Are background checks good or bad?

[ctdonath]

Free speech does not allow you to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater.

Yes it absolutely does.

You're confusing the right to free speech with the responsibilities of free speech. Don't.

 

[ctdonath]

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

Ya know, there's a whole bunch of people who feel exactly the same thing - and YOU are one of those "some folks" that they don't want (or trust) toting a firearm.

Care to vote on that?

Do you "get it" now?

 

[kurtmax]

I don't think background checks do any good. They obviously don't stop a significant amount of firearms from getting into the hands of people that shouldn't have them. Plus, they are already abused and could lead to easy further abuse.

Also, systems like NICS and stuff are too easy to abuse, just like no-fly lists. I mean, if your name somehow gets onto the no-buy list than good luck getting it off....

I am, however, for absolutely no restrictions of who can have firearms, and what kind. It should be like buying a hammer from a hardware store. No age limits, no ID required, etc. Felons not on parole should be able to buy a firearm. The fact is: No matter what regulations are imposed on who can own firearms and who can't, if someone wants one they will get one. It simply causes more hassle and trouble for law-abiding citizens for no positive return whatsoever. I highly doubt there would be an increase in crime just because firearms were more accessible...

EDIT: To clarify the felons on parole: I don't really care personally if felons on parole can own firearms or not. I wouldn't argue that it was violation of rights if they couldn't own a firearm since they are still technically serving a prison sentence...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Don't know how I've missed this for two weeks.

My view is that the 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about background checks. I'm old enough to believe the fiction that time in prison is supposed to pay a criminal's "debt to society." Ergo, once he (or she) is released and has completed any parole period, he/she is not a "fwelon," he/she is a FORMER felon and should have all -- as in ALL -- rights restored.

Iy we can't trust them to own firearms, why should we trust them to be out amongst the populace? Look at those two losers who just killed the doctor's family in Connecticut. They didn't have guns. They beat the doctor, raped the doctor's wife and the older daughter, strangled the mother and left the two girls tied up in their bedrooms to die while the house burned around them.

Explain to me again how preventing them from owning guns would have made any difference.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Some people should flat-out not be allowed to own a firearm legally. This list includes gang bangers, criminals, people suffering from mental anguish, et cetera. Without a background check, there is no distinction between a legal purchase and an illegal purchase, for they are all the same without one (a "no-questions asked" policy if you will). Currently these thugs get their guns from the streets that have been stolen or straw-purchased. How is making it even easier for them to get one (just walking into a store and buying one) going to make the situation any better?

I'm of the opinion that people who would own a gun with or without background checks already do own one. That being said a lack of background check, while catering in principle to the 2nd Amendment, does not help solve the problem of gun violence in regards to the people going out and causing over 70% of the violent gun crime.

 

[rbernie]

Some people should flat-out not be allowed to own a firearm legally. This list includes gang bangers, criminals, people suffering from mental anguish, et cetera.

So if my dear dog Millie dies, I should surrender my right of self defense? How utterly silly.

Currently these thugs get their guns from the streets that have been stolen or straw-purchased.

How does someone 'suffering from mental anguish' become a thug? To be a thug requires demonstrated prior actions/activities of a distinctly anti-social nature, and 'suffering from mental anguish' hardly qualifies.

More importantly, how is requiring a background check on LEGAL transfers going to stop or retard this very behavior of buying illegal firearms? You seem to be advocating a presumptively restrictive behavior, knowing in advance that it will offer no help, only because you find the alternative to be equally unattractive.

Ye gods, we are victims of muddled thinking.

Lemme give you a hint - a mandatory background check is equivilant to presuming that I'm guilty of a disqualifying crime and forcing me to demonstrate that I'm not. That's called 'prior restraint', and it's supposed to be the very behavior that our legal and social system abhors. I am innocent and free until proven otherwise. I should not have to demonstrate that I'm 'OK' - I am supposed to be PRESUMED to be OK.

