two of clearance. If I can trust them driving a foot off of my shoulder why can't you trust them with a gun?

If they are that dangerous they should be in medical confinement or jail. If they're not why prohibit them from having a gun? It's not like there is a background check for kitchen knives, cigarette lighters, gasoline, fertilizer, diesel fuel or rental trucks.

Deanimator
December 31, 2012, 11:39 AM
They weren't necessary for several hundred years.

Why now?

And if for guns, why not for automobiles?

Other than the Mexican guy who hopped freight trains to go from one hunting ground to another, what serial killer DIDN'T use an automobile?

Of course with nothing in which to drive, no driveby shootings...

Highland Ranger
December 31, 2012, 11:42 AM
I think a lot of people feel that not going along with background checks makes them seem like unreasonable gun owners.

But when you think about how ineffective it is at accomplishing anything positive . . . . maybe not so unreasonable. 135 out of 8 million? Sheesh.

I think the Canadians had something equally poor for their registration system.

jim243
December 31, 2012, 12:11 PM
And that is the great unspoken truth - background checks, for all their vaunted 'common sense' restrictions, have had NO discernible effect on crime.

I'm not sure how you measure something that has not happened. Does one criminal commit only one crime or does a smaller number of criminals commit more crimes than if they commited only one. So I need to know, what is your criteria for discernible?

So I can believe your statement.

Jim

larryh1108
December 31, 2012, 12:12 PM
Automobile driving is regulated. We have driver's licenses and mandatory insurance. If you habitually abuse the privelage (and get caught) you lose your license to drive. Of course, you'd be shocked at how many people drive without a license. If you are continually in accidents it will be hard or expensive to have the mandatory insurance. You would be surprised at how many people drive without insurance. You have to be a minimum age to get a license to drive. If you drink and drive you can lose your privelage to drive if caught. The vehicles we drive are also registered. They also have to pass safety inspections to be plated in many states. So, don't say driving is unregulated because it isn't. You are in databases and your record can be brought up and used against you in other states. You are not an anonymous person behind the wheel of a car.

freyasman
December 31, 2012, 12:22 PM
No on background checks...
Some people shouldn't own guns, true
Some people shouldn't have children, (or at least they shouldn't be allowed to raise them), but where does one person get the right to tell another that?
Once you start, where do you stop?

Deanimator
December 31, 2012, 12:52 PM
Automobile driving is regulated.
Can you tell me of a state where:

convicted felons (apart from those convicted of certain vehicular offenses) are barred from owning or operating motor vehicles?
a background check (for non-vehicular offenses) is required prior to the purchase or operation of a motor vehicle?
driver's licenses from ANY other state are NOT valid?

PedalBiker
December 31, 2012, 01:14 PM
Automobile driving is regulated. We have driver's licenses and mandatory insurance.

And of course, the law abiding follow those rules while the criminals do not.

I was in a hit and run in NC. The police did find the guy - no insurance and he wasn't prosecuted.

My brother in law was in a hit and run. The police figured out who the driver most likely was and that guy already had multiple warrants out for his arrest. As far as I know he's still at large.

Rules and regulations are fairly good at helping to manage "accidentally" sorts of stuff. For instance, there are very few gun accidents at schools. Rules and regulations help to convict those who refuse to participate in society and provide a means to discourage those who have only modest criminal inclinations.

Laws are not moral exercises. If they don't work, no matter how noble they need to be scrapped.

monotonous_iterancy
December 31, 2012, 01:31 PM
What's the basis for the question anyway?

I was just wondering what sort, if any, regulations you all were okay with. We often talk about rolling back gun control, but is there a point where we say "We're okay with this, we'll hold the line here."?

Also, on a somewhat related note, after 20 years, what happens to your 4473?

9MMare
December 31, 2012, 01:40 PM
I have bought guns from several different gun shops. The paperwork is extensive...it's WA St, I dont know if it's different elsewhere.

So altho I've been told that information is not sent to nor retained by the fed govt.....isnt it retained somewhere?

My question is: does the state or fed govt have a record of all my firearms? I'm pretty sure they do. And that is what I object to.

It's one thing to check and see if I can legally own one, however all the other information they take isnt about me...it's about the gun. Because they have to account to someone for the gun.

9MMare
December 31, 2012, 01:45 PM
I have no problem with background checks. Rights of citizenship (including 2A rights) can be lost through due process of law. Having those rights verified through NICS is not an infringement, and it keeps a lot of guns out of the hands of people who do not have the right to own them.
.

I dont really know how we can know that. Just IMO, I doubt it. Anyone that wants one and doesnt qualify for one wont bother, they'll just 'acquire' it elsewhere. Again....only the law-abiding actually obey laws.

I do think that background checks...and the waiting period if you dont have a cc permit...may stop some people from buying on the spur of the moment to commit a crime of passion or desperation. Again, just IMO.

The CT shooter tried and was turned down but unfortunately, that drove him to just take his mothers'. So where does that leave us? :(

9MMare
December 31, 2012, 01:46 PM
And that is the great unspoken truth - background checks, for all their vaunted 'common sense' restrictions, have had NO discernible effect on crime.

At all.

They are the equal of TSA security - theater without utility.

I think so.

9MMare
December 31, 2012, 01:48 PM
#26 got it right. The background checks are the same type of theater to make the sheeple feel safer as is the TSA checks at the airport..

Yes I agree but I also think they are keeping records of who's got what.

I know that sounds paranoid....'they, they.' Sorry.

larryh1108
December 31, 2012, 01:49 PM
Can you tell me of a state where:
convicted felons (apart from those convicted of certain vehicular offenses) are barred from owning or operating motor vehicles?
a background check (for non-vehicular offenses) is required prior to the purchase or operation of a motor vehicle?
driver's licenses from ANY other state are NOT valid?

My statement was in response to others saying idiots drive and we do nothing to stop them. We do have regulations to operate a motor vehicle in every state. A habitual drunk driver (convicted) has no more right to drive than a convicted, violent felon has to own a firearm. It's common sense.

Regulations do not stop everybody from stepping over the line but it keeps a moral society in check. In every walk of life, there are those who feel the laws, regulations and/or common decency do not apply to them.

9MMare
December 31, 2012, 01:51 PM
Actually, you have a background check run on you each and every time you buy a new or used car, it is a federal requirement for all dealerships that has been in effect for years now.

Jim

Jim

Really? I just bought one last week, nice used 4WD. (Well, it's been a week and it's still working :) Fingers crossed!)

Dont they have to ask your permission to run a background check? Or was it hidden in the tons of paperwork I did fill out?

Just curious. Not a big deal as I had to have a very extensive background check for my employer but they had to get permission from me to do it.

larryh1108
December 31, 2012, 01:54 PM
Also, as far as regulations and restrictions not working, it's pretty hard to measure things that have not happened because someone did not get to buy that gun, get that license, etc. All we do have is a database of criminals with illegal firearms and drivers who get pulled over with no license, etc. If the Webster shooter didn't get the rifles from the neighbor lady (if she never had any, let's say) would he have still shot the firemen or would he have found a different way to do his carnage? Those are questions we never get answers to. The laws in place are all we have to keep society in check. The rest is up to the individuals.

larryh1108
December 31, 2012, 01:58 PM
If the dealer ran a credit check, your name and social security number are run against a known terrorist database. It happens whether you are aware of it or not. I'd bet that it is mentioned in the fine print you sign giving consent to have a credit check run. Now, if you pay with cash or certified funds there is no credit check. However, if you paid more than $10,000 in cash there is a federal form that is filled out. Your bank also has records if you withdraw any money from your account. If you pay by personal check, a smart dealer runs a credit check to see if you have a history of writing bad checks. It's not as cut-and-dried as you think.

9MMare
December 31, 2012, 02:04 PM
If the dealer ran a credit check, your name and social security number are run against a known terrorist database. It happens whether you are aware of it or not. I'd bet that it is mentioned in the fine print you sign giving consent to have a credit check run. Now, if you pay with cash or certified funds there is no credit check. However, if you paid more than $10,000 in cash there is a federal form that is filled out. Your bank also has records if you withdraw any money from your account. If you pay by personal check, a smart dealer runs a credit check to see if you have a history of writing bad checks. It's not as cut-and-dried as you think.

Thanks and sure, they asked consent for a credit check. That is not the same as a background check, altho it sounds like it covers some of the same info.

Didnt know about the terrorist db thing but it's not surprising. We instituted policies and tracking for that at my work as well.

JohnBT
December 31, 2012, 02:13 PM
All 4 of my grandparents were born in the early 1890s. I remember them talking about how the government decided to make money off people by inventing driver's licenses. It wasn't the 50 cents, it was the principle of charging people for getting around. They didn't have driver's licenses for riding horses.

http://amhistory.si.edu/onthemove/exhibition/exhibition_8_2.html

"In 1901, New York became the first state to register automobiles; by 1918 all states required license plates. States were slower to require licenses for drivers. Only 39 states issued them by 1935 and few required a test, despite widespread concern about incompetent drivers. "

BobTheTomato
December 31, 2012, 02:18 PM
I'm all for background checks......once they start doing them for the cartel members they ship arms to via fast and furious or the variety of third world countries we send military aid to.....

tomrkba
December 31, 2012, 02:40 PM
Background checks were not necessary at the Federal level for a long time. I am not sure when the various states started doing so.

Frankly, I believe they don't really do much other than inform the government of who has guns.

We know the government is not honoring the 90 limitation (or is it less now) on maintaining the data. We know this because a north east police chief made reference to querying the Feds for data on a gun that had been sold years before.

jdh
December 31, 2012, 02:45 PM
Guilty until proven innocent is not one of the founding principles of this nation.

Kim
December 31, 2012, 10:22 PM
I am against background checks. Like all laws new generations are born and just accept these restrictions and many people forget things. When this all started Clinton tried to keep the records for ever. Then he tried 120 days for awhile. We fought him for years. Then under George Bush the records are destroyed in 24 hours. There was much outrage by the MSM etc. about the evil NRA etc. I wonder why they wanted the NICS records kept???? They claimed it was to be able to run the program. They were lying. People forget the young never knew etc.

Kim
December 31, 2012, 10:25 PM
I might add Clinton even stated the NICS background checks would not prevent those who should not have guns from not having them. THEY never planned on prosecuting those who illegally tried to buy guns. That is why the number above is very,very low. The NRA pointed this out but the MSM did not care or listen.

Deus Machina
January 1, 2013, 02:13 AM
Obviously it doesn't stop them, but I'm against convicted felons having legal access to firearms.

As I see it, there are three ways to prevent that. 1) Actually rehabilitate them. 2) Keep them in prison until they are fit to rejoin society at full capacity. 3) Perform background checks.

Obviously the prisons aren't doing 1, and the courts aren't doing 2. So we just keep the background checks and they get to tack on an illegal possession charge to their next offense.

9MMare
January 1, 2013, 05:07 AM
I am against background checks. Like all laws new generations are born and just accept these restrictions and many people forget things. When this all started Clinton tried to keep the records for ever. Then he tried 120 days for awhile. We fought him for years. Then under George Bush the records are destroyed in 24 hours. There was much outrage by the MSM etc. about the evil NRA etc. I wonder why they wanted the NICS records kept???? They claimed it was to be able to run the program. They were lying. People forget the young never knew etc.

Really? Under any administration, they were destroyed in 24 hours?

As I wrote earlier, I have a hard time believing that.

gc70
January 1, 2013, 07:21 AM
Are background checks necessary?

Maybe ... if the system really prevented the wrong people from getting guns and punished them for trying to do so.

It is a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(A) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/924) to provide false information on a 4473. Since ATF specifically instructs FFLs to "not initiate a NICS check (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/federal-firearms-licensees/ffl-manual#section3)" for a 4473 with disqualifying answers, every valid NICS denial involves a violation of that law.

Over two-thirds of the denials in NICS' entire history (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/20121203_denials.pdf) have involved felon or fugitive status. That means there have been roughly two-thirds of a million denials to known serious criminals that involved another probable felony violation of federal law. But from 1998-2010, there were only 2,601 cases filed by the DoJ (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/fjsrc/tsec.cfm) under 18 U.S.C. 924(a). Think about that: at most, DoJ only prosecutes 4/10s of 1% of felon/fugitive denials that have clear evidence of a felony violation of federal law in the form of a 4473.

NICS issued 3,166 retrieval referrals (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2011-operations-report/operations-report-2011) to ATF in 2011 for prohibited persons in possession of a firearm. Those are transactions that NICS did not stop, but it was subsequently discovered that the purchaser was a prohibited person. I cannot find any data on how many of those guns were actually picked up or whether the "prohibited persons in possession" were charged.

If NICS was more than a "sorry, not this time, but try again" program for prohibited persons, I might see some necessity. At it operates now, NICS is theater to make the masses feel better.

Isaac-1
January 1, 2013, 10:15 AM
First I doubt background checks stop many / any determined people from getting a gun, having said that I think they could be a good idea to try to keep dangerous people from purchasing a gun. I personally would prefer a wide spread pre-approval screening, like the organ donation status listed on drivers licenses, just a simple check field that says at the time this license was issued this person had no known disqualifers for gun ownership, etc. This could certainly help those doing FTF sales to sleep better at night if nothing else.

Of course the big downside to background checks is who decides what will disquallify a person, this is particularly disturbing when you look at some of the questions on the concealed permit or firearms ownership applications around the country:

Ever been divorced, must show paperwork to prove you did not have a restraining order sworn out against you

Did your doctor EVER give you medication used to treat a mental condition, with the way that stuff is handed out like candy I have to wonder what percentage of the population has not been given it at some point in their lives. Having trouble sleeping, take this pill that is used to treat some anxiety disorder....

Ever spent a night in jail .......

Ever been CHARGED with a crime ......

I wonder what percentage of the population can really say that they would not have to check yes to at least one potential disqualifer. With the way things are going I could see a man having to get a permission letter from his ex-wife who he split up with in a relatively civil divorce 20 years earlier just to buy a gun.

M-Cameron
January 1, 2013, 10:30 AM
Obviously it doesn't stop them, but I'm against convicted felons having legal access to firearms.

As I see it, there are three ways to prevent that. 1) Actually rehabilitate them. 2) Keep them in prison until they are fit to rejoin society at full capacity. 3) Perform background checks.

Obviously the prisons aren't doing 1, and the courts aren't doing 2. So we just keep the background checks and they get to tack on an illegal possession charge to their next offense.

all while fueling the illegal arms trade....


its the same thing with any prohibited item.....look at marijuana, would you rather people buy it from a licensed pharmacist or the mexican drug cartel?

same applies to guns, i know ide rather have the local gun store making money over the local gangs.

Steel Horse Rider
January 1, 2013, 11:14 AM
We have allowed our eyes to be removed from the target here. Owning a weapon to protect myself from tyrants is a Constitutional Right, driving, buying vehicles, or donating organs are NOT even named in the Constitution let alone named as a right. If they were I am pretty sure the founders would have said you have the RIGHT to sell your own organs to the highest bidder instead of being forced to give them to the medical industry.

michaelbsc
January 1, 2013, 01:19 PM
Obviously it doesn't stop them, but I'm against convicted felons having legal access to firearms....

