I am going to say it - I like the idea of universal NICS checks

Even if you think it is 'good', why would you just concede it?

Demand that NICS approval is the legal maximum requirement to own any firearm in any State/County/City/District.

Make it also the maximum requirement for any FOID, including a maximum total fee/tax/cost/surcharge of $10.

This type of thinking did not help the German people back in 1934 but lead to the death of millions that thought they would be safer.

Click to expand...

This is a stupid comparison and has nothing to do with background checks.

No, we don't, and yes it is. How would you like to have to start assessing and giving inventory of everything you own, without any ideas as to the items' relevance, to the Federal government? Remember doctor/patient privilege?

Click to expand...

What? who said anything about taking inventory and doctor patient privileges? You guys need to get your heads screwed on right.

If we propose the legislation then we can control the extent and reach. If you are continually afraid they will take a mile if you give an inch you will never win. They want security, give them some security and reassurance that gun owners don't want guns is the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

WRONG..in My Opinion Every thing He said Violates the Constitution..

Every time a firearm goes through a dealer's book, is one more opportunity for ATF to track it. It's something that's just a little closer to registration.
If I want to sell a firearm to an individual who I know or firmly believe is legally entitled to own that firearm, I should not have to involve a dealer or submit to a potential registration scheme.
Surely , it's not so hard to understand that these people are trying EVERY POSSIBLE way to get access to private gun sales information.

What exactly are universal NICS checks? Background checks... doesn't that already happen for everyone who tries to buy a gun? What am I missing here?

NICS should be available to mere mortals like us.

However it should not be required.

MORE laws don't stop crime. Period.

ENFORCE the laws we have (there are too many, though). Maybe even increase the penalties.

Punishment is supposed to be a deterrent. What do you do with your kids when "a stern talking to" doesn't cut it?

In MN we have permits to purchase. Anyone I know requires buyers to have a permit before they will sell a gun to them. This is a better way then requiring background checks, but won't help the libs sleep any better at night.

What exactly are universal NICS checks? Background checks... doesn't that already happen for everyone who tries to buy a gun? What am I missing here?

Click to expand...

hes talking about making NICS checks required for Face-to-Face sales.

Thank you, Cameron. Now that I understand why everyone is angry about this...

Loud noises!

coolluke01 said:

This is a stupid comparison and has nothing to do with background checks.


What? who said anything about taking inventory and doctor patient privileges? You guys need to get your heads screwed on right.

If we propose the legislation then we can control the extent and reach. If you are continually afraid they will take a mile if you give an inch you will never win. They want security, give them some security and reassurance that gun owners don't want guns is the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

Click to expand...

I said it, in question. What is difficult about reading? Also, you haven't answered any of them. You say that we have to give a lil to get a lil: How can you know that you will not be further infringed? You can't.

When did my rights become a game to be "won"? I shouldn't HAVE to feel afraid of my government, that's our point you fail to see.

A government body that can trace my stuff, query my doctor about my gun ownership, start picking and choosing what parts of the Bill of Rights it's going to uphold...scares the crap out of me.

Does it not you?

Think of it from an economic perspective.
The drug dealer wants to be able to sell drugs.
The bigger the market the more incentive to sell drugs.

Under the current system, a drug dealer can't make a face to face sale to an honest person because drug laws stop the honest person.

With the War on Drugs, honest people will not be able to make face to face purchases from drug dealer and the dealers will have a smaller market.

Smaller market = less incentive to supply it = less incentive to sell drugs.

Click to expand...

Doesn't makes sense either way it's worded. Prohibiting the sale of illicit drugs did not make the market any smaller. I don't believe it
would for firearms either.

I don't have anything nice to say, so I won't say anything:banghead:


your children will concede more, and your childrens children until we have no "gun" rights. Please stop supporting foolish ideas that solve nothing

bushmaster1313 said:

By making it harder to sell a stolen gun it creates an economic disincentive to steal guns. Will not prevent all thefts, but it will help to soften the market.

Click to expand...

What planet do you live on?!

When you create a black market, you increase criminal conduct! You increase the demand for illegal weapons, and you increase weapon theft, and illegal trafficking. Since when do criminals obey the law? All experience and history is against you, but you insist upon failed gun control measures despite proof it doesn't work.

Since when has a gun control law stopped a mass murderer? After all, mass murder is already against the law. How come the States and Cities with the strictest gun control laws have the highest gun crime rates

I am really shocked and saddened by the anti-gun people who are on this site, pretending to believe in the Right To Keep and Bear Arms, but then insist upon restricting the gun rights of everyone.