How hard is that to grasp?

 

[M_Olson]

How is making it even easier for them to get one (just walking into a store and buying one) going to make the situation any better?

it may not make it any better, but its not gonna make it any worse either. so why give up our rights for a purely "feel good" infringement?

 

[fast eddie]

Background checks were implemented after John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assasinate President Reagan. Ironically a NICS check would not have prevented Hinckley from legally buying from a dealer. NICS is nothing but Sarah Brady Cool-Aid.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

So if my dear dog Millie dies, I should surrender my right of self defense? How utterly silly.

The only silly thing here is your argument. There's a big difference between being upset over a dead pet and being depressed and suicidal, suffering from paranoid delusions, or schizophrenic. I honestly do not know how you can even begin to compare all of those conditions to your dog dying.

How does someone 'suffering from mental anguish' become a thug? To be a thug requires demonstrated prior actions/activities of a distinctly anti-social nature, and 'suffering from mental anguish' hardly qualifies.

The thug comment was aimed specifically at gang bangers, not those suffering from mental anguish. It's an entirely different category and I should have clarified better.

More importantly, how is requiring a background check on LEGAL transfers going to stop or retard this very behavior of buying illegal firearms? You seem to be advocating a presumptively restrictive behavior, knowing in advance that it will offer no help, only because you find the alternative to be equally unattractive.

How is the lack of an instant background check going to stop them from going into a gunshop and purchasing one legally by de facto? It makes it even easier for them. The alternative at the moment is unattractive because such people should not be on the streets. As I have noted in my previous posts, until that time occurs (where such people who should not be allowed to own firearms are in custody), I feel an instant background check is necessary.

I should not have to demonstrate that I'm 'OK' - I am supposed to be PRESUMED to be OK.

You are forced to demonstrate that you are 'OK' everyday while you practice all of your rights. You essentially have no freedoms in 'reality' without a state issued I.D. or a social security number. You cannot get a job, make purchases, et cetera. This was a point in some of my earlier posts; without having the ability to verify your I.D., you essentially have nothing.

How hard is that to grasp?

I understand your point perfectly but in current practice it is not the case for all of the country with rights both mentioned and not.

it may not make it any better, but its not gonna make it any worse either. so why give up our rights for a purely "feel good" infringement?

How are your rights being infringed by an instant background check that does not inhibit you from purchasing a firearm if you are able to legally purchase one? We are not talking about "waiting periods" or "cool downs", lists of gun owners, or anything like that which are in reality the real breeches of the 2nd. All it is doing is verifying your identity, the same thing the gunshop will ask when you give him your state issued ID or Drivers License that without one you would not be able to purchase your said gun.

 

[sm]

Some people should flat-out not be allowed to own a firearm legally.

We already have laws that cover this.

Just like we have laws that cover a DWI/DUI convicted person, with a "Restricted" license to drive to and from work only. Or a DWI/DWI convicted person that had the Privilege to Drive Revoked.

There is difference in Rights and Privileges, driving is a privilege...

These folks still operate a motor vehicle on public highways, either not adhering to the restrictions of "operations limited to work, home, or emergency" or being denied totally the privilege to operate a vehicle.

Background check? Well...let me see here.
Seems to me we have a law that covers this if a person is pulled over for traffic violation, involved in an accident or a vehicle is reported stolen and Officer pulls that reported vehicle over.

I DO NOT appreciate MY rights being stomped on by
Check Points, to see if I am drinking, getting high, am a legal US citizen, if I have Pseudofed, coffee cans or any thing else.

This is treating me as Guilty and having to prove my innocents, just going down the road.

MADD would like for me/us to pay the thousands of dollars to install a device, that one blows to show sober enough to drive, or the vehicle will not start.

Great. I don't drink.
Just my luck, I would have rubbing alcohol on my hands, assisting a hurt person , and needing to get them to the ER, the damn device would not let me start the darn vehicle!