I think some of our felony restrictions are nuts. Quite frankly I'm not the least afraid of someone convicted of running a brothel. A drug store bandit is a completely different story. But under the current law they're the same.

No, I don't have an easy solution. I'm just observing that the current brush is too broad.

AlexanderA
January 1, 2013, 02:59 PM
As a seller, I don't feel comfortable selling a gun to a person that I don't personally know. When I had my FFL, the onus was taken off me by the Form 4473 procedure, and later by the instant check. Since I gave up my license, I still prefer to go through an FFL in cases like this, for "due diligence" and to cover myself from a liability standpoint.

There should be a means for non-licensees to access the NICS and obtain an approval number for a proposed transaction. Perhaps this should be voluntary, but with the clear knowledge that if the system is not used, there could be severe legal consequences if the gun is later misused. If sellers chose not to use the NICS (if it was available), they would have to have adequate liability insurance, or risk bankruptcy.

22-rimfire
January 1, 2013, 03:08 PM
Regulations do not stop everybody from stepping over the line but it keeps a moral society in check. In every walk of life, there are those who feel the laws, regulations and/or common decency do not apply to them.

When a society looses its sense of morality, there are no barriers (except laws and enforcement) to any behavior. That is where the US is headed.

All you have to look at are illegetimate births and the rates.... transfer that to general perceptions of laws and regulations and you can see where the US is headed. .... socialism and tryranny relative to our present government and certainly relative to the government envisioned by our founding fathers.

JWF III
January 1, 2013, 03:21 PM
Don't have a problem with them on the surface. What I do have a problem with is if they try to force a private sell to go through an FFL. If they do this, the FFL will have to log in the firearm (while you wait). (If he has a potential sell that will profit him more than your transfer, you could be waiting a while.) You will also have to pay sales tax in those states that collect it.

Making any private sell illegal is what really gets on my nerves.

If they open the use of NICS up to everyone (private sellers), I wouldn't have much of a problem with it.

Wyman

texasgun
January 1, 2013, 03:40 PM
sorry... but I do not understand the folks here who simply (and mechanically) reply to ANY background check "shall not be infringed" ... yeah....

I have absolutely ZERO problems with the NICS if it's done TIMELY , CONVENIENTLY, and ACCURATELY .... I know that some folks get chronically "delayed" because of name matches with wanted felons or there have been inaccurate hits - but for the overwhelming majority of us ... they work just fine. A little paperwork, waiting a few min and you are good to go.

To the fella who says that criminals don't go thru the background check and buy their guns illegally .... doooh.... obviously they know that they would FAIL the NICS and instead get their guns on the street. Does this mean we need to make it easier for them and let them walk into a store, pay cash and walk out with a brand new gun in under 15min? I don't think so. At least they have a chance of getting caught when buying guns in the street....

I have zero interest in facilitating the firearms purchases for convicted felons, domestic abusers and mentally defective folks. I don't think the founding fathers had that in their mind either .... heck, you cannot even vote as a felon. So please don't come with the "shall not be infringed". If you cannot vote you should also not be able to have gun.

We could discuss the felony status' of the prohibited from buying guns category... but overall it's not the farmer violating EPA guidelines but the hardcore criminal with a long history.....

B!ngo
January 1, 2013, 03:56 PM
Painfully, I also support some type of background check for the purchase or transfer of all firearms. And, despite arguments to the contrary, it's not precedent. I'm not sure what the ACLU says about FAA private pilot medical checks, but they are reasonably rigorous and investigate the physical and mental health of applicants. The failure rate for new applicants is (I suspect) far higher than the 1.6% stated in the NICS system. Accepting that firearm ownership depends far less on physical health, it does nonetheless provide an example of a significant 'background' check for applicants.
V

splattergun
January 1, 2013, 04:04 PM
I am a law abiding citizens. I resent background checks that assume you are a criminal until proven innocent. Neither do I participate in the airport frisk.

The "if you're not doing anything illegal you have nothing to worry about" argument is the coward's argument. For me, liberty is paramount to safety.

clg114
January 1, 2013, 04:48 PM
I am a law abiding citizen also.However I do not mind backround checks. In fact I believe that they are absolutely necessary.Without them the criminals could walk into a sporting goods store,buy a gun,walk across the street and hold up a bank.Maybe killing someone in the process.Sure, it's sad things have to be this way.But they are,so we have to deal with it and do what we have to do.

beatledog7
January 1, 2013, 05:09 PM
There should be no need for background checks; the folks such checks are designed to identify should not be free to show up at the gun store.

If we keep criminals in prison, they will not be able to own guns. If they have done their time and are released, yet we still don't trust them...why do we release them?

If someone is mentally incapable of being responsible, that person should be institutionalized and therefore unable to own a gun.

If we don't want such people to have access to guns, why do we have them mixing with law-abiding, responsible society?

AlexanderA
January 1, 2013, 05:12 PM
The idea of universal background checks is something that, ideally, should be discussed. There are reasonable and non-burdensome ways of doing this, such as opening up the NICS (free) to non-licensed sellers. It could be made voluntary, with the incentive being protection from civil liability if the gun is later misused. But, this sort of constructive conversation cannot take place in an overheated atmosphere in which the antigunners see background checks as a disguised way to shut down the private market, and a step toward the total elimination of guns. The fact is, as much as the antis like to babble about "reasonable" laws and a "national conversation," they're not dealing in good faith. There's no point in "negotiating" with such people.

texasgun
January 1, 2013, 05:13 PM
@splattergun....

and you think that you would gain "safety" by increasing the liberty and have gun shops sell guns "no questions asked" with no background check? interesting.

I assume you also support the right of felons to vote and are against any voter I.D. laws?

Steel Horse Rider
January 1, 2013, 05:28 PM
texasgun: Your comments lead me to believe that you are not what you appear to be. People without a legitimate argument usually jump immediately to a straw man. Voter ID laws have nothing in common with a background check to exercise a Constitutional right.

45_auto
January 1, 2013, 05:35 PM
and you think that you would gain "safety" by increasing the liberty and have gun shops sell guns "no questions asked" with no background check?

You mean like they did in 1998 before the background checks? I've been buying guns since the early 1970's and I don't see where it has made any difference at all.

beatledog7
January 1, 2013, 05:45 PM
Buying a gun vs. voting...

If a person is in the US illegally, he or she can do neither. So a requirement that said person demonstrate his legal presence by presenting a state issued photo ID should be normalized for both.

sherman123
January 1, 2013, 06:14 PM
Ever since buying his first gun through a background check(S&W 442) my uncle has gotten harassed and searched every time he crosses the border into and out of Canada to see my aunt's family. He was never given any trouble prior to that and now it happens every single time.

phil dirt
January 1, 2013, 06:19 PM
rbernie says, "And that is the great unspoken truth - background checks, for all their vaunted 'common sense' restrictions, have had NO discernible effect on crime."
___________________________________________________

One of the best ways to prevent criminals from getting guns is to keep them locked up in a safe when not in use, not left in a closet, or your underwear drawer. Of course, I've read quite a few posts on this site where some of you guys seem to think that that is an infringement on your rights, too. A good safe is not cheap, however, but they are effective, especially since most guns used in crimes are stolen.

Andrew Leigh
January 1, 2013, 06:21 PM
We have background checks. but let me start at the begining;

Before one can get a license for a firearm we have to undergo a competency test which is both theoretical and pratical examination on the weapon that you are seeking a competency rating of. You will need to know and understand the laws pertaining to firearm use and safekeeping. You also need to be able to name the various parts of the firearm and will need to understand the safe use of the weapon at home and on the range. This is all good as the course is not too intensive but comprehensive enough to leave you with an idea of what is going for what. Even as a qualified military weapons instructor (some years back) I was required to undergo the full test.

Once you have done that you then make application for your competency certificate from the state. At this point your fiingerprints will be taken and a background check will be run. They will search for criminal activity and also interview people who know you, they interviewed my wife and others. Assuming all goes well you will get your competency certificate which now allows you to seek out a firearm.

Once you have your firearm and have paid a deposit for it (you may NOT) remove it from the store until you produce a valid license. You then have to apply for a license for the particular firearm and motivate why you need said firearm. Agian you go through a board that sits and decides your fate. The entire process from competance to licence can take over two months. Part of this process will also involve inspection of your home to ensure that you have an approved safe bolted to the floor in an approved manner. You may not own a forearm if you cannot lock it up.

A private sale ....... here you will pay the seller in full and will need to get the legal owner to take the firearm to the dealer (you may not be found in possession of an unlicensed firearm) or if the seller is not in a rush for the cash (seldom the case) he can hold on to it for you (now he has your cash and the firearm) so most elect to have the firearm taken to a dealer. The dealer will generally charge you a nominal amount for the storage of the firearm until your license is approved.

But herein lies the rub. More police service weapons are stolen than those in private use. Some police weapons are sold by the police to criminal elements. About 3 months ago 27 000 police failed their competancy exam without any ensuing confiscation of their service weapons. Joe public would have been in real trouble if it was him and would have been arrested.

With regard to the competency exams, many of these examinaers are now only interested in the profit and will issue certificates for those who are not sufficiently competant.

So the law is most restrictive with regard to the public but more lenient when it comes to law enforcement which makes a mockery of the entire matter.

The criminal element I believe DO NOT seek normal channels for getting firearms, they have their own channels. They do not need a traceable weapon so background checks do not catch them but some poor bugger who got caught smoking pot in college.

The laws here are draconian and it would appear as if your government are planning the same. Here it is the systematic disarming of the public while little effort is expended on getting rid of the real problem, guns in criminals hands (that's the difficult part), it is much easier to control law abiding citizens.

I have no problem with background checks, they may stop the one or two percent of people who would terrorise partners with them while drunk or a little unstable, this is a good thing but is not the root of the problem.

PS: If my child took my firearm and shot someone I WOULD BE LIABLE for prosecution. It is the same in the US?

AlexanderA
January 1, 2013, 06:59 PM
The South African restrictions on gun ownership would be totally unacceptable in the U.S.

klyph
January 1, 2013, 07:03 PM
It is true that background checks only encumber the law abiding. The premise of "prohibited persons" is also a legal obfuscation IMO. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If the government is to create a definition of individuals that no longer posses this right, they must be defined as something other than a person. The right itself is a natural right, it is not granted by the constitution, the constitution merely prohibits government from infringing any person's right to own armaments. There are no exceptions for felons or the mentally unstable. We should not allow government to prohibit these people access to arms, for it states clearly in our bill of rights that this shall not be done. Here's the reason: it is extremely easy to become a felon, or to be considered mentally unfit. Consider the people in charge of deciding who is a felon. Consider the people who decide who is mentally unfit. Rather than having a protected natural right, you now are asking permission from these people. It is then no longer a right. You must meet their standard of being a "law abiding person" or be "mentally competent". It takes no imagination to see how these definitions can be abused to enact disarmament, it only takes a look through history to realize how it has already been done. Registration and background checks are a soft infringement that is tolerated because it is only the precursor to total disarmament,the disarmament of people we find unsavory and dangerous. Someday they may find you to be unsavory and dangerous, but it should not, and does not negate your natural rights.

texasgun
January 1, 2013, 09:13 PM
@Steelhorserider

"Voter ID laws have nothing in common with a background check to exercise a Constitutional right."

mmmh... last time I checked the right to vote is also a constitutional right.
Don't get me wrong... I'm all for voter I.D. because there is a risk of voter fraud. But saying "no background checks for guns!" and then requiring a voter I.D. for the right to vote doesn't add up.

I mean we can all live here in our little bubble and :cuss: about the background checks ... but most Americans would not be comfortable with having guns sold with no questions asked. And please let's not come with "oooh... back in the 70s and 80s we had no checks" ... we all know what violent crime was back then and what is it now....

larryh1108
January 1, 2013, 09:14 PM
Someday they may find you to be unsavory and dangerous, but it should not, and does not negate your natural rights.

You decide to lose your natural rights when you rob the corner gas station, beat your spouse into the hospital or any number of wrongful acts against other people with natural rights who did not ask to be victimized. You do the crime you accept losing all of your natural rights. You decide for yourself.

klyph
January 1, 2013, 09:46 PM
You decide to lose your natural rights when you rob the corner gas station, beat your spouse into the hospital or any number of wrongful acts against other people with natural rights who did not ask to be victimized. You do the crime you accept losing all of your natural rights. You decide for yourself.

I could agree with this sentiment if all felonies were limited to malum in se, or to crime that actually has a victim. However, the list of victimless conduct that results in felony conviction has been growing steadily. If the govt can define what is a felony, and use that as justification to remove your natural rights, there is nothing to guarantee you will retain those rights, they simply make a part of your lifestyle a felony, forcing you to either capitulate or disarm, which negates the purpose of the right to begin with.

monotonous_iterancy
January 1, 2013, 10:06 PM
Here's an expansion on my question. Are there any regulations other than background checks you are comfortable with?

mljdeckard
January 1, 2013, 10:07 PM
beatledog, do you really think people are released from prison because they are ready to return to society?

jon_in_wv
January 1, 2013, 10:13 PM
I would not support the requirement for background checks for private sales. The government is regulating the behavior of the Federally licensed FFL dealers. I don't think we should hand them the right to regulate me as and individual.

SuperNaut
January 1, 2013, 10:14 PM
mmmh... last time I checked the right to vote is also a constitutional right.
Well, kind of...

The "right to vote" isn't explicity stated anywhere in the Constitution. It only gets brought up explicitly in amendments added far, far, later.

guitarguy314
January 1, 2013, 10:16 PM
I'm against any gun regulation or restriction. They can disguise it however they want, waiting periods or cc permits, or 4473's or Bans. I long for the days (I've heard about) where I could go into a hardware store and buy a tommy gun. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I don't think the government needs to know what I choose to buy unless I hurt someone or infringe upon them with it.

mljdeckard
January 1, 2013, 10:17 PM
How about this. (Not saying I support the idea nor that further restriction is inevitable.) What if the law protecting 4473 information was strengthened, to put solid, black and white protection against it being used as de-facto registration? "You get your background check, we get our privacy."

JohnBT
January 1, 2013, 10:34 PM
"If someone is mentally incapable of being responsible, that person should be institutionalized "


Granny has to go to the institution because she has advanced Alzheimer's? She can't live at home with her son anymore? That's so sad. :(

22-rimfire
January 1, 2013, 10:44 PM
That is sad. I sometimes think I would rather die.

I resent background checks and I certainly resent the restrictions for CCW permits as I don't think a permit should be necessary.

9MMare
January 1, 2013, 11:24 PM
The idea of universal background checks is something that, ideally, should be discussed. There are reasonable and non-burdensome ways of doing this, such as opening up the NICS (free) to non-licensed sellers. It could be made voluntary, with the incentive being protection from civil liability if the gun is later misused. But, this sort of constructive conversation cannot take place in an overheated atmosphere in which the antigunners see background checks as a disguised way to shut down the private market, and a step toward the total elimination of guns. The fact is, as much as the antis like to babble about "reasonable" laws and a "national conversation," they're not dealing in good faith. There's no point in "negotiating" with such people.

