Background checks? Yes; Registration? No.

When I purchase a firearm I show ID. I also show my CCW, which also leads to my fingerprints, and other pertinent info.
They have my DOB, plus birth state, and a whole boatload of other info. including my address.

They have the serial number and make of the firearm. They have answers to questions, any of which challenged could result in the loss of firearm ownership.

I would have to be an absolute idiot to believe this information is not shared and permanently retained by the government.

Anyone who honestly thinks that this info is destroyed in 24-72 hours, needs to have their firearms removed due to possible insanity.

Vern Humphrey said:

In other words, no different from the present system.

Except that the career politicians have a lock -- it's almost impossible to vote them out, given all the advantages they have voted for themselves.

So explain how we're running trillion dollar deficits, how the Congressman who was supposed to be overseeing Fannie Mae was sleeping with the vice-president of Fannie Mae (and never even got called on it) and how the President unconstitutionally stiffed General Motor's secured creditors (calling them "speculators") and never got a day in jail?

Click to expand...

Then stop voting for them. If you keep voting for them then you deserve them.

"Background checks will lead to registry."

2 logical flaws: Necessary but not sufficient and slippery slope.

Both are logical FLAWS.

Background Checks/Registration

CNN did a ride-along with California LEOS, whose only job was to go seize guns. When someone in California gets convicted of a felony, are judged mentally incompetent, or get charged with domestic violence, they basically send you a notice to turn in your guns. Then, if it doesn't happen, they raid your house. Anderson Cooper was talking about what a great idea this was, and was incredulous that California is the only state that did this. That reason being that California has full registration. What would be scary is considering that someone can accuse you of being crazy, an alcoholic, a drug addict, or for a significant other to claim abuse, and they roll out the SWAT team to come get your firearms.

See for yourself:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/06/inside-look-at-l-a-illegal-gun-raid/?iref=allsearch

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2013/02/07/ac-harris-barton-ca-gun-program.cnn

And don't they have seatbelt laws in California? =)

Then stop voting for them. If you keep voting for them then you deserve them.

Click to expand...

You really don't understand how our system works, do you?

I fail to see that as a problem.

You openly admitted they were legally deemed not to possess a firearm due to LEGAL grounds.

I work in the court system. Courts can't and don't just make laws up.

Vern Humphrey said:

You really don't understand how our system works, do you?

Click to expand...

I don't understand why people keep voting for the same politicians but expecting different results. Or now hoping to send them to prison for reasons that should have kept them from re-election.
We get the government we deserve. The system works fine. It's the people who vote for them that are to blame.

wild cat mccane said:

"Background checks will lead to registry."

2 logical flaws: Necessary but not sufficient and slippery slope.

Both are logical FLAWS.

Click to expand...

Was your post meant to be relevant or did you just want to dazzle us with your knowledge of traditional arguments and logic?

First off, we are discussing background checks as currently conducted by the NICS system. The NICS system and 4473 is a non-centralized registry. If you force all sales to go through FFLs, you have forced all sales into a registry. So your first point is wrong unless you just wanted to share with us the logical truism that not every conceivable background check leads to a registry - which while a true statement, is not necessarily a useful one towards better understanding the current threats to RKBA.

Your second statement of logic neglects to account for probability. In this case, we must make an educated guess about the intentions of our opponents - which fortunately they have clearly stated many times. In addition to Diane "Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in", the state legislatures of New York and Hawaii have proposed using registration to confiscate and California already has used registration to confiscate*

If your goal was to point out a slippery slope argument was being used, you might as well point out I am typing in English as well. It is every bit as helpful to an adult conversation and an analysis of the probability of that slippery slope argument in fact happening.

*California declared the SKS an assault weapon and extended the period for gun owners to register. California was sued by Violence Policy Center who opposed the extension. California then confiscated every SKS registered during the extension.

I don't understand why people keep voting for the same politicians but expecting different results. Or now hoping to send them to prison for reasons that should have kept them from re-election.

Click to expand...

It's simple -- politicians use your money to bribe people to vote for them.

You may recall there was a video floating around before the election of a lady saying, "I'm going to vote for Obama because he gave me a cell phone."

revolversrbetter said:

Watch Larry King interview Mark David Chapman about the night he shot John Lennon.

I don't understand why we would not want people like this having to go through a background check.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaUe5rCO6xU

Click to expand...

This is exactly why universal background checks are the main goal and why that goal will be attained - they seem reasonable and even gun owners are divided on the issue.

Cosmoline said:

I don't view NICS as a Second Amendment issue, though the potential for background checks turning into registration certainly would be. I wouldn't object to UBC with exceptions PROVIDED it was done as part of a revamp of the current federal system, to focus federal laws on purchase screening and voluntary licensing rather than on what's in our gun closets. The BATFE would have to go away for good, and be replaced with a new licensing agency with a pro-gun mandate. Penalties for screwups would need to be lessened and the criminal laws used to target actual criminals rather than people who misunderstood how to measure a barrel. So having an shotgun below OAL would be akin to not having your car registered. It's only if you're using it to rob stores that they kick it to a felony. There are a lot of other changes that could be made if we took this opportunity to do it. But it's dangerous to go down that road. And politically it looks like the antis are running out of steam again.

Click to expand...

Would you consider requiring a background check before being allowed to speak or write in public to not be a 1st Amendment issue as well?

Would you consider requiring a background check before being allowed to speak or write in public to not be a 1st Amendment issue as well?

Click to expand...

A good many members of Congress would fail such a background check.

Do you want to run a background check on your 10 y/o before you can teach him or her to shoot.