What about using Scope or any mouthwash, running out to take kids to school and the car says "Sorry, you are drunk, so you cannot take the kiddo's to school at 7:45 am"

Quit protecting me!

We have laws in place.

Probable cause. I know about this one.
A Cop was shot when I about 16 and in the family car getting stuff for sick sibs.
I get pulled over in a real big hurry , blocked in and more than one officer, shotguns pointed and the whole nine yards.
Family car matched real close to the one the BG shot the cop left in.

I get a Officers card. I get pulled over a second time. Hands on the wheel and "officer, I know you have to call me in, as a cop was shot, and I am sorry, but I do have a fellow officer's card".

Even after calling in, the tags, letting the other Officer's know "we got a 16 y/o, white male, trying to get home...he is fine, let him pass...I get pulled over a third time, near enough home, the officer just followed me on in.


Pawn shop/Gun shop is going to check the stolen gun list, and not buy a stolen gun.

We have stuff in place, we do not need to treat folks guilty.
COTUS I read said I was innocent, until proven guilty.

 

[SoCalShooter]

ONLY on an extremely limited basis and no records kept.

 

[sm]

Background Check

True.

A well known serial rapist case occurred here once upon a time, and I cannot share too many details.

At the time, background checks, of a sort were implemented when someone pawned mdse. I mean sign a book with and a thumb print.

Rapist was in fact taking mdse from victims, as rapist are known to do.
He did not go to pawn shops.
Background check if you will in place.

UC buddies of mine needed my experience in an area and this is how I got involved, I actually got to close, not being LEO. I mean face to face with this Rapist.

I for one suggested/made sure Nothing was leaked to media about "trophies" and what they were. Victims and families/friends were told to be quiet, and I do mean "quiet".

Second, my hunch was, he was getting to a point, where he was going to get worse, and more serious, and time was real important.
Lift the background check / fingerprint, and sign in book at pawn shops.

My gut said he was going elsewhere for some mdse being getting rid off, and I was correct, and this is where I met this guy face to face.

Everyone knew about the sign in, and thumb print stuff, especially the BGs, and they were avoiding these places.

I was privvy to what was taken. He came in, and more than once, and Lady Luck was there for me and the owner of business.
I/we kept it together while he was in the store, we literally threw up when he left the building.

Got what needed, to get this guy, but we had to remove the "checks" to do it.

This guy was smooth, cool as ice and one would never suspect.
How I kept cool seeing the exact mdse, I...Lady Luck was there for sure.

This guy, as vile and evil as he was, was innocent, until proven guilty.

I mean I have in my hot little hands exactly what he has taken off rape victims, no mistake about it.
I am CCW-ing, there is a BHP just behind the door where I stood in a holster mounted to door, owner is CCW-ing, there are other guns on site, including shotguns and even an emergency "door lock" meaning I/we could locked him in.

He was innocent and free to walk out that door.
Officers had their laws, and they dotted "i's" and crossed "t"s and followed the law to a "t", to arrest him.
He was innocent until proven guilty, and went through the legal process as his rights said he was supposed to.

"Well our legal system may have flaws, but still the best one going".

Somehow that does not keep one from throwing up, seeing evil.
It does not keep one from getting hurt and upset seeing and speaking with such victims.

But yeah, innocent until proven guilty is the way it is and the way COTUS set it up and it is the Right way.

 

[fletcher]

In a perfect world, anyone who is harmful enough to deny a gun purchase for should be in jail, not roaming around, and there would be no background checks.

In reality, this does not happen. While I do not particularly like background checks, I do not see a big problem with them (at least if they're run like they are in NC). If nothing else, it helps to keep antis off the backs of our gun stores because they unknowingly sold a gun to someone with a criminal history that our lame justice system let go. I do not believe they do much, if anything, to prevent crime. It primarily forces criminals to steal guns and deal in them black market for them.

no records kept

+1. It bothers me more that I have to fill out a form to purchase a firearm than having to show my CCW permit to get it.