Isnt that a huge entryway into privacy abuse? Anyone selling a gun (basically anyone owning a gun and saying they're selling it) requesting personal information on another citizen? And getting it?

monotonous_iterancy
January 1, 2013, 11:44 PM
Isnt that a huge entryway into privacy abuse? Anyone selling a gun (basically anyone owning a gun and saying they're selling it) requesting personal information on another citizen? And getting it?

That's a good point. What if it didn't give specifics? What if it just took the information and reported back "denied" or "clean" or whatever.

M-Cameron
January 2, 2013, 12:19 AM
I am a law abiding citizen also.However I do not mind backround checks. In fact I believe that they are absolutely necessary.Without them the criminals could walk into a sporting goods store,buy a gun,walk across the street and hold up a bank.Maybe killing someone in the process.Sure, it's sad things have to be this way.But they are,so we have to deal with it and do what we have to do.


are you telling me criminals dont "hold up banks and kill people in the process" now...?

thats good to hear, i guess i can leave my carry gun at home because criminals apparently cant buy guns with a background check....

texasgun
January 2, 2013, 12:37 AM
^^^

I think we had significantly more crime if we would sell "Tommy guns" in hardware stores with no questions asked as one poster was saying that he misses those days....

beatledog7
January 2, 2013, 12:39 AM
beatledog, do you really think people are released from prison because they are ready to return to society?

No, I don't necessarily think that, and I'm unsure how you got that I think that from my post. It depends on the person, why he or she was imprisoned, etc. Many people go to prison for crimes that are unrelated to violence period let alone violence with firearms, and I can't see any justification for denying their 2A rights once they are released. Some are released because they have served out their sentence fully, or because of overcrowding, parole eligibility, etc., and are not a danger to anyone. Others are released for those reasons but frankly should remain incarcerated because they have demonstrated a willingness to commit violent crimes again.

In short, we need to fix the sentencing and prison systems so that violent offenders who will be violent again stay in prison and the legal system so that non-violent offenders and those whose crimes have nothing to do with firearms regain their RKBA upon release. If we don't trust a proposed ex-con with a gun because of that person's previous actions, given the many ways a gun can be obtained illegally, then we should not be letting him or her out, period.

Granny has to go to the institution because she has advanced Alzheimer's? She can't live at home with her son anymore?

Mental health "institutions" do not have to be big scary buildings with lots of crazy people, guys in white coats, rubber rooms, etc. They can just as easily be private homes IF sufficient safeguards are in place. A person with Alzheimer's should not be given access to a car or a carving knife, let alone a gun, unless it's under very strict control of a competent and specifically trained person. Most folks who take on the task of caring for an Alzheimer's patient on their own eventually admit the need for professional assistance.

If we as a society would admit these two things to ourselves and stop being such politically correct bleeding hearts, two large pieces of the total gun violence puzzle--shootings committed by the mentally ill and shootings committed by the recidivistic criminal--would mostly be eliminated.

texasgun
January 2, 2013, 12:49 AM
I think the thought that the government would suddenly go around and hand out "felony" convictions to strip people of their 2A rights is beyond ridiculous ...
if they "frame" you for a felony conviction your 2A rights are your least problem as you will spent A LONG time in prison before thinking of buying a gun....

We would need to re-write most of our laws and change the justice system significantly to start handing out "felony" convictions for lesser crimes .... something which can hardly go by unnoticed and would impact EVERYBODY because felons also cannot vote and good luck finding a job with a felony conviction....

oooh... there's a black helicopter.... tin foil hat quickly!

klyph
January 2, 2013, 12:50 AM
It's illogical to support a method intended to achieve a certain goal when it has been demonstrated to be ineffective.

texasgun
January 2, 2013, 12:54 AM
^^

ok. drunk driving is illegal and folks under 21 are prohibited from drinking? yet ... everybody still does....

therefore we do not need laws against drunk driving and shouldn't check I.D.s in liquor stores????

barnbwt
January 2, 2013, 12:55 AM
do you really think people are released from prison because they are ready to return to society?
I know, they used to either execute or permanently incarcerate those deemed untrustworthy of life on the outside. Prison used to be for housing those who could not be trusted alone with their peers, and punishing those who hadn't gotten that far with a taste of what they were in for. The notion they could be turned into places of healing and redemption came around when the first sanitariums came online, and we all know how truly misguided that effort was (rampant corruption, inmate abuse, medical experimentation, etc.). I don't know what prison is for today (manufacturing furniture and wood flooring with forced labor on the states' dime, I suspect) but it sure isn't for improving public safety by tucking away baddies for good anymore.

TCB

mljdeckard
January 2, 2013, 12:56 AM
No. Anyone who commits a violent felony should have life-long consequences from it. The Constitution states that no man shall be deprived of his rights without due process of law. Convicted felons have (literally) had their day in court.

We can talk about straightening out the expungement process, (which at the federal level is pretty much non-existent as of now,) but I THINK, there should be a thick stack of conditions on it. (Repeat violent offenders can't do it at all.)

klyph
January 2, 2013, 01:09 AM
ok. drunk driving is illegal and folks under 21 are prohibited from drinking? yet ... everybody still does....

therefore we do not need laws against drunk driving and shouldn't check I.D.s in liquor stores????
I haven't done much research into the correlation and causality of underage drinking and drunk driving. Has underage drinking or drunk driving been reduced following the restrictions put in place? Do they actually do anything or do they just make us feel like we're doing something? Every piece of legislation aimed at prevention should be reviewed after 10 years to evaluate it's effectiveness. If it cannot be demonstrated to be effective, it should be removed in order to free up public funds to address the problem in a manner that will actually be effective. If background checks can be demonstrated to significantly reduce crime in proportion to burden on the taxpayer, it would be difficult to argue against it. I've never seen evidence of correlation or causality. If it's out there, please bring it to our attention.

texasgun
January 2, 2013, 02:06 AM
"No. Anyone who commits a violent felony should have life-long consequences from it. The Constitution states that no man shall be deprived of his rights without due process of law. Convicted felons have (literally) had their day in court."

couldn't have said it better. I'm still baffled by the folks here who are "ok" with zero checks on whatsoever and even think that prohibiting felons from owning a gun is in violation of the 2A and the constitution.... I think if you want to die on that hill you are going to lose the gun debate with the general public in no time....

leadcounsel
January 2, 2013, 03:24 AM
Shall not be infringed

Pretty clear to me. Once you start making classes of people, then adding more disqualifications becomes easier.

First it was violent felons.
Then all felons.
Then MISDEMEANOR DV convictions, retroactively!
Simply having a restraining order from a partner in place against you! That's not even a conviction, just an allegation!
Drug users (nevermind the war on drugs is absurd)
And the widely defined mentally insane... including PTSD from war... (so, you serve your nation in war and then lose your gun rights)...

Let me ask you this. If you REALLY wanted to kill one or groups of people, and you could not buy a gun, or even steal one, would that stop you? Nope.

Lots of things are cheap and easy to get.

Hammers, axes, chainsaws, a bow and arrows, kitchen knives, gas and a match, a car to run people over, fertilizer, rope, water (drowning), a club, a portable scroll saw.... and on and on and on...

The ONLY thing that will stop a violent person is the 'victim' being armed and able to effectively resist.

Deanimator
January 2, 2013, 06:36 AM
I think we had significantly more crime if we would sell "Tommy guns" in hardware stores with no questions asked as one poster was saying that he misses those days....
"MORE crime"???

NOT "crime with different weapons"?

So then you believe that firearms CAUSE crime?

Deanimator
January 2, 2013, 06:38 AM
couldn't have said it better. I'm still baffled by the folks here who are "ok" with zero checks on whatsoever and even think that prohibiting felons from owning a gun is in violation of the 2A and the constitution....
Should convicted felons be allowed to drive?

Make political statements on the internet?

If so, why?

anchorman
January 2, 2013, 06:48 AM
I think background checks are fine, I really don't want criminals and insane people to have an easier time getting weapons. The only people who's rights are infringed by a background check are those groups.

And to be blunt if I had the opportunity to use NICS I wouldn't even sell to another private individual without a background check.

Here, here! Just a personal choice, but I don't usually feel comfortable doing private sales sell to strangers. I trust most people, but I don't want to be responsible if it turns out that they are a prohibited person. And yes, I'm o.k. with violent criminals and the mentally disturbed being considered prohibited persons, along with unsupervised minors.

gc70
January 2, 2013, 07:21 AM
I'm still baffled by the folks here who are "ok" with zero checks on whatsoever and even think that prohibiting felons from owning a gun is in violation of the 2A and the constitution....

People commit crimes, for which they are punished by society. If you believe in rehabilitation, the criminal emerges from punishment as a 'good' person and there would be no reason to treat them differently from anyone else. If you do not believe in rehabilitation, the criminal suffers society's punishment, but is still a 'bad' person when again unleashed into society.

The rationale for background checks -to differentiate between 'good' and 'bad' people- shows that society does not really believe criminals are rehabilitated. Since our society is too compassionate to eliminate unrehabilitated criminals and too cheap to keep them locked away from the rest of society, we all suffer the indignities and inconveniences of measures put in place to protect us from the 'bad' people we let back into our midst.

Some people advocate a different approach - that criminals should not be released into society until we are convinced that they have really been rehabilitated and are no different than anyone else. At that point, there would be no reason for background checks or basis for denying any rights to fully rehabilitated former criminals.

anchorman
January 2, 2013, 07:27 AM
The CT shooter tried and was turned down but unfortunately, that drove him to just take his mothers'. So where does that leave us? :(

reasonable safe storage mandate. on your person, or locked up, end of story. if you allow a prohibited person access to your firearms, you are culpable. I mention reasonable, because if you live alone or with other non-prohibited persons, there's no reason that leaving them in your locked house or locked vehicle would not constitute safe storage, i.e. make it hard for the not quite determined to get ahold of them. determined people are going to do what they want anyway.

The CT shooter shouldn't have had access to the pistols at the very least, as he was not yet 21. I'm not sure on the rules for gifting a handgun to your kid, but I know under 21 can't buy one.

No single rule is going to make everything perfectly safe, but certain things, like background checks and safe storage are not particularly onerous on the rest of us, and do their part to help keep guns out of the hands of those who have chosen to give up some of their freedoms by committing felonies. some don't see that in a positive light, as they think that everyone who is bad enough that they shouldn't have access to a gun should be in jail, but sometimes jail is not the most sensible way to go. there's a lot of gray areas , but I like to think that we as a society are mostly reasonable people, despite the evidence I sometimes see to the contrary.

anchorman
January 2, 2013, 07:32 AM
Some people advocate a different approach - that criminals should not be released into society until we are convinced that they have really been rehabilitated and are no different than anyone else. At that point, there would be no reason for background checks or basis for denying any rights to fully rehabilitated former criminals.

Nice idea in theory, but we would have a lot more people in jail at that point. Keeping people in jail seems like a good idea, until you realize that it costs a lot of money to keep them there. And keeping a bunch of criminals together in one place seems to breed more criminal behavior, especially the way we leave people to be assaulted by their fellow inmates and even the prison staff at times. Sometimes there's gray areas, and it is to everyones benefit to give someone the benefit of the doubt with some strings attached for the short (or maybe long) term, depending on their crime.

gc70
January 2, 2013, 07:44 AM
anchorman,

Everyone has an opinion on how much risk of criminal recidivism society should accept. And everyone has an opinion on how much they are willing to pay to reduce that risk.

larryh1108
January 2, 2013, 07:46 AM
If you are a person who believes released prisoners should have their rights restored when released then put in a process for these ex-cons to regain their rights they lost when they committed their crimes. Part of the punishment is losing rights but if you feel time served is the entirement punishment then give them a chance at earning the rights back. Set up a review board who will look at many things including the type of crime (violent or non-violent), how often you've shown disregard for the law, etc. Give it a time window to reappy like 5 years. Prove you've become a member of society with a stable work environment and a stable home environment. Give them a chance at earning their rights back and maybe some will do it.

To me, giving a released prisoner (violent crime) easy access to firearms is no different than having a recovering alcoholic work in a bar, a recovering drug abuser a job in an area with open access to drugs, etc. Putting people in areas which tempt failure and you will have relapses.

Some say ex-cons with non-violent convictions deserve their RKBA. Maybe, maybe not. If there is a review process and it shows that he is a one time offender and has been clean for 5 years after his release then maybe he should be able to rejoin society. If he has a rap sheet from childhood and shows a reckless disregard for any and all laws, he deserves what his actions have shown... loss of his rights. Yes, he is labeled. He put the labels there when he chose a life of crime. Society didn't label him, he did it all to himself.

anchorman
January 2, 2013, 07:48 AM
All you have to look at are illegetimate births and the rates.... transfer that to general perceptions of laws and regulations and you can see where the US is headed. .... socialism and tryranny relative to our present government and certainly relative to the government envisioned by our founding fathers.

Sorry, but this talk of illegitimate births and the founding fathers is absolutely silly. A good many of them were known to have fathered quite a few illegitimate children, but that did not by a long shot disqualify them from coming up with the most just, fair and liberal system of governance that the world has ever seen. these "immoral" people had the foresight to write into our constitution that the government does not have the right to restrict free people from owning arms - that is probably one of the most moral and just declarations ever to be codified into law.

anchorman
January 2, 2013, 07:58 AM
Ever since buying his first gun through a background check(S&W 442) my uncle has gotten harassed and searched every time he crosses the border into and out of Canada to see my aunt's family. He was never given any trouble prior to that and now it happens every single time.
probably coincidence if this purchase was made post 2001. there has been a lot of border harassment since people freaked out about some folks flying planes into buildings. I was harassed at the border post 2001, a year or so before I bought my first gun. I have subsequently been harassed and not harassed, both coming and going, depending on the whim of the border agent. We should probably just annex canada in order to end this problem ;)

anchorman
January 2, 2013, 08:06 AM
And please let's not come with "oooh... back in the 70s and 80s we had no checks" ... we all know what violent crime was back then and what is it now....

Violent crime of all sorts is actually lower now than it has been since the 1950's or so. and next year in all likelihood, you will be even safer, statistically speaking. Control for violence that stems from drug prohibitions and systemic poverty in large cities, and we have pretty low violent crime numbers on the whole.

mljdeckard
January 2, 2013, 11:39 AM
It's not that I think barring felons from ownership is a deterrent to crime. It's more that I don't feel like adding them to the list of thing I want to fight for.

Krusty783
January 2, 2013, 12:01 PM
The issue is not giving rehabilitated felons the right to own guns, the issue is not giving punished felons the right to own guns. How many prisoners actually get "rehabilitated" while they're incarcerated? I don't know the numbers, but I'd bet its a fairly small percentage.

