Are background checks good or bad?

[M_Olson]

Ask yourself that same question when you go down to the bank to withdraw or deposit and you have to verify your identity or for any transaction involving a plastic card. If you have a driver's license your point is moot.

last i checked, banks and credit card companies are private entities. they can impose pretty much whatever rules they want to without regard to constitutional rights, and you dont have to bank with them. driving is not a right guaranteed in the constitution. to keep and bear arms, on the other hand, is.

 

[tinygnat219]

I support Instant Background Checks. It's a reality in this world that some people should just not have legal access to weapons.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I'd vote yes, but only in a perfect world that hosts a perfect implementation, that prevents only the violent prone from obtaining.

Since that's not realistically possible, and any implementation by definition will be half buttocked, it creates as many or more problems than it solves.

 

[Scorpiusdeus]

Background checks are a good idea, but they are simply one small part. Just because they don't solve a problem doesn't mean they don't help.

I don't feel my rights are infringed upon at all. I've never been precluded from owning a gun.

I tend to take a pretty hard line on criminals and I don't think that once they server their time they should get all their rights back. Gun ownership in particular.

 

[REOIV]

Please tell me exactly when and how this is supposed to occur? Many your silly questions seem to be based on this wild assumption this is going to happen and perhaps soon. Please give us some evidence of this. Otherwise, it just look like paranoid ranting from someone incapable of forming good arguments against background checks.

It doesn't have to happen soon. It just has to happen at some point. STOP THINKING ABOUT LIFE NOW. Think about how laws today can be abused in the future.

That is the problem.

Sure background checks are fine now.

What about 50 years from now?

If congress defunds NICS how does one get a gun then? What if they add in traffic tickets? Or any misdemeanors?

How about if the ATF stops issuing FFLs because they were defunded.

You are giving up rights for comfort and safety now at the cost of people in the future.

And you say I can't create a good argument against background checks.

Right now to get a conceal carry permit you have to pass an NICS check in MANY states.

So again if NICS is shutdown forever at some point in the future 50 to 500 years from now. How exactly do you propose people buy firearms?

And last time I checked in many states you have to have a gun to qualify at the range to get your conceal carry permit and MANY places do not provide you with a weapon.

So again how do you get your conceal carry with no gun and no NICS?

It becomes a catch 22.

Background checks are a security blanket plain and simple.

But honestly, you shouldn't even reply for my benefit. I really have no interest in any doomsday rantings. Shutting down NICS isn't a good strategy for the antigun crowd and the possibility doesn't even merit discussion.

I'm sure that in 1934 the idea that the NFA would be closed 52 years later seemed silly too and didn't merit discussion either.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

last i checked, banks and credit card companies are private entities. they can impose pretty much whatever rules they want to without regard to constitutional rights, and you dont have to bank with them. driving is not a right guaranteed in the constitution. to keep and bear arms, on the other hand, is.

You have missed my point. In the big picture you need to take a look around and see what kind of rights you think you have. How far do you think you will get in life with no issued I.D. from the State, or a social security number? The answer is not very. It would be a life of limited opportunities. I don't know of any sort of 'prestige' job where you have not have to verify your own identity, or for any kind of proceeding taking place with the government: for example, government benefits or government employment.

You have to verify your own identity everywhere you go, otherwises issues of fraud and identity theft will be commonplace. Do you wish to live in a society where any can assume the identity of anyone, no questions asked? Everywhere you go you have to prove who you are whether you like it or not. Why do you feel buying a gun should be any different? If you feel your rights are being infringed by an instant background because to you it feels like you are being presumed guilty, you need to take a look at what's in your wallet.

 

[sm]

I think anybody should be able to buy a gun.

I think anybody should be able to own a gun.
There I fixed it.

Criminals are not wired like law abiding folks, that is why we call them criminals.

Now we get into all these "definitions" and who is doing the "defining".

Some lady is going through menopause, her hormones get out of whack and she goes off on her guy for not putting the toilet seat down , neighbors hear the private spat and calls the Law.
New Cop, still confused with so many laws on the books already, write down "Domestic Violence"

Lautenberg kicks in and now this poor guy cannot have his guns, and depending on jurisdiction he loses CCW and rights to hunt.

-
Some starving college kid, maybe a college grad, is textbook smart, not street smart. Maybe just a bad case of dumb, and he does accounting on the side to make a few bucks.
Maybe he was asked to do some "creative bookkeeping".
Whatever, he gets a felony bust from the Feds.