 

[M_Olson]

How are your rights being infringed by an instant background check that does not inhibit you from purchasing a firearm if you are able to legally purchase one? We are not talking about "waiting periods" or "cool downs", lists of gun owners, or anything like that which are in reality the real breeches of the 2nd. All it is doing is verifying your identity, the same thing the gunshop will ask when you give him your state issued ID or Drivers License that without one you would not be able to purchase your said gun.

i have already stated, if that is all that comes along with it, guaranteed, under penalty of prosecution or something of that nature, then sure. but that is not reality, ask Pennsylvania gun shops right now if background checks are or are not an infringement (in case you are not aware, this thread explains the situation: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=297584 ). what happens when hillary and friends decide to defund or shutdown the database?

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

i have already stated, if that is all that comes along with it, guaranteed, under penalty of prosecution or something of that nature, then sure. but that is not reality, ask Pennsylvania gun shops right now if background checks are or are not an infringement (in case you are not aware, this thread explains the situation: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=297584 ). what happens when hillary and friends decide to defund or shutdown the database?

When did I say the current background check system is good? Nowhere.


You can throw a huge list of scenarios at me and I at you; it will accomplish nothing.

 

[M_Olson]

When did I say the current background check system is good? Nowhere.

i never said you did. but i did say, or at least intended to say, that there is no background check system that is beyond abuse and corruption. therefore, advocating it for use in the real world is intellectually dishonest.

You can throw a huge list of scenarios at me and I at you; it will accomplish nothing.

when it comes to basic civil rights, i only need to show one scenario. as long as that scenario shows an infringement, any others are unnecessary or invalid.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Better Than They Are

Yes, some people should be kept from owing guns, because we're better than they are.

They lack my moral standards, so I'm better.

They have problems in their lives, so I'm better.

They have been in trouble, and everyone knows rehabilitation and redemption are impossible, so I'm better.

They are culturally different from that with which I am comfortable, so I'm better.

[STRIKE]They're black and I'm not[/STRIKE] -uh- They're, uhm, not well adjusted, so I'm better than they are.

They have a phobia, so I'm better.

And while we're at it, they probably shouldn't be allowed to talk in public, either.

I mean, who do they think they are? They act like this is some kind of free country! Fools!

Of course people have rights here. The ones like me, that is. All those other guys, you know, should only have limited rights.

Ahem.

So exactly what is it that makes you believe that a background check -- which we didn't have for the first couple of hundred years -- has somehow improved things?

How is it that a background check even can improve things?

Oh, "certain kinds of people" shouldn't have guns? Wow, there's an argument with a major gravity well.

You trust our "justice" system to correctly assess who's alright to have a gun?

You trust the good doktors with correctly assessing who's fit?

It would appear that the socialist mantra, that behavior control is good, has successfully entered the mainstream through our public [STRIKE]indoctrination[/STRIKE] education system.

The background check system is worse than useless. It permits government to reverse the assumption that you are innocent.

You are now guilty. Prove you aren't.

Prove you aren't a felon or some twisted sicko.

I am reminded of a comedy sketch that advertised something like Bob's Cookies, using the device that "our cookies don't contain arsenic; says so right here on the label; so, if them other cookies DON'T have arsenic, why don't they just come out and say so?"

Ditch the background checks.

Do it now.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

It's easy to espoute an argument when you paint broad strokes, ArfinGreebly. Rapists, Murderers, and the Delusional should not have legal, by de facto means or not, access to firearms. Until your views on that change, you and I have nothing to discuss.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

i never said you did. but i did say, or at least intended to say, that there is no background check system that is beyond abuse and corruption. therefore, advocating it for use in the real world is intellectually dishonest.