Some predators (pedaphiles, rapists, etc.) are psychologically broken and can't really be rehabilitated; Some kids get the message and escape the system. But, by and large, most prisoners forfeit a portion of their lives to captivity spending their time in general population. Perhaps they work in a kitchen or do some other small job, but they end up learning few, if any, honest skills, and then they're released without ever being "rehabilitated". These folks have not been given the tools or opportunity to change their lives and they should not be allowed to own weapons.

If someone participates in one of the boot camps or one of those programs where they rehabilitate animals, etc. and they learn how to be a positive influence and understand the mistakes they've made and they are released from prison and can make an honest living for themselves for a few years, I would say they are rehabilitated and perhaps they should regain some of their rights.

However, society makes it very difficult for any felon to make an honest living for themselves and their family. There are very few jobs a felon can get beyond manual labor type and janitorial jobs, and they definitely don't make much money. Conditions like these tend to push people back to a life of crime because it's what they know and is easier than trying to stay straight.

GEM
January 2, 2013, 12:29 PM
IIRC, if there had been proper reporting of his mental state and interactions with the court, Cho - at VT - might not have been able to legally purchase firearms. Is that worth it?

Hokkmike
January 2, 2013, 12:43 PM
My private gun transactions are primarily FTF and require a LTCF.

Background checks are good in theory but corruptible in practice.

tarosean
January 2, 2013, 12:53 PM
The issue is not giving rehabilitated felons the right to own guns, the issue is not giving punished felons the right to own guns. How many prisoners actually get "rehabilitated" while they're incarcerated? I don't know the numbers, but I'd bet its a fairly small percentage.

Our recidivism rates hover around 40% +\-

mljdeckard
January 2, 2013, 12:54 PM
My CJ courses say they are a lot higher.

M-Cameron
January 2, 2013, 12:56 PM
IIRC, if there had been proper reporting of his mental state and interactions with the court, Cho - at VT - might not have been able to legally purchase firearms. Is that worth it?


at the end of the day....does it honestly make a difference if he purchased his guns legally or illegally?

as for reporting, what do we report? and who do we report it to?

are all people on certain medications to be reported?

are all people with depression to be reported?

if one doctor thinks you shouldnt have a gun should it be reported? two doctors? three doctors?



Cho was a senior....which means he most likely knew how to use google......if he didnt use guns, he could have just as easily found out how to make pipebombs and use those.....would that have been any better?

beatledog7
January 2, 2013, 03:07 PM
I agree that a person who commits a crime is voluntarily surrendering his gun and voting rights, but it's also true that once released a truly determined recidivistic criminal who wants a gun will be able to find a way to obtain a gun.

Background checks are irrelevant to such a person.

The only assurance we have against the above scenario is continued incarceration.

inclinebench
January 2, 2013, 03:33 PM
Cho was given an examination by a two-bit local "mental health agency" and deemed A-OK, despite the misgivings by his teachers and other students at Va. Tech. New River Valley Mental Health Associates missed the train in a big way on that kid.

Andrew Leigh
January 2, 2013, 05:32 PM
The South African restrictions on gun ownership would be totally unacceptable in the U.S.
They are also unacceptable for us but we are where we are.

JohnBT
January 2, 2013, 07:21 PM
"and deemed A-OK"

It's still not against the law to be withdrawn, depressed and strange, especially if you're a college student. The law requires that a person be an "imminent danger to oneself or others."

It's real easy to be a Monday morning quarterback when you weren't there. If he was an imminent danger, why didn't they admit him for inpatient treatment?

"A doctor who saw him at the hospital found him suffering from the normal stresses of college life and recommended outpatient treatment."

The shooting was 16 months later. A danger, but hardly an imminent danger. Imminent means pending, looming, etc. Not something a year later.

Mental health workers have a thankless job.

John

jcwit
January 2, 2013, 07:49 PM
Really folks, I think we've all seen those who should have no firearm, whether you wish to call it a right or not.

I really believe the solution to this problem is way past most of our pay grades. And its for sure I do not have the solution.

splattergun
January 2, 2013, 08:09 PM
I am a law abiding citizen also.However I do not mind backround checks. In fact I believe that they are absolutely necessary.Without them the criminals could walk into a sporting goods store,buy a gun,walk across the street and hold up a bank.Maybe killing someone in the process.Sure, it's sad things have to be this way.But they are,so we have to deal with it and do what we have to do.
I'm having a lot of difficulty picturing a bank robber BUYING a gun, then walking across the street to STEAL money. O Lord, save us from such emotional, fearful nonsense.

What did bank robbers do to obtain pistols before NICS? Commonly, they stole them or bought it cheap from another thief, as they still do. NCIS does little, if anything, to stop DISHONEST or UNSTABLE people from obtaining weapons, as mentioned in several other posts of this thread. It only inconveniences honest people trying to purchase legal merchandise in an honest way.

Sport45
January 3, 2013, 10:55 AM
Mandating background checks for private sales would require registering every gun in existence. Otherwise, how would they know if you didn't already have whatever you have when they check.

They'd have better luck trying prohibition again.

AlexanderA
January 3, 2013, 11:05 AM
Mandating background checks for private sales would require registering every gun in existence. Otherwise, how would they know if you didn't already have whatever you have when they check.

This doesn't make sense logically. You could just give non-licensee sellers access to NICS, and they would simply get a "proceed" or "don't proceed" answer, without revealing the potential buyer's whole criminal history. That way, everybody's privacy rights would be protected, while screening out prohibited individuals. Also, this would not burden private sellers with FFL transfer fees.

klyph
January 3, 2013, 11:34 AM
Under what authority would government regulate the private transfer of a constitutionally protected right? This seems onerous, ineffective, and unconstitutional on it's face. It also sets a downright frightening precedent for the rest of the bill of rights.

PedalBiker
January 3, 2013, 12:59 PM
Really folks, I think we've all seen those who should have no firearm, whether you wish to call it a right or not.

So why do you give them access to automobiles and all the wonderful chemicals at Home Depot? In Denver there was a lady who was sprayed with gasoline from an insecticide sprayer and set on fire.

Do we do background checks for Raid or Decon or gasoline? Do you know that rat poison is no longer warfarin, but a nerve poison that is substantially more toxic? I need to prove my age to buy spray paint, but not rat poison.

Why are we giving such dangerous people access to these horrible chemicals?

PedalBiker
January 3, 2013, 01:03 PM
NCIS does little, if anything, to stop DISHONEST or UNSTABLE people from obtaining weapons, as mentioned in several other posts of this thread. It only inconveniences honest people trying to purchase legal merchandise in an honest way.

I would suspect that there are some people who are unaware of their prohibited status who may be discouraged from purchasing guns by the NICS system.

On the whole I believe these same people are not really a risk to society if they did purchase.

Waiting periods may frustrate some borderline passionate crimes that might not have otherwise happened.

Overall, however, the burden to society of the NICS system is probably not worth the cost. On the other hand neither is NFL football, so as an entertainment system it's probably fairly cheap for the masses who love it.

And frankly, gun control overall is really nothing more than sick entertainment for the ones who support it. Remember, burning witches was also pretty popular even though it had no tangible benefits. Human nature is, after all, predictable.

gc70
January 3, 2013, 02:00 PM
I would suspect that there are some people who are unaware of their prohibited status who may be discouraged from purchasing guns by the NICS system.

Exactly how does that work? They do not try to buy guns because they do not know that they are prohibited?

PedalBiker
January 3, 2013, 03:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedalBiker
I would suspect that there are some people who are unaware of their prohibited status who may be discouraged from purchasing guns by the NICS system.
Exactly how does that work? They do not try to buy guns because they do not know that they are prohibited?

Easy. They go to the gun store, find out they are prohibited and cease any further attempts to purchase since they now know they are not allowed under the law.

gc70
January 3, 2013, 03:28 PM
Sorry, PedalBiker, but you can only have it one way or the other. Either not knowing prohibited status discourages attempted purchases or it does not.

JohnBT
January 3, 2013, 03:29 PM
Maybe they cease any further attempts at a gun store, but that's no more than an inconvenience.

anchorman
January 3, 2013, 03:57 PM
Maybe they cease any further attempts at a gun store, but that's no more than an inconvenience.

Depends on how many of us would sell a stranger a gun that we knew they were prohibited by law from owning. I know some people would, and I understand why, but I think most people would not. No solution is going to reduce the chance of bad things happening 100%, but we can do things to help reduce harm without infringing on the rights of honest citizens.

rdhood
January 3, 2013, 04:45 PM
I would support requiring all transfers to go through an FFL and a NICS check.

I would support this.... ONLY if the NICS check through an FFL between two private parties is FREE. Otherwise, a NICS check becomes something akin to a poll tax.

Hypnogator
January 3, 2013, 04:53 PM
I would support this.... ONLY if the NICS check through an FFL between two private parties is FREE. Otherwise, a NICS check becomes something akin to a poll tax.

Agreed. Requiring background checks, readily conducted via Internet, on all firearms transfers won't stop all prohibited persons from acquiring firearms, but it will stop some of them. The Gov't doesn't need to know the particular firearm that is about to be transferred, other than, perhaps "Long Gun" or "Handgun." Moreover, such a law could indemnify the seller against liability should the firearm subsequently be misused. :cool:

Just my $0.02 worth.

anchorman
January 3, 2013, 05:14 PM
Moreover, such a law could indemnify the seller against liability should the firearm subsequently be misused.

This is an important thing to note, given that some of the more extreme anti's want to make defacto bans by suing us if someone else steals our stuff. Or by suing the manufacturer for making a dangerous/defective product.

larryh1108
January 3, 2013, 08:31 PM
In CT, for a F2F handgun sale, you have to call a 800 to get an approval#. If the buyer has a Pistol Permit for carry, then you have to give them your (sellers) permit# and the permit# of the buyer. They verify both names and if all checks out they give you an approval# which has to be included on the state issued form that has to be filled out and signed by both parties. The seller and buyer each get a copy, a copy is mailed to the police dept of the city the buyer lives in and another copy is mailed to the state. It must be mailed in 30 days or less. If the buyer does not have a pistol permit for carry he can apply for a permit to buy and keep at his home or business but not carry.

Now, when I sold one F2F, I put the paperwork aside to mail in and forgot about it. 32 days later I got a letter from the state stating they did not receive their copy of the purchase and I had 7 days to mail it to them or they would revoke my permit. If the sale fell thru then I would have to mail it to them stating the sale did not go thru.

Registration? Sure sounds like it to me but I am not willing to forego the process and have something happen down the road. I purchased the pistol years ago when I lived in another state, as are most of my guns, but if I sell anything in CT I will fill out all required documents. Sure, I could do a F2F with no paperwork since the state doesn't know I own it by why would I? It's not worth it especially for a buyer I don't know.

Sport45
January 3, 2013, 10:05 PM
Quote:
Mandating background checks for private sales would require registering every gun in existence. Otherwise, how would they know if you didn't already have whatever you have when they check.
This doesn't make sense logically. You could just give non-licensee sellers access to NICS, and they would simply get a "proceed" or "don't proceed" answer, without revealing the potential buyer's whole criminal history. That way, everybody's privacy rights would be protected, while screening out prohibited individuals. Also, this would not burden private sellers with FFL transfer fees.

If the gun isn't registered somehow there is no way to tell if a background check was done when it was transferred. Using the honor system (if I'm reading you correctly) is just like any other law. Only the honorable will comply.

1911 guy
January 3, 2013, 10:10 PM
Against. People who know they aren't supposed to have guns (prohibited persons) simply go off-road and get them. Steal them, buy from the trunk of a car, etc. All checks do is inconvenience the law-abiding.

If I thought background checks would actually prevent maniacs and fools from getting guns, I'd be more than willing to re-think my position. But it won't, so I won't.

larryh1108
January 3, 2013, 10:53 PM
Steal them, buy from the trunk of a car, etc. All checks do is inconvenience the law-abiding.

True, but by requiring a background check you remove a large source of guns and makes it harder to obtain them illegally. Will it stop them? No, but it makes it more difficult. It may even prevent some from getting one if they aren't "well connected". If you know you'll fail an NICS check, you won't go to an FFL to buy a gun, you'll look for one face-to-face and lie to the seller. That puts one too many guns in the hands of someone who should not have one. If we make it harder for even one person to get an illegal gun, maybe we'll have one less murder. Just one. Ask the family of the murder victim if it is worth it.

M-Cameron
January 3, 2013, 11:15 PM
True, but by requiring a background check you remove a large source of guns and makes it harder to obtain them illegally. Will it stop them? No, but it makes it more difficult. It may even prevent some from getting one if they aren't "well connected". If you know you'll fail an NICS check, you won't go to an FFL to buy a gun, you'll look for one face-to-face and lie to the seller. That puts one too many guns in the hands of someone who should not have one. If we make it harder for even one person to get an illegal gun, maybe we'll have one less murder. Just one. Ask the family of the murder victim if it is worth it.


that sounds eerily like the " if it saves just one life" argument we are all familiar with.....it sounds great, but there is no way to ever prove it one way or the other, its all hypothetical and a weak argument at that.


now i dont consider my self particularly "well connected" with the criminal underworld.......but i have no doubt that if i were so inclined, i could have an "illegal gun" in my hands in under a week with less than half a dozen phone calls.

or, like you said, just check the local For sale adds and lie face to face......i could have a gun in under a day. if you want to apply background checks to FTF sales, i can just get a buddy to buy the guns for me.....



quite frankly, your argument about making it just a little bit harder is somewhat moot as it isnt hard at all for them to buy guns.....its like trying to argue that shutting down one casino in vegas will make it just a little harder for people to gamble.

1911 guy
January 3, 2013, 11:33 PM
I'm really not trying to sound like a complete boor here, but explain to me, in detail, how background checks would eliminate a source of black market guns.

Just keep in mind that they are, by definition, black market and by extension, illegal.

You can do everything right and pass all the background checks you want. Volunteer for a few more if it makes you feel good. But what happens when your guns get stolen?

Or do you believe in the fictional "gunshow loophole"?

larryh1108
January 3, 2013, 11:52 PM
if you want to apply background checks to FTF sales, i can just get a buddy to buy the guns for me.....

would you straw purchase a gun for a buddy if he couldn't legally buy one?

M-Cameron
January 3, 2013, 11:56 PM
would you straw purchase a gun for a buddy if he couldn't legally buy one?

would I, a legal gun owner and law abiding citizen, buy a gun for a felon......no.

but if i was the type of person who willingly associated with felons looking to obtain a gun......probably.

or if i was ignorant of current firearms laws......i could see it.

youve got to remember, not every bad guy is a felon or has a criminal record......its not hard to find a 'clean' person who is willing to break the law....especially if you toss them some $$$.

gc70
January 4, 2013, 12:06 AM
We all know that background checks, no matter how perfect, will not stop prohibited persons from getting guns. In fact, the people who want more gun control are counting on that fact to be the basis for their "next step" - registration. Even registration would not stop prohibited persons from getting guns, but only point more readily towards someone to blame. And when registration did not achieve the impossible goal, there would be another "next step."

klyph
January 4, 2013, 12:07 AM
True, but by requiring a background check you remove a large source of guns and makes it harder to obtain them illegally. Will it stop them? No, but it makes it more difficult. It may even prevent some from getting one if they aren't "well connected". If you know you'll fail an NICS check, you won't go to an FFL to buy a gun, you'll look for one face-to-face and lie to the seller. That puts one too many guns in the hands of someone who should not have one. If we make it harder for even one person to get an illegal gun, maybe we'll have one less murder. Just one. Ask the family of the murder victim if it is worth it.