Me? I am against any form of gun control remember?
The murderer, rapist, arsonist, kiddie porn pervert, and Meth Dealer already have guns, and can get all they want of more.

How come College Boy/Girl that messed up, cannot have a gun?
Texas and other jurisdictions used to allow (not sure of current status on this) "felons" to possess handguns on property.
College Boy/ Girl has a right, to have guns IMO.
I mean some Meth-head breaks in to Robe College Boy, or Rape College Girl, they gotta RIGHT.

Hell if the "creative accounting" is that damn good give him a gun and a job keeping tabs on .gov and all the "creative bookkeeping" .gov does.

Laws, restrictions and all, come back to bite folks on the butt.
More "amendments" get added.
More confusion gets added with each addition of "band-aid" fix, and it is NOT the criminal that is "hurt" or "prevented" from getting guns, it is again the law abiding citizen.

Criminals reap benefits from any "background check" , "restrictions" and "laws".

Require a background check on matches, the Arsonist will use a lighter.
Require a background check on lighters, the Arsonist will use a Nine volt battery and steel wool.

Hell I am the one now "restricted" or "hassled" from getting matches, lighters, nine volt batteries and steel wool.

NO Thanks!
I have enough hassle with the War on Drugs and signing for Pseudophed, thank you very much!

 

[sm]

BATFE.

My idea is one stop a shopping experience with free gift wrapping and drive thru's.

I mean get a bottle of wine for housewarming, box of cigars for the birth of a baby, TNT for digging a farm pond faster, and -

"You want the one with da switch or not?"
"Well it is her 12th B-Day gift, do da Switch, she will grow into it"

"Oh, I see the Suppressors come in, disguise that when you wrap it, its for a 9 year old boy.
"NASCAR wrapping paper OK?"
"Perfect!"

<at the drive thru>

" I forgot I need a pack of Marlboro Red"
"Buy two packs and get a free box of Pseudophed"
"That'll work!"

 

[skinnyguy]

Background checks do exactly as much to stop crime as doing nothing at all. If a criminal walks into a store to buy a gun and gets turned down because of the background check, in most of the country all he has to do is pick up a newspaper, scan the classifieds, meet Joe Public in the local supermarket parking lot, get a better deal on the same model of gun he was going to buy at the gun store, and this one won't be linked to him by a purchase record, and go do his thing with the gun.

What did the background check do here? All I see is that it kept money out of the gun store's cash register.

 

[fast eddie]

Background checks are a good idea, but they are simply one small part. Just because they don't solve a problem doesn't mean they don't help.

I don't feel my rights are infringed upon at all. I've never been precluded from owning a gun.

yet...

Some people should not own guns. Background checks provide this safeguard.

I don't mean to pick on these fellows but this is an example of a recurring theme. If you believe this then you must believe that all private gun transfers, whether through a dealer or not, must be accompanied by a NICS check. Say this becomes the requirement; all of a sudden the price of the NICS check is $50, then $75, then $200, you get the idea. Just when does the infringement kick in?

 

[Monkeybear]

I voted yes. If background checks are simply a mechanism to promote safe responsible gun ownership then I have no problem with them. I disagree that felonies should automatically mean no 2A. I think that only certain crimes should have the penalty of no 2A.

Rape, no 2A.
Murder, no 2A.
Armed robbery, no 2A.
Hot checks, no problem.


The way I see it a background check should be instant and that should be that. Why even fill out a form?

-"Lets run a background check"
-"Your clear"
-"Here is your gun sir, would you like that in a paper bag or a plastic one?"

Now if you want to get into theories about how awful the future will be I am sure you can come up with some situations where background checks are the beginning of the end however I believe the real argument here is whether or not some people should be barred from legally buying a firearm and not whether or not the government is trying to use background checks to take away our RKBA. The argument that the corrections system is broken and that many criminals are on the streets that shouldn't be dose nothing to convince me that we should make it any easier for these degenerates to purchase firearms. Can they still get guns? Sure, but not at Walmart.

Now let us reflect on this quote by Gen. Jeff Cooper,

"The Rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter may not be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, the can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

While I agree that background checks, when designed to promote safe responsible gun ownership, can be a good idea in the end the responsibility of our safety and the safety of our cities and towns belongs to us as individuals. We must stand ready to protect ourselves and our neighbors from the violence of the very few that so damages our society.

The rifle dose not create preparedness, preparedness is the frame of mind that allows us to use the rifle effectively.