There is no system that lacks a background check that is capable of avoiding abuse either, which is why I point out it would allow people who should be banned from firearms by purchasing them through legal means, making it even easier for them.

when it comes to basic civil rights, i only need to show one scenario. as long as that scenario shows an infringement, any others are unnecessary or invalid.

You might as well throw out the entire United States Justice System since it has made mistakes in the past. It's too broad of an argument. There are safeguards in the Constitution for this very purpose but even those safeguards for everything, such as checks and balances, habeas corpus, et cetera, are not free from mistakes. No system is perfect or ever will be.

 

[bogie]

Should be easy to tag a particular persona with "should not be allowed to handle sharp objects or play alone with the other children."

And any potential for abuse should be taken care of by established checks and balances.

Nutcase = no guns. Normal guy = whatever boomstick you can tow.

 

[M_Olson]

There is no system that lacks a background check that is capable of avoiding abuse either

how can a governmental authority that doesnt exist be abused? by definition the system would not be abused. the system may be violated or disobeyed by proxy if someone committed a criminal act with their firearm, but it would not be abused by the government. if both systems can be violated (just as easily, i might add), why would we go with the system that is also susceptible to abuse by the government?

which is why I point out it would allow people who should be banned from firearms by purchasing them through legal means, making it even easier for them.

aside from the fact that you are handing over complete control with the whole "mental illness" thing (mental illness is highly subjective, will i be "mentally ill" at some point just for wanting a gun?), you are assuming that it is at all difficult right now to get a gun through illegal means.

You might as well throw out the entire United States Justice System since it has made mistakes in the past. It's too broad of an argument. There are safeguards in the Constitution for this very purpose but even those safeguards for everything, such as checks and balances, habeas corpus, et cetera, are not free from mistakes. No system is perfect or ever will be.

mistakes of the past are no excuse for future or current mistakes. trying to justify them as such, only erodes our rights to the point of non-existence or irrelevance.

 

[ctdonath]

Rapists, Murderers, and the Delusional should not have legal, by de facto means or not, access to firearms.

What you "yes to background checks" people are not doing is explaining HOW, in a viable, Constitutional manner, they "should not have access to firearms".

Innocent until proven guilty. An absolutely fundamental premise to our legal system, yet you'll flippantly reverse that - knowing full well that the guilty can get guns anyway, and you're mostly checking the wrong people.

It's an awful lot like looking for your lost car keys under a street lamp at night - when you know full well you lost 'em in the dark alley. "But the light is better here!" you cry.

Tighten up the system, and you put the squeeze on the wrong people. "Oh, it's just a minor inconvenience" - aside from the end-all "shall not be infringed" rebuttal, the nuts and the crooks can get guns anyway.

Crack is totally illegal everywhere in this country, yet it is widely available.
No-guns countries still have criminals with guns (England banned handguns, yet gun crimes have doubled).
Apparently you'd be surprised who CAN get weapons, even with thorough background checks.

It's all kinda like "can I check your ID?" at a restaurant. It's pretty darned obvious I'm pushing 40, yet that stupid "background check" type reasoning means I have to prove I'm not a teenager. Why? because a teen might have the gall to try ordering - and consuming - a beer? ...as if this BS actually stops underage drinking.

It's stupid.
I'm tired of being "guilty until proven innocent" just to get a beer.
And I'm tired of being "guilty until proven innocent" just to get another gun.
As if that reversal of legal rights actually does anything other than simply harass the law-abiding.

Teens will find beer, and crooks will find guns.
Cope - and do so without pestering others.

 

[ctdonath]

No system is perfect or ever will be.

OK, so which side would you rather err on?
- disarming the law-abiding while crooks get guns anyway?
- or respecting "shall not be infringed" and assuring the law-abiding can arm themselves, while crooks - who could get guns anyway - have a marginally easier time getting them?

Remember too: by making it harder for evil people to get guns, they're willing to harm & steal to get guns other ways. They're not going to toss up their hands saying "oh, I'd never pass a NICS check, guess I'd better shape up."