Actually, supposing you do prohibit or restrict private transfers, you immediately increase the profit for illegal vendors to fill the criminal demand, thus drastically increasing the financial capabilities of illegal firearm vendors. The only thing such legislation would be guaranteed to effect is to put more money in the pockets of these criminal trunk salesmen.
The argument of "if it just saves one life" is perhaps the height of ignorance. There are many legislative actions that are sure to "just save one life": ban airbags, ban cars that go above 50mph, ban all OTC medicine, ban firearms, etc. The problem is that you're usually trading several lives or the natural and civil rights of the entire population to save that one life. I'm sorry to sound calloused, but the thousands of lives that are saved every year by firearms are more valuable than the handful of kids that get killed. It's simple math. I'll gladly explain it to the families of murder victims if you think it's necessary.

anchorman
January 4, 2013, 12:23 AM
Using the honor system (if I'm reading you correctly) is just like any other law. Only the honorable will comply.

Except in this case it allows the honorable to know (with pretty good certainty) that they are not selling to dishonorable people.

golfer_ray
January 4, 2013, 12:56 AM
I see no problem with background checks. At least that will eliminate the obvious from getting a firearm easily.

9MMare
January 4, 2013, 12:57 AM
Easy. They go to the gun store, find out they are prohibited and cease any further attempts to purchase since they now know they are not allowed under the law.

The Newtown,CT shooter tried to buy a gun(s) legally and was turned down.

He went home and took his mother's.

Another might have just gone and stolen someone elses' (essentially what the CT shooter did).

Murder was not prevented.

9MMare
January 4, 2013, 01:01 AM
True, but by requiring a background check you remove a large source of guns and makes it harder to obtain them illegally. Will it stop them? No, but it makes it more difficult. It may even prevent some from getting one if they aren't "well connected". If you know you'll fail an NICS check, you won't go to an FFL to buy a gun, you'll look for one face-to-face and lie to the seller. That puts one too many guns in the hands of someone who should not have one. If we make it harder for even one person to get an illegal gun, maybe we'll have one less murder. Just one. Ask the family of the murder victim if it is worth it.

I dont mean to be rude or insensitive, but is that the price of freedom? One life?

Or, 3? Or, how many? I think it's a legitimate question.

Please see my signature for my opinion (2nd one).

9MMare
January 4, 2013, 01:04 AM
We all know that background checks, no matter how perfect, will not stop prohibited persons from getting guns. In fact, the people who want more gun control are counting on that fact to be the basis for their "next step" - registration. Even registration would not stop prohibited persons from getting guns, but only point more readily towards someone to blame. And when registration did not achieve the impossible goal, there would be another "next step."

Thank you. I have been posting something similar re: the school protection 'solutions' that the pro-gun side is considering.

9MMare
January 4, 2013, 01:08 AM
Except in this case it allows the honorable to know (with pretty good certainty) that they are not selling to dishonorable people.

Would the 'honorable' still be held responsible if the supposedly...at the time....honorable person buying the gun snaps in the future and commits a crime? Or that gun gets stolen and used in a crime? I wouldnt want to see liability attached to it....would that be avoidable?

I dont think there are any guarantees for any item you sell.

gc70
January 4, 2013, 01:45 AM
Except in this case it allows the honorable to know (with pretty good certainty) that they are not selling to dishonorable people.

You do not need a law for that; anyone who wants the reassurance of a background check can already voluntarily pay to do a transaction through an FFL.

michaelbsc
January 4, 2013, 02:34 AM
You do not need a law for that; anyone who wants the reassurance of a background check can already voluntarily pay to do a transaction through an FFL.

Thank you. A breath of fresh air.

anchorman
January 4, 2013, 02:37 AM
You do not need a law for that; anyone who wants the reassurance of a background check can already voluntarily pay to do a transaction through an FFL.

Depends on if they live anywhere near an FFL. I'm pretty sure this is a big reason why reason private sales have always been made legal, and why they will remain so: the possibility that a person might have to travel an undue distance in order to procure the services of an FFL.

anchorman
January 4, 2013, 02:51 AM
Would the 'honorable' still be held responsible if the supposedly...at the time....honorable person buying the gun snaps in the future and commits a crime? Or that gun gets stolen and used in a crime? I wouldnt want to see liability attached to it....would that be avoidable?



That would be the whole point. Trade universal background check for release of seller from liability, unless it could be proven that they otherwise had knowledge the buyer was cuckoo.

The NRA could make itself look really good if they would propose madatory (but reasonable) safe storage rules, along with mandatory (and free) access to NICS system for all transfers. The problem with all of this debate is that both sides see the other as insane/evil, and there is no trust. This makes it really hard for reasonable people to come up with reasonable, simple and just solutions, which could/would reduce harm to individuals and society in general without undue burden on individual liberties.

gc70
January 4, 2013, 02:58 AM
I suppose each person must decide whether they have a limit on the cost or convenience of being honorable.

Trade universal background check for release of seller from liability

That would entail agreeing to being subject to more than we are subject to now in exchange for not being subject to something we are not subject to now.

Somehow, that does not seem to fit in my understanding of compromise.

9MMare
January 4, 2013, 03:01 AM
That would be the whole point. Trade universal background check for release of seller from liability, unless it could be proven that they otherwise had knowledge the buyer was cuckoo.

The NRA could make itself look really good if they would propose madatory (but reasonable) safe storage rules, along with mandatory (and free) access to NICS system for all transfers. The problem with all of this debate is that both sides see the other as insane/evil, and there is no trust. This makes it really hard for reasonable people to come up with reasonable, simple and just solutions, which could/would reduce harm to individuals and society in general without undue burden on individual liberties.

I'm personally against 'safe storage' laws. I have a bit of a Darwinistic tendency there. I think it's an invasion of home and privacy rights, not to mention that if an outsider steals my property, period, THEY are the criminal, not me.

Is safe storage a necessity in homes with kids? I would think so. Is it common sense? I would think so. Should it be law? I dont know....do families have to lock up their matches? Are they imprisoned when their kids drown in the family pool?

I believe in personal responsibility...and the more we attempt to legislate it (and you cant actually FORCE it)....the more you actually undermine it.

(Yup...Democrat here.)

anchorman
January 4, 2013, 03:18 AM
I'm personally against 'safe storage' laws. I have a bit of a Darwinistic tendency there. I think it's an invasion of home and privacy rights, not to mention that if an outsider steals my property, period, THEY are the criminal, not me.

Is safe storage a necessity in homes with kids? I would think so. Is it common sense? I would think so. Should it be law? I dont know....do families have to lock up their matches? Are they imprisoned when their kids drown in the family pool?

I believe in personal responsibility...and the more we attempt to legislate it (and you cant actually FORCE it)....the more you actually undermine it.

(Yup...Democrat here.)

I'm mostly with you re: personal responsibility. it's not easy to answer, though. If one believes (as I do) that kids have rights as individuals and are not the property of their parents, it changes that perspective you offer to a certain extent. With any case, wether a gun or an accidental drowning, if there is negligence involved and someone is maimed or killed, that negligent party belongs in jail. And what if the kid shoots their friend, by accident, or on purpose? I'm not saying anyone should inspect people's homes for compliance under ordinary circumstances, but if there is an incident where a child is maimed or killed, or gets a gun and uses it on someone else, why not?

9MMare
January 4, 2013, 03:25 AM
I'm mostly with you re: personal responsibility. it's not easy to answer, though. If one believes (as I do) that kids have rights as individuals and are not the property of their parents, it changes that perspective you offer to a certain extent. With any case, wether a gun or an accidental drowning, if there is negligence involved and someone is maimed or killed, that negligent party belongs in jail. And what if the kid shoots their friend, by accident, or on purpose? I'm not saying anyone should inspect people's homes for compliance under ordinary circumstances, but if there is an incident where a child is maimed or killed, or gets a gun and uses it on someone else, why not?



Why? Why is a gun different than a car? If the kid gets hold of the car and kills someone...what is the penalty? Is the parent held criminally responsible? (They most likely can be civilly). If someone else's kid drowns in your pool, are you criminally responsible? Even if you have a fence, as most people do?

Minors do not have the 'full' rights of consenting adults. And I agree with this.

anchorman
January 4, 2013, 03:28 AM
That would entail agreeing to being subject to more than we are subject to now in exchange for not being subject to something we are not subject to now.

Somehow, that does not seem to fit in my understanding of compromise.

we can be stubborn and keep our heads in the sand, or we can appear to be (and perhaps actually be) proactive in this regard, offer up real, viable solutions to problems we have. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm pretty sure if we don't try to offer some reasonable solutions to the problem of prohibited persons and minors acquiring guns, "solutions" will be forced upon us at some point. I'd rather sane people from the ranks of american gun owners are coming up with answers rather than get them from people who haven't a clue about guns, such as mike bloomberg and diane feinstein, and can buy all the personal safety that they want.

anchorman
January 4, 2013, 03:35 AM
Why? Why is a gun different than a car? If the kid gets hold of the car and kills someone...what is the penalty? Is the parent held criminally responsible? (They most likely can be civilly). If someone else's kid drowns in your pool, are you criminally responsible? Even if you have a fence, as most people do?

Minors do not have the 'full' rights of consenting adults. And I agree with this.

The idea that it is your fault if someone's kid crosses your fence and drowns in your pool that you are somehow responsible is close to the height of legal insanity, though I know it is a reality somehow.

I know minors do not have the full rights of adults, but there are a few things, such as the right to their life and bodily integrity that transcend any ability on their part to consent to anything or not. The checks that go on before one can adopt a child are pretty extreme, I think this speaks somewhat to how we as a society see that a child has a right to live in a moderately safe environment. Mandating that they don't have unsupervised access to guns doesn't seem that far out in that context.

9MMare
January 4, 2013, 03:37 AM
we can be stubborn and keep our heads in the sand, or we can appear to be (and perhaps actually be) proactive in this regard, offer up real, viable solutions to problems we have. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I'm pretty sure if we don't try to offer some reasonable solutions to the problem of prohibited persons and minors acquiring guns, "solutions" will be forced upon us at some point. I'd rather sane people from the ranks of american gun owners are coming up with answers rather than get them from people who haven't a clue about guns, such as mike bloomberg and diane feinstein, and can buy all the personal safety that they want.

I completely understand that perspective (what I bolded). However I have been posting on what I perceive as the dangers in that:

We can make recommendations but the minute the NRA or gun rights activists *declare* that such and such will save lives and should be implemented, then we get blamed when they dont work.

Let school districts decide to allow CC in schools. That is already on their radars, as we've seen movement in that direction since the CT shooting. Let parents decide to invest in armed security. Encourage it, but dont proscribe it. Because if and when it fails, *WE* are blamed for the failure and focus comes back to guns.

We, as the gun activists, need to support solutions that focus on the shooters...not the tools.



Again, this is just my perspective.

9MMare
January 4, 2013, 03:40 AM
The idea that it is your fault if someone's kid crosses your fence and drowns in your pool that you are somehow responsible is close to the height of legal insanity, though I know it is a reality somehow.

I know minors do not have the full rights of adults, but there are a few things, such as the right to their life and bodily integrity that transcend any ability on their part to consent to anything or not. The checks that go on before one can adopt a child are pretty extreme, I think this speaks somewhat to how we as a society see that a child has a right to live in a moderately safe environment. Mandating that they don't have unsupervised access to guns doesn't seem that far out in that context.

Again, I really dont understand the specific demonizing of guns. THat there should be laws specific to guns but not...cars or pools or matches or knives or...? It is a parent's responsibility to keep their child safe period. And if they do not....is it a criminal offense? Or only a criminal offense when a gun is involved?

Sport45
January 4, 2013, 03:42 AM
If having a a background check done on the buyer makes the seller feel better then by all means they should go through a FFL. They can do that now for a few dollars with little trouble.

But you can't mandate a background check without knowing everyone who is buying a gun and you have to know what gun they're buying so you can track its ownership. Some government agency would have to know WHO owns EVERY gun in America for this to work.

It'll never happen. At least it will never happen effectively no matter who votes for what.

Chris-bob
January 4, 2013, 03:42 AM
I oppose all federal regulation aimed at the people.

gc70
January 4, 2013, 04:16 AM
we can be stubborn and keep our heads in the sand, or we can appear to be (and perhaps actually be) proactive in this regard, offer up real, viable solutions to problems we have.

I agree with this sentiment. But I strongly disagree that simply broadening the scope of mandatory background checks is a viable solution.

There have been nearly a million NICS denials in the system's 14-year history, or around 70,000 a year. There have been roughly 250 prosecutions a year for the law that includes giving false information on a 4473. Is NICS horribly inaccurate or is the government not particularly interested in stopping prohibited persons from trying to buy guns, or possibly both?

As to solutions, I strongly favor more aggressive prosecution of prohibited persons who repeatedly try to buy guns through legitimate channels. I am also in favor of controlled (regarding privacy concerns) NICS access, free or at a nominal cost, to individuals who want to voluntarily have background checks for private transactions.

larryh1108
January 4, 2013, 07:11 AM
I'd rather sane people from the ranks of american gun owners are coming up with answers rather than get them from people who haven't a clue about guns, such as mike bloomberg and diane feinstein,

^^ This

I don't believe that anyone posting here wants any type of new gun laws, or any at all. However, not every American feels the same as we do and if we don't believe these mass killings are sway someone sitting on the fence towards total gun control then we are fooling ourselves. I'd rather be part of the solution than part of the (perceived) problem.

klyph
January 4, 2013, 11:33 AM
I'd rather be part of the (ineffective) solution than part of the (perceived) problem.

FIFY

PedalBiker
January 4, 2013, 11:46 AM
I'd rather be part of the solution than part of the (perceived) problem.

Part of the solution is keeping people informed and thinking rationally.

Enabling stupidity does not solve anything.

I am OK with "background checks" as well, but since they don't really work (see Fast and Furious for example) it just leads to another "non solution".

Politicians are great at divide and conquer. They get us debating amongst ourselves while they consolidate their power. Aside from this discussion; My in laws are a great example, they're totally dependent on SS and medicare and so saw Obama as their savior. When I pointed out how inflation was going to totally hose them they got angry at ME, not the source of the inflation.

1911 guy
January 4, 2013, 03:17 PM
You do realize that we are debating this from the anti-gun viewpoint, right?

Firearms are not the problem. Human nature is the problem. We sit here arguing with one another about what "sensible" gun control is and whether a further infringement of freedom is acceptable because a lot of us have bought into the terms as defined by anti-gunners.