Look, I realize you are from an extremely restrictive anti-gun Nanny State, one that is second only to New York in it's Fascist government philosophy, but just get out and visit the rest of the Nation. Get to know people from the South, Mid-west, the Plains States and the West. There is a lot more to this Nation than your own little fascist utopia.

You're trying to bring reason in here - don't bother. You'll get an allergic response.

You're trying to bring reason in here - don't bother. You'll get an allergic response.

Click to expand...

???......who is that directed to?

M-Cameron said:

???......who is that directed to?

Click to expand...

OP.

would you, in your opinion, care to tell us how OPs suggestion is reasonable?

It need not be resonable, he has the right to have it "an opinion" though. Why he felt compelled to post it is a better question, but I defend his right to express his opinion. That's the First amendment.

would you, in your opinion, care to tell us how OPs suggestion is reasonable?

Click to expand...

Some people aught not to have access to guns. These people are mentally disturbed, or have a criminal history.

Background checks are in place (though often fail) to exclude these people. Personal sales of identical weapons are not required to go through background checks.

To make guns less accessible to people who aught not to have access to them, background checks should be required for all transfers.

Saw a MSM segment talking about where criminals get their guns. They reported a survey of people in jail for crimes involving guns that asked how they acquired the gun they used in their crimes (can't remember the state). 40% got their guns on the street, 40% from friends and families, 4% in pawn shops, 1% at gun shows or flea markets.

Expanding NICS checks to include private transfers wouldn't do diddly squat to effect gun crime. Even a nut case can pass a NICS check, and if he fails can find street corner sales just like criminals do.

Drug sales are completely outlawed, and that trade is rampant. Your suggestion is as absurd as suggesting a background check for buying illegal drugs.

In reality, the NICS check required for FFL transfers just creates the illusion of safety for people who need something to reinforce their fear driven delusion that guns are the cause of crime. I suppose you endorse punishing your own child if your neighbor's child misuses his toys.

I just don't understand your thinking.

So you think it will limit a criminal's ability to sell the gun to someone?

Answer this, will your universal background check apply to gifts? Will I have to use this check to give a firearm to a family member?



Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

ShaiVong said:

Some people aught not to have access to guns. These people are mentally disturbed, or have a criminal history.

Background checks are in place (though often fail) to exclude these people. Personal sales of identical weapons are not required to go through background checks.

To make guns less accessible to people who aught not to have access to them, background checks should be required for all transfers.

Click to expand...

Question 11f: Have you ever been adjudicated as mentally defective?

The crazy psych killer checks "No".

He has no prior red flags. Buys gun, kills children...or he fails check, buys gun on the street illegally. But, still kills children.

Your theory fails.

Lets not blame the medical field, misdiagnoses of mental affliction, or even the defective him/herself for not taking their medication. Lets not try to help these types of people.

We'll just make background checks all-encompassing. Derp dee derp.

Any of you supporters of across the board background checks care to give an example of what shooter this would have stopped? Laws that are impotent only bring down the effectiveness of laws that are effective.

As far as medical records, the President has proposed eliminating the protections from the HIPA act to accessing YOUR health records in order to make it easier for the government to "properly" evaluate your status. What could go wrong????

It would do absolutely nothing to change the way almost all criminals aquire firearms, they steal them, or, buy them off the street from someone who did steal it.
And why should the Feds need to know about every gun I purchase or sell, it's simply none of their business, in that, I'm a law abiding citizen and shouldn't be made to commit to a form of being registering as a gun owner, or the gun. No way, this man is going way over the line, this is my / your United States Of America, the land of the free, and a Constitution that guarantee's it!! Any degree of acceptance is simply handing over our freedom as we once knew it to be. A country unlike any other on this planet, a country that was founded on total and absolute freedom by the implementation of a Constitution.

I'm actually in shock and at a loss for words, when I hear some Americans who are not conecting the dots, and unable to see the obvious fact that we are quickly losing our democracy, and at an alarming rate, it just takes the wind out of me Sir. I don't know how old you are, so it may be that you are of the younger generation and may have been influenced some how to accept the liberal views, as in accepting that, what freedom they give you, as being all the freedom you need, I don't know? I do know that this is not what the Constitution promised me and every other American, it's a straight up contradiction of what we have always had, and as promised under the directives of the document.

GS
"When Seconds Count, The Police are Only Minutes Away"