Vern Humphrey said:

It's simple -- politicians use your money to bribe people to vote for them.

You may recall there was a video floating around before the election of a lady saying, "I'm going to vote for Obama because he gave me a cell phone."

Click to expand...

Like I said, we get the government we deserve. Also known as "Bread and Circus".

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

Alexis de Tocqueville

That's what I want from our government right now..a little more BREAD, and a little less CIRCUS...

Cdigman said:

That's what I want from our government right now..a little more BREAD, and a little less CIRCUS...

Click to expand...

Actually in the original context of the Roman slur you really don't want any bread or circuses from them. But good luck with that.

Watch Larry King interview Mark David Chapman about the night he shot John Lennon.

I don't understand why we would not want people like this having to go through a background check.

Click to expand...

Since you don't understand, let me clarify it for you....

Yes, perhaps a universal background check system might have prevented Chapman from legally obtaining a firearm.

But such background checks absolutely infringe upon the Right of the people to keep and bear arms, which violates the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

If you must ask permission from a federal agency to obtain a firearm, then you no longer have a Constitutional Right....it becomes a government granted privilege instead of a God given Right.

And I would rather suffer a thousand Chapmans than give up my Constitutional Rights.

A free society is not necessarily a safe society.

A caged bird is safe.



Now you have to ask yourself....do you want to be safe, in a cage, or free in a sometimes dangerous world?




If you chose the cage of safety, then perhaps the United States isn't for you.

The lack of a legal method for obtaining firearms has not slowed down the 100,000 murders per year in Mexico.
Anti's attack legal gun owners while ignoring those who use guns to commit crimes. In the same cities with high murder rates they have revolving doors on criminals who use guns to commit crimes.

Vern Humphrey said:

It's simple -- politicians use your money to bribe people to vote for them.

You may recall there was a video floating around before the election of a lady saying, "I'm going to vote for Obama because he gave me a cell phone."

Click to expand...

There are too many politicians that have been in office too long that I feel there are too many irregularities in the voting procedure.

Chicago does not have a stellar record when it comes to voting fraud. You can probably say similar things about the other big cities in the US, they have been smart enough to not get cut.

There is a program on the History channel these days about the captains of industry that built this country, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan et al. They essentially rigged the 1898 presidential election to get the candidate that would be most favorable to their ideals. Do not think it canon continue to happen.

Term limits would eliminate much of the improprieties as politicians could not advance many of their own agendas as they would not be in office long enough.

If guns are banned, we will just create another branch of mob or drug cartel. They will have another revenue stream to exploit. Prohibition and the War on Drugs have worked so well.

There are too many politicians that have been in office too long that I feel there are too many irregularities in the voting procedure.

Chicago does not have a stellar record when it comes to voting fraud. You can probably say similar things about the other big cities in the US, they have been smart enough to not get cut.

There is a program on the History channel these days about the captains of industry that built this country, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan et al. They essentially rigged the 1898 presidential election to get the candidate that would be most favorable to their ideals. Do not think it canon continue to happen.

Term limits would eliminate much of the improprieties as politicians could not advance many of their own agendas as they would not be in office long enough.

If guns are banned, we will just create another branch of mob or drug cartel. They will have another revenue stream to exploit. Prohibition and the War on Drugs have worked so well.

Click to expand...

Arkansas has term limits -- and it works great.

Our original term limits law applied to our Congressmen and Senators as well as to state legislators. That was striken down by the Supreme Court, which said a state cannot put any obstacle to getting on the Federal Ballot that is not in the Constitution.

Funny thing -- it's quite common for state legislatures to "district a Congressman out" -- putting two serving Congressmen in the same district, so they can't both run.

And guess what? The Constitution never mentions Congressional Districts as an obstacle to getting on the ballot.

Article I, Section 1.

Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Click to expand...

Do you see anything about a Congressman having to live in the district he represents?

wild cat mccane said:

I fail to see that as a problem.

You openly admitted they were legally deemed not to possess a firearm due to LEGAL grounds.

I work in the court system. Courts can't and don't just make laws up.

Click to expand...

So if a city or state decides that spitting on the sidewalk means someone is legally deemed to not be able to possess a firearm, it is ok in your book?

Also, if you feel that way, are US citizens 1st Amendment rights subject to suppression for the same reasons? And if not, why?

You may want to read this thread before commenting;

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=702303

`

Cdigman said:

CNN did a ride-along with California LEOS, whose only job was to go seize guns. When someone in California gets convicted of a felony, are judged mentally incompetent, or get charged with domestic violence, they basically send you a notice to turn in your guns. Then, if it doesn't happen, they raid your house. Anderson Cooper was talking about what a great idea this was, and was incredulous that California is the only state that did this. That reason being that California has full registration. What would be scary is considering that someone can accuse you of being crazy, an alcoholic, a drug addict, or for a significant other to claim abuse, and they roll out the SWAT team to come get your firearms.

Click to expand...

Can these guns not be sequestered with another family member? An untainted brother? Cousin? Unrelated Friend?

Or the state just steals them?

cfullgraf said:

Chicago does not have a stellar record when it comes to voting fraud.

Click to expand...

Yes. I figured that was applicable nationwide now. Since dad died last spring I tried to get him and absentee ballot for this past fall, but they told me "dead" wasn't going the be accepted as a valid reason why he couldn't make it to the polls on election day.

Guess it isn't nationwide yet.

A background check to buy a Bible, Torah, Qur'an seems logical seeing as the terror that these teachings have caused?

I know I'm stretching the point but...