Regulate human nature, the real cause of crime and depravity.

anchorman
January 4, 2013, 03:47 PM
Again, I really dont understand the specific demonizing of guns. THat there should be laws specific to guns but not...cars or pools or matches or knives or...? It is a parent's responsibility to keep their child safe period. And if they do not....is it a criminal offense? Or only a criminal offense when a gun is involved?

It's not demonizing guns, it's respecting the fact that they are instruments of death. That's their point, and I'm not going to act like that's a bad thing, but they deserve a little more respect and a special treatment in our lives than other objects because of this. With rights come responsibilities. We have the right to use these tools to defend ourselves, but we also have the responsibility to use them carefully and wisely and as a last resort. I hope that's something most of us here can respect.

anchorman
January 4, 2013, 03:59 PM
You do realize that we are debating this from the anti-gun viewpoint, right?

Firearms are not the problem. Human nature is the problem. We sit here arguing with one another about what "sensible" gun control is and whether a further infringement of freedom is acceptable because a lot of us have bought into the terms as defined by anti-gunners.

Regulate human nature, the real cause of crime and depravity.

I'm not sure how mandating background checks is anti-gun, or regulating the gun. It is not a ban, it is not telling law abiding citizens that they can't exercise their right to bear arms. Background checks are, in fact, an attempt to regulate humans. I'm still baffled by people elsewhere in this thread who think that calling in a background check somehow requires a database of all guns to be effective (it doesn't), and how if something is not guaranteed to be 100% effective, we shouldn't bother with it.

Maybe the NRA could come out for universal background checks on all sales in exchange for repeal of the NFA, GCA, and hughes amendments? (unlikely, but a guy can dream).

1911 guy
January 4, 2013, 04:07 PM
So what else are you proposing background checks for? Cars? license to operate heavy equipment? Should we do checks on people who want to go into a bar and drink? Or maybe sale at a liquor store, even.

No, and nobody else is, either. People want background checks for gun buyers and a check on ANYTHING else (except for some career choices) is deemed an infringement or presumption of guilt. So why are we supposed to be in such a hurry to accept it as "reasonable" when no other group is clamoring for it?

Answer: People are still debating from the standpoint of guns being the problem.

If I really thought, for even one serious minute, that background checks would lower crime rates, I'd be for it. But the cold hard facts are just the opposite. They do NOTHING to stop criminals from being criminals and merely inconvenience the law abiding, often adding cost to purchases.

anchorman
January 4, 2013, 04:39 PM
if a background check is a presumption of guilt, how are they not a presumption of guilt for people in those career choices that require background checks? I don't see them as a presumption of guilt so much as an inquiry into whether one is allowed to do something or not. Presumption of guilt would be telling a person with no criminal or mental illness history that they can't have any guns since they might use them to murder someone. since we have people of the streets who have given up many of their rights of citizenship, checking their status as a prohibited person doesn't seem so crazy in certain instances.

leadcounsel
January 4, 2013, 04:58 PM
I know someone (namely a moron) who honestly believes the following:

1. Nobody should have to show an ID to vote in an election because it's "oppressive and discriminatory" and that poor people can't get IDs.

2. Nobody should be allowed to own guns except "military and police" - not even common handguns and rifles.

And this guy is a Major in the United States Army! Unbelievable...


As for my beliefs, I used to think background checks were wise. I no longer believe that. Criminals are going to get guns, period - straw purchases and thefts and private sales easily circumvent background checks. I am completely unwilling to be forced to lock my guns up 24-7 and be prevented from private sales. So there's no reasonable way to resolve this issue.

Background checks, therefore, merely add an additional red tape and expense layer in the process.

I also believe that once you serve your penalty, then you should have your rights restored.

BTW, people bent on murder find other ways. The worst mass murders in America were done with dynamite (Michigan School early in the 1900s), fertilizer truck bomb (Oklahoma), and box cutters (9/11). Even without a gun, it wouldn't take much creativity to commit a mass murder with everyday things you can buy at Home Depot (chainsaws, hammers, propane tanks, machetes, nails, etc.).

1911 guy
January 4, 2013, 05:01 PM
That's just it. Even with background checks for jobs or security clearances, there IS a presumption of guilt. Either refuse to submit to a check or something comes back incomplete, much less derrogatory information, you don't get the job or clearance. The assumption is that you have done something to warrant denial.

So are you willing to embrace background checks for sales at a liquor store? Just to make sure you don't have any previous DUI. Or even a suspicion of it, actually.

When you buy your next car, your driving record will determine if you are safe enough to operate a vehicle on our roads. Certain types of infractions are disqualifying and a given number of other infractions combined are disqualifying.

See where this goes? Most people want to stop thinking at the desired conclusion. Carry the principle out to its final end and you have a situation that everyone must submit to a check for everything and everyone is denied because the checks are designed to ensure maximum safety, not maximum correctness or results.

leadcounsel
January 4, 2013, 05:32 PM
dupe

larryh1108
January 4, 2013, 09:14 PM
So are you willing to embrace background checks for sales at a liquor store? Just to make sure you don't have any previous DUI. Or even a suspicion of it, actually.

When you buy your next car, your driving record will determine if you are safe enough to operate a vehicle on our roads. Certain types of infractions are disqualifying and a given number of other infractions combined are disqualifying

We keep comparing guns to autos, liquor, etc. Owning a gun is not the same. Why?
Well, the main purpose of the auto is for transportation. Sometimes they kill.
The main purpose of alcohol is to get buzzed. Some people die from drinking too much.
The main purpose of a handgun is to kill another human being, maybe another animal.
Difference here?

People who compare driving rights to gun rights amaze me.
You are right, though, it is not the gun but the idiot behind it.
The same goes for the driver of the automobile and the guy behind the booze bottle.
However, the gun was made to kill. The others were not.
Not the same thing.
Not the same page.
Not the same book.

9MMare
January 4, 2013, 10:35 PM
if a background check is a presumption of guilt, how are they not a presumption of guilt for people in those career choices that require background checks? I don't see them as a presumption of guilt so much as an inquiry into whether one is allowed to do something or not. Presumption of guilt would be telling a person with no criminal or mental illness history that they can't have any guns since they might use them to murder someone. since we have people of the streets who have given up many of their rights of citizenship, checking their status as a prohibited person doesn't seem so crazy in certain instances.

What a private business chooses to demand is their right. Just like employers can demand that you do not carry in the workplace.

splattergun
January 4, 2013, 10:40 PM
I dont mean to be rude or insensitive, but is that the price of freedom? One life?

Or, 3? Or, how many? I think it's a legitimate question.

Please see my signature for my opinion (2nd one).
What is the price of "safety"... one soveriegn right? three? All of them?

Evil people always have, and always will, take advantage of the weak. People die when this happens. Only strength can hope to stem the flow. Europeans and those Americans who have been baited to believe the lie that government can keep people safe, think that the murder rate in the US can be totally blamed on legal gun ownership. So they trot out the statistics of thousands dead to prove their illusion.

On the other hand, in Europe and elsewhere in the past century, literally MILLIONS of innocent, unarmed, defenseless people have been murdered by evil leaders and governments. Armed citizens do not become victims of evil governments.

How many innocents must die before the insanity of official civilian disarmament stops?

9MMare
January 4, 2013, 10:42 PM
We keep comparing guns to autos, liquor, etc. Owning a gun is not the same. Why?
Well, the main purpose of the auto is for transportation. Sometimes they kill.
The main purpose of alcohol is to get buzzed. Some people die from drinking too much.
The main purpose of a handgun is to kill another human being, maybe another animal.
Difference here?

People who compare driving rights to gun rights amaze me.
You are right, though, it is not the gun but the idiot behind it.
The same goes for the driver of the automobile and the guy behind the booze bottle.
However, the gun was made to kill. The others were not.
Not the same thing.
Not the same page.
Not the same book.

Self defense is not the same as killing. And people that drive a car buy it with the intention of using it. People who buy guns for self-defense train "under controlled circumstances" but generally hope NOT to use it.

It's like having fire insurance or having fire drills for your family or teaching your kids not to get into cars with strangers. It is not in frequent *use*.

People in this country have the right to protect their lives (right to life) and the right to own and bear firearms. So yes...that is different than owning a car. You have much more justification for owning the gun than the car.

The 2A is very specific about our right to own and bear arms. They are plainly a deterrant to someone....foreign or domestic...taking away all our other Constitutional Rights.

thorazine
January 5, 2013, 06:56 AM
If I wanted a background check or a bill of sale I would have went to a FFL.


Private party terms,

Cash and carry.

No bill of sale please.

I have no problem flashing a drivers license and or concealed carry license but don't go writing anything down and I won't do same. :neener:

1911 guy
January 5, 2013, 04:19 PM
So apparently we have a contingent on this board who genuinely believe that guns really ARE the cause of crime. Because they have no ther purpose but to kill and cause mayhem, right.

You have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to tell you you're wrong. You've stopped thinking when you reached the desired conclusion, rather than following your process to its conclusion.

larryh1108
January 5, 2013, 04:32 PM
So apparently we have a contingent on this board who genuinely believe that guns really ARE the cause of crime. Because they have no ther purpose but to kill and cause mayhem, right.

So, let's analyze this. You are making your own statement on how we feel and then tell us we're wrong because this fictious statement is in conflict with your own feelings. Really good. Ever consider working for the antis? You have their MO down pat. Guns are made for killing. Please show me where I have said or anyone else has said that guns are the cause of crime other than in your own mind. You are delusional.

gc70
January 5, 2013, 04:40 PM
My guns are made to shoot - anything beyond that is entirely up to me.

1911 guy
January 5, 2013, 04:44 PM
No, I am merely carrying your logic to its conclusion, something you fail to do in post after post. You stop at a desired and predetermined conclusion, without regard to the underlying principle of your thought process.

larryh1108
January 5, 2013, 05:00 PM
No, I am merely carrying your logic to its conclusion, something you fail to do in post after post. You stop at a desired and predetermined conclusion, without regard to the underlying principle of your thought process.

Exactly. You are telling me what I am thinking because of your own twisted views. You cannot argue that guns were designed to kill. Therefore, you assume that means we blame the guns instead of the person behind the gun. How you come to that conclusion is of your own imagination, not anything we stated.

I can conclude that you feel we should ban all guns because in the hands of someone bent on killing other people, we can't stop them so we should just eliminate guns from the equation. You aren't saying it's the guns but the person who uses it so I conclude you wish to ban all types of guns to keep us safe. I can make up stuff as easily as you can. It doesn't make it right.

1911 guy
January 5, 2013, 05:12 PM
Your deliberate obtuseness is either amazing or admirable, I can't decide which.

I have discovered, yet again, that my old man was right about something. You can't argue with a fool. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.

What I don't understand, Larry, is your position. You seem to waffle all over, from a serious pro-gun to almost completely anti-gun, claiming they have no legitimate purpose.

Whenever you make up your mind, I'm willing to debate again. Until then, practice your critical thinking skills. We'll all need to be sharp when the time comes to actually debate the antis. Right now, we're sniping at each other.

SuperNaut
January 5, 2013, 05:16 PM
We keep comparing guns to autos, liquor, etc. Owning a gun is not the same. Why?
Well, the main purpose of the auto is for transportation. Sometimes they kill.
The main purpose of alcohol is to get buzzed. Some people die from drinking too much.
The main purpose of a handgun is to kill another human being, maybe another animal.
Difference here?

People who compare driving rights to gun rights amaze me.
You are right, though, it is not the gun but the idiot behind it.
The same goes for the driver of the automobile and the guy behind the booze bottle.
However, the gun was made to kill. The others were not.
Not the same thing.
Not the same page.
Not the same book.
Without the operator the design is meaningless. It is an inanimate object imbued with no special powers. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

45_auto
January 5, 2013, 05:28 PM
However, the gun was made to kill.

Interesting theory. In the real world, a gun is a machine made to expel an article or substance. You have any stats on recent deaths from Nerf guns or water guns or paint guns or potato guns or nail guns or BB guns or pellet guns? Were the people who made them to kill just too stupid to know that they wouldn't do a very good job?

The particle gun we use at work for research weighs about 50 tons and uses a sealed tube. Couldn't hurt anyone with it if I wanted to. Is it just a bad design since it won't kill?

Or does your definition of a gun just include those machines that shoot lead projectiles, like maybe single shot .22 rifles?

CapnMac
January 5, 2013, 05:39 PM
Well, the main purpose of the auto is for transportation. Sometimes they kill.

As a matter of fact, it's more than "sometimes". It's about 10 times--an order of magnitude--more than all "gun killings" in the US every year. Only heat/pulmonary disease kills more than automobiles.

The problem with these debates is that the emotional component gets in the way. Mass shootings occur even less frequently than aircraft crashes. School mass shootings are less common than death by lightning strike or shark attack.

A background check is really only as good as the database of individuals within it. Just check the the threads here at THR, numerous innocent people are denied by federal instant check system.

We already have more laws than any reasonable person can be expected to know, comprehend, and thus, obey. If the mere presence of a law were enough, no red lights would be run; no speeding would occur, and so on.

larryh1108
January 5, 2013, 05:41 PM
I agree, 1911guy. However, all I am stating and have stated is that firearms were designed to kill. That is the beginning, middle and end of that statement. We, as a gun community, cannot dispute that but we can state that how we use them determines who we are. We are civilized and use firearms for sport, for food, for protection. We use them as the tools they are. Firearms are no more evil than the hammer or saw or any other tool which were designed for reasons other than killing but can kill as surely as a firearm.

I have a nice collection of firearms. To me, they are tools. I believe that the 1911 is a work of art and it is, by far, my most favorite type of firearm. However, even you can't deny that the 1911 was designed and then produced to kill. That does not make them evil. I can use mine to shoot at paper, cans, balloons or bowling pins. I can use them to shoot steel or berms or anything inanimate. I can also use it to defend myself or my family. I can also use it to commit mass carnage. To deny it is a weapon designed to kill is the same as pretending the antis don't want our guns, that they just want "a little" control. BS, They won't be happy until every gun in America is destroyed. Firearms were designed and produced to kill but that does not mean that's what we use them for. I know that I have not killed a single thing with mine. I hope I never have to. Until then I will continue to shred paper and other useless objects. Guns aren't evil. Guns don't kill people. Guns aren't the root of all evil but I do know they were designed and produced to kill. Does that make me anti-gun? Seriously?

Warp
January 5, 2013, 05:41 PM
I haven't read the thread, but...

Although I don't push it and don't argue the point, I disagree with background checks being required.

Think about it. What we are saying is that people have proven, through past actions, that they are not to be trusted because we believe they might commit violent crimes, they might hurt people, and they might kill people. Yet we trust them to walk around free in society? ...really? And we think making a law against them having a gun will keep them from preying on innocent people? Really?

That's just asinine. We, gun owners and 2A supporters, commonly mock these gun control laws and post memes that say things like "Tell me more about how criminals follow laws".