That said, promote safe responsible gun ownership. There are 230 million guns in our country, if you have 50 of them in your safe consider selling one cheaply to a friend who has none. Create new shooters. Be safe, responsible, even headed and kind and show our neighbors that gun owners are not people to be feared. Help create a new generation of armed citizens with a sense of personal responsibility and then maybe background checks will seem like an answer in search of a question.

 

[M_Olson]

You have missed my point. In the big picture you need to take a look around and see what kind of rights you think you have. How far do you think you will get in life with no issued I.D. from the State, or a social security number? The answer is not very. It would be a life of limited opportunities. I don't know of any sort of 'prestige' job where you have not have to verify your own identity, or for any kind of proceeding taking place with the government: for example, government benefits or government employment.

two wrongs dont make a right.

most of the things that you refer to are run by private organizations. so, once again, they have no obligation, imo, to uphold any of your rights in pursuit of success. as far as government benefits go, i dont believe the government should be in the business of giving out benefits to individuals, so there would be no need for personal identification. but this is all irrelevant because two wrongs dont make a right, as i already stated.

the simple fact of the matter is that the right to keep and bear arms is an explicitly outlined right in the constitution. this is a right that the neither the constitution nor the government grants, but a right inherent and necessary for all free people. any type of legislation that hinders this right in any way, shape, or form is specifically rebuked in the constitution.

i will point you to the quote in my signature to remind you that freedom is neither free nor safe. and those that would give up that freedom in pursuit of more safety deserve neither. there is another quote as well that i would like to post, but i cannot remember who said it or the exact wordage, so i will paraphrase: Those who do not feel the need to exercise even their most basic civil rights, will soon find their government in agreement with them. (if anyone recognizes this i would appreciate a citation)


ETA: please note i am arguing from the position of reality. of course, if there were a "perfect" background check system that never went down and was instant, with a clause that if it ever was taken down our right to continue purchasing weapons without it would be upheld, then sure. but that is so far from reality it borders on lunacy.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Olson, what I am trying to say that without being able to prove your identity for all intents and purposes you have no rights.

 

[M_Olson]

Olson, what I am trying to say that without being able to prove your identity for all intents and purposes you have no rights.

i understand that, and i understand where you are coming from. but i cannot think of any situation where you would (more correctly stated, "should") need state (or, heaven forbid, federally) issued identification to maintain your rights as listed in the BoR. it makes me curious how long we went as a country, or as individual states, without requiring such forms of identification, and if it is so crucial to upholding our rights, how we made it as far as we did?

dont get me wrong, i do see a need for identification, but to maintain that without it we have no rights, imo, is entirely incorrect.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

For the day and age we live in, not having something that proves your identity really bogs things down. Your ability to get a job, vote, etc. That is just the way society has developed, for better or for worse. If you lack I.D. you essentially have no liberty (buying and purchasing goods, getting a job to buy those said goods, etcs) and as a result no pursuit of happiness.

I said for all intents and purposes that you have no rights, not that you truely do not.

 

[M_Olson]

I said for all intents and purposes that you have no rights, not that you truely do not.

i think we both agree on the reality of the situation but possibly disagree on the ideological aspects. we seemed to have veered slightly off topic though.

i do still maintain that no identification is necessary for those rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. and as such the 2nd amendment should not require it either.

examples:
do not need ID to exercise right to free speech, religion, etc.

do not need ID to not have troops quartered in your residence

do not need ID to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

do not need ID to have a fair and timely trial

ill stop here as you most likely see my point. until it is ok to require id or a background check to exercise any of these rights, or to buy batteries or food at the local convenience store with cash, then i will submit to the same for the 2nd amendment. by then, it wont matter much.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Bad Framework

The background check assumes a framework that isn't even supposed to exist.

What kind of thought process leads us to take a man who has served time for violence, who still cannot be trusted in society -- and this is not in doubt -- and we turn him loose on the streets with the rest of society.

And then, because we know he's out there, and because we don't trust him (why did we let him out, again?), we put all manner of rules in place to "keep him from" obtaining certain things.

But, since we can't rely on a guy (that we don't trust) to avoid the procurement of things we want to "keep him from" having, we screen EVERYBODY ELSE to make sure they aren't him when someone wants to buy a restricted item.

Oh, well done. Well done, indeed.

Now we treat everyone with suspicion because we let people who can't be trusted out into the general population.

And now we don't trust ANYONE.

Meanwhile, our guy that we don't trust goes off and obtains the restricted item "off the grid" and the good people who just want to exercise their rights spend their time proving they aren't that guy.