If a person is able to be free in society, they ought to have their Constitutionally protected rights. They ought to be able to have a gun. They ought to be able to vote. They ought to be able to have a trial by a jury of their peers. They ought to have right to legal counsel. Etc.

9MMare
January 5, 2013, 05:49 PM
As a matter of fact, it's more than "sometimes". It's about 10 times--an order of magnitude--more than all "gun killings" in the US every year. Only heat/pulmonary disease kills more than automobiles.



Food kills :uhoh:

larryh1108
January 5, 2013, 05:54 PM
You have any stats on recent deaths from Nerf guns or water guns or paint guns or potato guns or nail guns or BB guns or pellet guns? Were the people who made them to kill just too stupid to know that they wouldn't do a very good job?

Ahhh, the semantics game. Very funny. Ha.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that nerf guns, water guns, staple guns, pellet guns and/or any other type of machine with the word gun it is was around in the 12th century when the first known firearms were discovered/invented. I bet that in the 12th century, someone figured out how to shoot whatever it could find into paper targets for fun and sport. I'm sure JMB developed the 1911 because he saw the need for better mechanics to punch paper at the local range. Come on guys, who are you kidding with these play on words. If you feel my statement is wrong then please share with all of us why firearms were designed and produced in the first place. To shoot pretend birds? Tin cans? Maybe they were produced to kill game for food? Wait, kill game for food.... interesting concept.

klyph
January 5, 2013, 06:00 PM
This is getting off topic.

harrygunner
January 5, 2013, 06:09 PM
When one thinks about why the Second Amendment exists, background checks go against its reason for being.

Someone fighting a tyrannical government would be branded a criminal and through background check, denied access to tools to fight that tyrannical government.

larryh1108
January 5, 2013, 06:09 PM
Agree. We have another thread for this latest off topic topic.

It seems that the majority of posters here feel background checks are not necessary nor do they achieve their intended purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys or mentally deficient persons.

Cesiumsponge
January 5, 2013, 06:10 PM
A gun is made to kill.

For the sake of argument, say we embrace that semantic peddled by anti-gunners. Why are so many people freaked out? How does that water down our position? Why should that change the conceptual idea that self-defense and defense against tyranny are legitimate and guaranteed concepts of a free society?

It doesn't change a thing. You aren't charged with the crime of "guns" when you kill someone. You're charged with homicide, justifiable or otherwise.

gc70
January 5, 2013, 06:59 PM
It seems that the majority of posters here feel background checks are not necessary nor do they achieve their intended purpose of keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys or mentally deficient persons.

I get a different sense from the 200+ comments in this discussion. Yes, there is a lot of resistance to mandating the expansion of a system that is deficient because the government has not put any real effort into making it efficient and effective. But there is little objection to the stated purpose of the system and many have stated they would (or do) voluntarily take steps to achieve that purpose, even though they were opposed to it being required.

1911 guy
January 5, 2013, 07:22 PM
But there is a vast difference in choosing to do something and being forced at the point of a sword. I choose to give to charities. I resent my tax dollars being forcibly taken from me to support causes I do not support. I choose to go to church. I am opposed to being forced to go, forced to stay home, or forcing anyone to conform to my particular faith.

Do not confuse choosing something with being forced to do something.

larryh1108
January 5, 2013, 07:51 PM
If we (the gun community) feel that we should keep firearms out of the hands of certain individuals (violent ex-cons, mentally infirm, etc) then I'd like the gun community to come up with a viable solution, not some Washington idiot who has another agenda. We need the solutions to come from the people who it affects the most, us.

If you do not feel we have an obligation to keep firearms from anybody, no matter what, then that is a separate discussion and that could untimately leave it up to the people who are anti-gun to decide and it will affect us all. No matter how we feel, I'd like any solution to come from within. I do not want any politician who has no interest in preserving our rights to decide what our rights are. That is what they are trying to do unless we come up with a viable solution.

klyph
January 5, 2013, 08:00 PM
I do not want any politician who has no interest in preserving our rights to decide what our rights are. That is what they are trying to do unless we come up with a viable solution.
Are you suggesting that our rights are dependant upon solving the problem of violent crime? If so, our rights are toast.

Warp
January 5, 2013, 08:02 PM
If we (the gun community) feel that we should keep firearms out of the hands of certain individuals (violent ex-cons, mentally infirm, etc) then I'd like the gun community to come up with a viable solution, not some Washington idiot who has another agenda. We need the solutions to come from the people who it affects the most, us.

Keep them locked up.

If they cannot be trusted with a gun because they might go murder people, and this lack of trust is fully justified through conviction of violent crimes by a jury of their peers (your violent ex-con example), they are not to be free in society as they are too dangerous. Period.

Pretending that ANYTHING that could be done would actually accomplish this is stupid/doomed to failure/a complete wast of time and resources.

Seriously, I think it would be about as successful as the war on drugs/criminalization of marijuana/prohibition



If you do not feel we have an obligation to keep firearms from anybody, no matter what, then that is a separate discussion and that could untimately leave it up to the people who are anti-gun to decide and it will affect us all. No matter how we feel, I'd like any solution to come from within. I do not want any politician who has no interest in preserving our rights to decide what our rights are. That is what they are trying to do unless we come up with a viable solution.

And you think the politicians will listen to people posting on a message forum? lol

Nothing that is Constitutional has even a slimmer of a hope of working at all

1911 guy
January 5, 2013, 08:04 PM
Viable solution to what, exactly? Let's begun there. What is the root problem that you think gun control will solve?

Warp
January 5, 2013, 08:11 PM
Viable solution to what, exactly? Let's begun there. What is the root problem that you think gun control will solve?

Excellent question.

Let's very clearly (and preferably quantitatively) define the problem.

larryh1108
January 5, 2013, 08:37 PM
I do not feel gun control will solve a single thing.
I am not for anything that will take away what we already have.
I feel it is already too restrictive as it is and any further "controls" will make it worse.

This thread has asked if an NICS check is necessary. It is already in place for any purchase thru an FFL. Is this enough to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them? Right now the answer is no. Would closing the "gun show loophole" make it harder for the wrong people to get guns? Maybe, but it won't solve the problems we have now.

So, as "the gun community" is there anything we can come up with to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them? Personally, I can't think of anything that will work. I've read countless threads here and other places that say the same thing, they'll find a way to get a gun if they really want one. So, we can't offer anything to help our cause other than "no"?

For conversation only, if the CT shooter's mother did not have any guns at home (or anywhere) would he have found a way to find a gun or would he have used a bomb or another way of killing? I say he would have found another way to do his carnage but you can't convince the antis of this. They blame the guns. They blame the gun community. They blame the NRA.

I hope that we still have the necessary votes to keep them from advancing their causes. If there is a viable solution I'd sure like to hear it. It's frustrating to think that our rights are in the hands of a few politicians who have their own agendas to think about.

Are you suggesting that our rights are dependant upon solving the problem of violent crime? If so, our rights are toast.

Don't believe, for one second, that this isn't a possibility. Probable? Doubtful, but there are those out there that are determined to make it happen. It's up to us to make sure it doesn't happen. Offering helpful suggestions may help but I can't think of any that the gun community would embrace.

1911 guy
January 5, 2013, 08:38 PM
Again, I'm confused. You're busting our chops in post #214 for not having answers, but then say there are no good answers. When allowed to "wing it", you seem to be in favor of more gun control if it will be percieved as helping. But when challenged, you agree it won't help. Forgive me if I seem a bit confused about your position. One minute I think you're a blithering idiot, the next I agree with you.

Noting that you are from Connetticut, I can understand if you have somewhat mixed feeling right now. Just be aware that feelings make for bad decision makers.

Maybe this is where everyone who is yet undecided is working out their own real world positions because this is the first time they've had to contemplate a ban that affected them. Dunno. Just musing to myself.

gc70
January 5, 2013, 08:42 PM
So, as "the gun community" is there anything we can come up with to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them?

As long as you are willing to let the gun control crowd define the issue by posing an unanswerable question, there is no solution.

klyph
January 5, 2013, 09:06 PM
...people who should not have them...

The right of the people... shall not be infringed.

You can have one or the other but not both.

larryh1108
January 5, 2013, 09:19 PM
Again, I'm confused. You're busting our chops in post #214 for not having answers, but then say there are no good answers.

Totally, 100% correct.
I'm not busting anyone's chops. I am stating a fear that if we don't come up with a solution, or at least a viable option, then "they" will find one for us. I do not have the right answer. Like most people here, I don't think anything needs to be done because it's been proven that more controls do nothing.

However, just because I have no answer doesn't mean there isn't one. These forums are filled with people far more brilliant than I am. We have doctors, lawyers, LEOs, military, CEOs, CFOs, MBAs and any number of letters you can imagine. I still say that any possible solution has to come from within or they will force their idea of control down our throats. The fence sitters are now leaning the wrong way due to recent tragedies.

Politicians may get 1000 emails, letters and phone calls from us telling them to not vote for any controls but they may also get 1001 emails, letters and phone calls from previously ambivalent people who are parents of small children who believe the lies from newscasts, football analysts, columnists, priests, school administrators and everyone else who feels something needs to be done.

We know there is nothing that can be done to stop these mass killings. We know that the chances of a mass killer killing one of us is almost infinitessimal but there is a strong and vocal faction that feel that it is the gun that is evil. There is a huge propoganda campaign going on right now against gun owners and our gun rights and all we can come up with is no? Put guards in our schools. Have teachers carry. That will fix the problem. Well, I believe there is nothing to fix but it is not me we have to convince. We have to convince a percentage of the population that is being brainwashed by biased news reporters, bloggers, columnists and many other public figures. The President, himself, has professed change. Unfortunately, he was voted into office a second time. That means more than half of the people support him. If that many follow his lead because he is The Man then where will we stand when the dust clears? Did the campaign "Just Say No" work for the drug wars from the 80s? What makes you think it will work now?

Sport45
January 6, 2013, 12:01 AM
If we (the gun community) feel that we should keep firearms out of the hands of certain individuals (violent ex-cons, mentally infirm, etc) then I'd like the gun community to come up with a viable solution, not some Washington idiot who has another agenda. We need the solutions to come from the people who it affects the most, us.


People who are recognized to be a danger to society should not be free to do their damage. The weapon they might choose is not important.

We know we can't control anyone's access to firearms through laws. What the law does is allow prosecution after the fact.

You can't know that one of these individuals does not have a firearm unless you know where every firearm is. That ain't happening, no matter what anybody wants.

Lock up or execute the individuals who should not be free to impart their ill will on society. Recognize the Charles Mansons of the world for who they really are.

So no, I do not think mandatory background checks answer anything. About all they really accomplish is making the seller feel good.

9MMare
January 6, 2013, 12:12 AM
But there is a vast difference in choosing to do something and being forced at the point of a sword. I choose to give to charities. I resent my tax dollars being forcibly taken from me to support causes I do not support. I choose to go to church. I am opposed to being forced to go, forced to stay home, or forcing anyone to conform to my particular faith.

Do not confuse choosing something with being forced to do something.

x2

...................

1911 guy
January 6, 2013, 01:03 AM
Since I have a much clearer idea where Larry is coming from, maybe I can pose a relevant question.

If we agree that further regulation and legislation is not the solution, why push for something just to say we did something? Wouldn't it be better to delve deeper into the question and attempt to strike at the root cause, rather than a symptom?

So I again pose my unanswered question: What is the root problem you seek to solve?

larryh1108
January 6, 2013, 07:44 AM
If we agree that further regulation and legislation is not the solution, why push for something just to say we did something? Wouldn't it be better to delve deeper into the question and attempt to strike at the root cause, rather than a symptom?

This is the double edged sword. We can't come to a solution because there is no definable problem. Therefore, while we decide to determine the root cause, our foes will come up with a solution to a problem that they feel exists... too many guns on the street, too easy to get ahold of one.

So, we stand by our principals and truly try to stop these assaults with research and finding root causes while the antis take advantage of the open wounds and pound legislation down our throats. That is why I am so worked up over this. We don't have time to do it the right way. If we pause, they'll attack. What are our options?

bikerdoc
January 6, 2013, 11:52 AM
The root cause is mentally ill young men, known beforehand to be a danger, and allowed to continue unaddressed by the current system.

1911 guy
January 6, 2013, 03:59 PM
We have two options. We can either beat the drum for identifying the real problem and dealing with a long term solution, or we can sell our rights down the sewer for nothing in return and solve nothing.

Suppose we agree to some sort of legislation (that we agree solves nothing) in response to these recent events. We lose a little more freedom, gain nothing and solve nothing. Then another mass murder, mall shooting or nut job with another type of firearm happens. Where do we go from there? Give away more freedom for nothing?

larryh1108
January 6, 2013, 05:32 PM
That is the problem. If we give up anything now, we lose now and later. If we do nothing now they will say we are not trying to solve anything so we get forced legislation.

We can't offer a solution like we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally infirm because they'll want to have a psyche sign-off to get a permit.

We can't give in to any legislation that includes a back door registration because that gives them future options they don't have today.

All I can think of is severe penalties to the laws on the books now. Add 10 years to any crime when a weapon is used or illegally possessed or make it a higher class felony. Make the penalty to any illegal possession of a firearm a minimum of 10 years with no reduction of the time served for good behavior and do not allow any firearm related penalty to run concurrent with any other sentence. Make having/using a firearm in any crime a serious issue and maybe there will be some reduction in violence during crimes. Do not allow any plea bargaining with firearm related penalties. It's 10 years for the firearm related part of the sentencing. If they get 6 months probation for the crime then it's 10 years served and 6 months probation, no early release.

This is not an ideal answer but it shows we wish to help control the use of firearms obtained illegally. It shows we wish to come up with a solution without giving up any more rights. It shows that we care when right now it shows that we don't care one bit. It shows honest movement on our part that we wish to be a part of the solution. It does not give up any more rights and it actually forces them to enforce the laws already in place instead of making new, useless laws. The laws are already there, just enforce them to the fullest extent. This is just one example of trying to solve an issue without giving up any more rights. I'm sure there are other solutions. That is what we need to do; find solutions without giving up rights.

If someone is bent on killing a bunch of people and then himself, no law will prevent that. Those crimes will always occur because there is no way to know when and where a nut job will lose it. Society does not understand that these crimes do happen when you have 300 million people in a country. However, their answer is to eradicate every gun there is yet we know that won't stop the mass murderer from killing, he'll just find a different way. They don't see that right now because of the recent events.

Warp
January 6, 2013, 07:55 PM
That is the problem. If we give up anything now, we lose now and later. If we do nothing now they will say we are not trying to solve anything so we get forced legislation.

We can't offer a solution like we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally infirm because they'll want to have a psyche sign-off to get a permit.

We can't give in to any legislation that includes a back door registration because that gives them future options they don't have today.

All I can think of is severe penalties to the laws on the books now. Add 10 years to any crime when a weapon is used or illegally possessed or make it a higher class felony. Make the penalty to any illegal possession of a firearm a minimum of 10 years with no reduction of the time served for good behavior and do not allow any firearm related penalty to run concurrent with any other sentence. Make having/using a firearm in any crime a serious issue and maybe there will be some reduction in violence during crimes. Do not allow any plea bargaining with firearm related penalties. It's 10 years for the firearm related part of the sentencing. If they get 6 months probation for the crime then it's 10 years served and 6 months probation, no early release.

This is not an ideal answer but it shows we wish to help control the use of firearms obtained illegally. It shows we wish to come up with a solution without giving up any more rights. It shows that we care when right now it shows that we don't care one bit. It shows honest movement on our part that we wish to be a part of the solution. It does not give up any more rights and it actually forces them to enforce the laws already in place instead of making new, useless laws. The laws are already there, just enforce them to the fullest extent. This is just one example of trying to solve an issue without giving up any more rights. I'm sure there are other solutions. That is what we need to do; find solutions without giving up rights.

If someone is bent on killing a bunch of people and then himself, no law will prevent that. Those crimes will always occur because there is no way to know when and where a nut job will lose it. Society does not understand that these crimes do happen when you have 300 million people in a country. However, their answer is to eradicate every gun there is yet we know that won't stop the mass murderer from killing, he'll just find a different way. They don't see that right now because of the recent events.
Bull feces.

larryh, you couldn't be more mistaken

jon_in_wv
January 6, 2013, 07:59 PM
No. Anyone who commits a violent felony should have life-long consequences from it. The Constitution states that no man shall be deprived of his rights without due process of law. Convicted felons have (literally) had their day in court.

I think this is meant that people can be deprived of their Constitutional rights pursuant to effecting "punishment" like prison. I don't believe the framers of the constitution meant people should be permanently deprived of their Constitutional Rights for LIFE. Why don't they just use deprivation of rights as a punishment? If a reporter breaks the law you can remove their right to free speech for life, you can remove someone's rights to freedom of religion or right to assemble if you think they are part of a harmful religion, or remove their right to due process so you don't even need to take them to court for punishment. None of those things would hold up in court but you are so quick to dismiss oppressing a person's 2nd Amendment rights. The deprivation of rights is NOT a punishment in its self and oppressing their rights is something that is taken way too lightly if you ask me. PRISON is the punishment. If you think his rights should be oppressed because he is a danger he should be in prison. If he is living peacefully by the law he is a citizen and deserves all the rights given to him as a human being. I fully support the repression of his rights while he is in prison or under government supervision but after that he shouldn't have the beg the nanny state for his rights back. The nanny state should have to prove why they have the right to oppress them. THAT is due process.

Warp
January 6, 2013, 08:05 PM
I think this is meant that people can be deprived of their Constitutional rights pursuant to effecting "punishment" like prison. I don't believe the framers of the constitution meant people should be permanently deprived of their Constitutional Rights for LIFE. Why don't they just use deprivation of rights as a punishment? If a reporter breaks the law you can remove their right to free speech for life, you can remove someone's rights to freedom of religion or right to assemble if you think they are part of a harmful religion, or remove their right to due process so you don't even need to take them to court for punishment. None of those things would hold up in court but you are so quick to dismiss oppressing a person's 2nd Amendment rights. The deprivation of rights is NOT a punishment in its self and oppressing their rights is something that is taken way too lightly if you ask me. PRISON is the punishment. If you think his rights should be oppressed because he is a danger he should be in prison. If he is living peacefully by the law he is a citizen and deserves all the rights given to him as a human being. I fully support the repression of his rights while he is in prison or under government supervision but after that he shouldn't have the beg the nanny state for his rights back. The nanny state should have to prove why they have the right to oppress them. THAT is due process.

Well said.

larryh1108
January 6, 2013, 09:07 PM
Bull feces.

larryh, you couldn't be more mistaken

Excellent reply,
I especially like the part where you state what you disagree with.
I also enjoyed your suggestions on how to confront this issue.

Thanks to the contribution.
I guess you'll just accept what the antis push thru and then decide what to do.

Warp
January 6, 2013, 09:23 PM
Excellent reply,
I especially like the part where you state what you disagree with.
I also enjoyed your suggestions on how to confront this issue.

Thanks to the contribution.
I guess you'll just accept what the antis push thru and then decide what to do.

Giving up infringements upon our Rights simply as a lip service to appease the gun banners, even though the infringements are both unconstitutional and destined to be ineffective at increasing safety, is a stupid 'strategy' that leads down a very bad road.

larryh1108
January 6, 2013, 09:27 PM
PRISON is the punishment. If you think his rights should be oppressed because he is a danger he should be in prison. If he is living peacefully by the law he is a citizen and deserves all the rights given to him as a human being. I fully support the repression of his rights while he is in prison or under government supervision but after that he shouldn't have the beg the nanny state for his rights back. The nanny state should have to prove why they have the right to oppress them. THAT is due process.

First, where did I mention anything about rights after his release? I stated we add 10 years to his sentence as punishment for his crime. Did you just add that to my post or did you read that in what I wrote?

Since YOU brought up the topic of after the release of a felon let's look at that. You state that once he does his time he is eligible for every right we all have because if he shouldn't be allowed them then he should just rot in jail.

Well, part of his punishment, and he knows this up front, is he loses his right to own firearms and he loses his right to vote. That is also part of his sentence. If he is going to do the crime, he is going to do the time and suffer all the consequences that goes with him robbing the gas station, assaulting someone for their cash or doing a car jacking.

Many here feel non-violent felons deserve a different "sentence". I'll disagree. If it's serious enough to be considered a felony by law and he knows this when he does his crime then he accepts the consequences.

Some say almost half of the people serving felonies are for non-violent or "victimless" crimes. Possession of pot has been mentioned. Possession of controlled substances. White collar crimes. Stupid mistakes by stupid kids, etc. Well, from what I've seen, first offenses are usually bargained down to less than felony convictions. Repeat offenders know the consequences and decide to commit their crime anyways.

What about non-violent criminals who steal identities and empty a bank account. No gun was used, no violence, no one really got hurt if they had insurance, etc. Do these guys deserve to get back their freedoms back after serving their sentence? They did non-violent crimes, right?

How about the guys who prey on the older, retired people and sell them air for their life savings. No big deal, it was just a scam. No one got hurt, shot, stabbed or beaten. How about guys like Madoff? He didn't do anyting violent. All he did was steal millions and millions of dollars from people like you and me. No one was physically hurt, right?

Robbery. I rob you and show you a gun in my belt. Non-violent but a threat of violence.
Burglary. I come in when you are away and steal your belongings including your guns.
I did not carry any weapon of any type. Non-violent. You weren't even home. I'm a nice guy! I don't want to hurt anybody. I steal, I don't hurt people.

These guys deserve to get out of prison and get their rights back?

Nope, they deserve what they earned. They deserve to never be able to own a firearm because they committed what the law says are felonies and once you are convicted of a felony you cannot have the rights the law says you will lose if you do the crime.

Criminals know up front that they can lose their rights if they commit the act they are planning. It is full disclosure. When they show you the gun in their belt they are choosing to give up the right to carry a weapon. Period. It's their choice. It's their life. They chose to lose their rights. No one took them from them.

So, even though my earlier post did not suggest anything your reply did, this post now does. You can agree or disagree but the law is on my side in this one. It is not an opinion, it is a fact. You do the crime, you do the time AND you lose your rights, 2nd amendment or not. The 2nd amendment didn't give us the right to use our firearms to rob others of their property.

larryh1108
January 6, 2013, 09:31 PM
Giving up infringements upon our Rights simply as a lip service to appease the gun banners, even though the infringements are both unconstitutional and destined to be ineffective at increasing safety, is a stupid 'strategy' that leads down a very bad road.

What infringements on what rights did I say we should give up? Asking for a harsher sentence for a conviction is not giving up a single thing. It is enforcing the laws already in place. What am I missing here? What are you missing here?

Warp
January 6, 2013, 09:58 PM
What infringements on what rights did I say we should give up? Asking for a harsher sentence for a conviction is not giving up a single thing. It is enforcing the laws already in place. What am I missing here? What are you missing here?

Denying people their 2A rights seems like an infringement to me.

larryh1108
January 6, 2013, 10:01 PM
I'm sorry. It's obvious you have trouble comprehending sentences. I think I'll let you keep your tin foil hat and go merrily on my way. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who cannot comprehend the written word.

Warp
January 6, 2013, 10:07 PM
Well, part of his punishment, and he knows this up front, is he loses his right to own firearms and he loses his right to vote. That is also part of his sentence. If he is going to do the crime, he is going to do the time and suffer all the consequences that goes with him robbing the gas station, assaulting someone for their cash or doing a car jacking.

So you only support a lifetime of disarmament for violent felonies? Other felons get all of their Rights when they are released from prison?

klyph
January 6, 2013, 10:12 PM
Larry, applying statist logic in a libertarian discussion is the cause of your frustration. The foundational principles diverge at such a basic level, you'll never see eye to eye.
You believe the state can revoke natural rights for behaviors the state itself defines, we do not.

9MMare
January 6, 2013, 10:14 PM
I'm sorry. It's obvious you have trouble comprehending sentences. I think I'll let you keep your tin foil hat and go merrily on my way. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who cannot comprehend the written word.

No worries, your response was clear and well-thought out. Had some very good points. An inability to refute them does not reflect on you.

Warp
January 6, 2013, 10:18 PM
Many here feel non-violent felons deserve a different "sentence". I'll disagree. If it's serious enough to be considered a felony by law and he knows this when he does his crime then he accepts the consequences.


This is absolute ridiculous.

Here is a THR example: Until somewhat recently it was a felony in Georgia to possess a gun within a "reasonable distance" of a bus stop. It is legal to have a gun in your car without a license, and we are shall issue. Do you REALLY believe that a person who walks down a sidewalk legally carrying a gun with a Firearms License should be subject to a lifetime of disarmament for coming within a "reasonable distance" of the bus stop on the street corner?

Really? Do you honestly believe that?

Powerglide
January 6, 2013, 10:43 PM
BD got it right! Also, the mental health records are sealed pretty much.In the case of bad teachers, the principals cannot call ahead to the next school to warn them.Same with mental health issues.That's wrong.Period

larryh1108
January 6, 2013, 10:58 PM
Here is a THR example: Until somewhat recently it was a felony in Georgia to possess a gun within a "reasonable distance" of a bus stop. It is legal to have a gun in your car without a license, and we are shall issue. Do you REALLY believe that a person who walks down a sidewalk legally carrying a gun with a Firearms License should be subject to a lifetime of disarmament for coming within a "reasonable distance" of the bus stop on the street corner?

Really? Do you honestly believe that?

Do I think this is right or fair?
No, of course not.
This looks like a case for lawyers to fight because "a reasonable distance" is vague and subject to interpretation. If it was a first offense I could guess that it would be considered in a different light. Key word is guess.

There are many laws on the books that have been there for many years and are not enforced because they are outdated. This sounds like a case to have the law challenged, not whether a felon has the right to own firearms. It is a law that anyone convicted of a felony loses his right to vote and to bear arms. I personally feel that 99% of the laws considered felonies are just because the only system we have in place also feels that way. If a law needs to be reviewed because of the time passed since it's inception, then that's the way to go. I am not comfortable allowing convicted felons having the right to bear arms. It is not something I am offering to the antis. It's already in place.

I stated we should add an additional 10 years to any sentence if there is a firearm available during the commission of a crime. That is throwing away the 2nd amendment? Hardly. I'd say there is as much of a chance of someone being convicted of a felony like the one you mentioned as there is in being killed by a mass murderer.

Should 99.9997% of the felons who didn't get convicted of some stupid law get a free pass? If you say yes then that is exactly what the antis are trying to do to our 2nd amendment rights because of a handful of mass killings. That's called double standards.

Warp
January 6, 2013, 11:00 PM
Do I think this is right or fair?
No, of course not.

But it's a felony. According to you he knew by the very nature of the crime that he risked losing his Rights for life. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, you said.




I stated we should add an additional 10 years to any sentence if there is a firearm available during the commission of a crime.

Holy crap, so not only should he be a felon and give up Rights for life, but he should be in prison for 10 or more years?

You have go to be kidding me.

And just for the sake of argument, pretend that he actually walked through the "bus stop" on the sidewalk, so the whole "what is a reasonable distance" thing is a moot point.



Should 99.9997% of the felons who didn't get convicted of some stupid law get a free pass? If you say yes then that is exactly what the antis are trying to do to our 2nd amendment rights because of a handful of mass killings. That's called double standards.

What are you talking about?

What I am and have been saying is that making it illegal for people who are free in society, to be armed, is just plain dumb, and is no more than 'feel good' legislation that is every bit as (in)effective as "gun free" school zones.

Steel Horse Rider
January 6, 2013, 11:15 PM
Larry: Given the recent broaching from FBI statistics that more people have been killed through the illegal use of hammers or clubs than from the use of rifles what would you propose to do to eliminate the slaughter from those weapons? Arguing about a nonsolution to a nonproblem which is kept front and center by the press and politicians in order to divert our attention from the fact that the Titanic (the United States as a Constitutional Republic) is sinking is not going to draw converts to the cause of the Second Amendment. As I have stated elsewhere, the Constitution is not a buffet line, we either have it all or we have none.

larryh1108
January 6, 2013, 11:27 PM
As I have stated elsewhere, the Constitution is not a buffet line, we either have it all or we have none.

What I am and have been saying is that making it illegal for people who are free in society, to be armed, is just plain dumb,

We can agree to disagree.

I do not feel that somebody who chooses to rape, kill, rob, molest or any number of crimes against humanity has any rights if he is convicted. We all have a right to bear arms from our 2nd amendment. We also have the right to not be raped, beaten, murdered, robbed or molested by an even higher amendment.

You choose to give up your rights when you choose to do the crime. It is a conscious choice. No one took your rights, you gave them up voluntarily.

Steel Horse Rider
January 6, 2013, 11:35 PM
Forgive me for I am dumb. What relationship does your answer have to my quotation about the Constitution? My point is that the Constitution is a protector of itself against tyrants and dictators if it is followed. You give up any of the rights guaranteed the citizens by the Bill of Rights the remainder of the protections in the Constitution become mere sound bites. I think that unbiased observers of our government have been able to see the deterioration since about 1910. The licensing of the Second Amendment will guarantee this republic will never see a 300 year anniversary.

So, please refresh me as to why you disagree with my statement or why you may think I am a knuckle dragging throwback.

larryh1108
January 6, 2013, 11:44 PM
As I have stated elsewhere, the Constitution is not a buffet line, we either have it all or we have none.
So, please refresh me as to why you disagree with my statement or why you may think I am a knuckle dragging throwback.

I never said you were a knuckledragging throwback. I never insulted you or called you any name at all.

I took your quote to read either we have all of our constitutional rights or we have none of them, no matter what.

My response stated that I feel some people (felons) do not have all of their constitutional rights. I stated they renounced their right to bear arms and their right to vote when they chose to commit a felony. So, I feel it is not all or nothing because some people don't have all by their own doing. We just disagree. No name calling here.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are background checks necessary?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!