Get rid of the restriction.

Engage in CRIMINAL control rather than tool control.

 

[Katfan]

I dont like background check idea. Do they do one when you buy a car? No.

 

[Guitargod1985]

when someone argues "but criminals get guns from the street corner anyway" they are falling into a fallacious line of reasoning - unless they are willing to legalize possession of all contraband (say, nuclear weapons, anthrax, child porn, etc.) because "criminals get it anyway".

uuummm, I don't think so. First of all, firearms have a legitimate role in a civilized society for an honest, decent person. None of the things you mentioned do. Nuclear weapons of any variety have NO PLACE in the hands of an individual. Anthrax is a biological agent utilized by domestic and/or international terrorists. Child porn does is for perverts and child molestors and serves only to victimize innocent children who later grow up to have deep-seated emotional problems.

Criminals are not wired like law abiding folks, that is why we call them criminals.

I respectfully disagree. Although some may be "wired" differently, I believe that most know what they are doing is wrong and don't care because of pure selfishness. Whether it's because they grew up in an environment that did not encourage a good work ethic, because they need money for crack, or whatever, they consciously CHOOSE to disregard the well-being of others for their own benefit.

For the record, I am against background checks in their current form. However, I also do not believe that everyone should own a gun.

I believe you should only not be able to own a firearm if:

A) you are a convicted VIOLENT criminal offender (burglary, battery, rape, murder, etc.)
B) you have been adjudicated mentally ill (by a court of law only)

The reason why I don't believe all felons should be prohibited from owning firearms is that not all felonies are created equal. If someone got busted riding down the road with a couple ounces of reefer or trespassing on a construction site, that's BS that they can't defend themselves.

The reason why I believe that mental incapacity must be proven in a court of law is *ta-da* the Fifth Amendment. You know, that whole "due process of law" thing? I don't think it's right if a kid has a bout of situational depression in seventh grade and gets labeled by a counselor/shrink and placed in a hospital for observation that he/she should be considered a nutcase for life.

 

[brerrabbit]

I am fairly disappointed with the majority who are in favor of a government check on a fundamental right.

If you believe the second amendment is a right then act like it.

Are you all also in favor of checking with the government before you go to a house of worship?

Or talking bad about a politician?

Or getting together with some like minded individuals?

Or exercising any other right guarenteed by the constitution?

It is a right, not a privilege. It surprises me that infringements that would have been unthinkable 25 years ago are readily accepted by the very ones who consider themselves pro second amendment

 

[GhostlyKarliion]

All rights are subject to reasonable contstraint. Free speech does not allow you to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater.

I COMPLETELY disagree... if I own a theater and I want to yell FIRE or TIMBER or SHOOT HILARY, that's my right, if I do it in your theater, you can charge me with whatever you can muster, but if I do it on public property, noone should have the ability to touch me. that is what
America is all about, the right to say whatever you want without fear of consequence.

the first amendment was designed the way it was because the founders in england knew that if they stood on the street and said "death to king George", they would be executed. they wished to prevent such from happening in America, so they included in the constitution.

here are Cornell's annotations, read Madison's original text...

The right to arms is not subject to "reasonable constraint" because no one can decide what "reasonable" means, in my opinion firearms should be subject to "reasonable" control... if you can't "reasonably" hit what you are aiming at you should practice till you can.

the whole nanny state the government is in charge I have to ask permission or forgiveness attitude is pathetically cowardess, if you are a free man then be a free man, if a slave then be a slave, but do not insult liberty by being a free man who acts like a slave, nor your brethren by being a slave who acts like a free man.

 

[ronto]

No Checks.

It's comforting to know that the car-jacker who sticks a gun in you face passed a background check...NOT!
If everyone excercised their rights, crime would decrease proportionaly and the only people in real danger of being murdered are the "would-be" murderers themselves.

 

[Creature]

An "Instant Check" for active warrants or prior felonies is okay by me.

 

[Ala Dan]

Good Idea

There are just some folk's that I don't want (or trust) toting a firearm~!

 

[Werewolf]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do all you guys who support background checks not understand.

No where in the 2nd does it mention background checks or that a man/woman who has paid their debt to society loses the right to self defense that you all hold so dear.

So many buy into the it's for the good us all, we're safer now BS that the Freedom Mountain we started with 220 years ago and our forebears fought so hard for is slowly being turned into an orwellian molehill one spoonful at a time.