 

[ArfinGreebly]

A Narrower Brush

Rapists, Murderers, and the Delusional should not have legal, by de facto means or not, access to firearms.

But, evidently, they should be allowed to wander around among us in the general population.

Kind of perverse, don't you think?

You've got a guy -- a murderer -- right there in front of you, under lock and key, and you know who he is and where he is. And you want to let him out into the world of free men who have done nothing to warrant restriction and you want the honest and free men to spend the rest of their lives proving they are not this murderer.

That's just plain sick.

THAT is a "justice" system?

Justice for whom, exactly?

A hundred years ago, it was simply assumed -- the default position -- that when a man got out of jail he would have the same access to arms as anyone else.

When you sent him to prison, you knew that he would one day walk the streets again. If he was so evil that he could never walk armed among us again, then the sentence took that into account.

So, now, with the advent of the squishy sciences, we don't believe anyone is really bad any more, so we don't lock them up, or we lock them up for some token length of time, and then we let them back out.

Yes, we let them back out, confident that our background check system will -- through the simple expedient of assuming EVERYONE is bad (wait . . . bad?) -- keep the bad guy (but not really bad, as our squishy sciences have told us) from obtaining arms.

And that, frankly, is about the stupidest thing that we as a society do in our effort to pretend to control crime.

If the squishy sciences are right, and we really DO have to be nice to the not-really-bad guys, then why do we want to keep them from being armed?

If a man TRULY has "paid his debt" to society, and we let him out, why do we continue to punish him? And why -- if we mean to punish HIM do we instead punish everyone else?

That's asinine on steroids.

It's sick.

It's broken.

It's completely wrong.

It was never right.

It needs to go away.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

how can a governmental authority that doesnt exist be abused? by definition the system would not be abused. the system may be violated or disobeyed by proxy if someone committed a criminal act with their firearm, but it would not be abused by the government. if both systems can be violated (just as easily, i might add), why would we go with the system that is also susceptible to abuse by the government?

By definition, a system in which there is no background check for firearm purchases would be abused by people who are ineligible to purchase them legally. Instead of "Gangster Joe" having to get the correct hook ups on the street to get a 'Piece' (which I am sure 95% of the individuals on this board have no clue as to where to go to find an illegal firearm because they are upstanding citizens), all he has to do now is go to the local Gunshop dressed conservatively, and hand over the cash to get a handgun.

I see making it easier for such people to illegal purchase a firearm more of a threat than the potential abuse of government. If anything it is an abuse of power (or lack thereof) by the government for failing to protect it's citizens. You keep bringing up that 'background checks' could be abused by the government but I fail to see how. They cannot disqualify you if you are qualified nor is there a big database on what you are purchasing that is currently in place unless it is a cash & carry firearm.

side from the fact that you are handing over complete control with the whole "mental illness" thing (mental illness is highly subjective, will i be "mentally ill" at some point just for wanting a gun?), you are assuming that it is at all difficult right now to get a gun through illegal means.

Mental Illness is not entirely subjective. I suggest you go down to your local Emergency Psychiatric Services ward and you will understand what I mean.

Getting a gun currently through illegal means probably is rather easy, but making it so that no questions are asked during a gun purchases makes it even easier.

mistakes of the past are no excuse for future or current mistakes. trying to justify them as such, only erodes our rights to the point of non-existence or irrelevance.

The point still stands. If you cannot stand a piece of legislation that is fallible, look no further than the Constitution. It has done nothing to stop what the government has been doing on breeches of the 1st, 2nd, and 14th Amendment. I am not saying that the Constitution is worthless because it is not, I am pointing out that your argument is flawed.

What you "yes to background checks" people are not doing is explaining HOW, in a viable, Constitutional manner, they "should not have access to firearms".

I need to explain why a Rapist, Murderer, or a person suffering from paranoid delusions should not have a gun?

Innocent until proven guilty. An absolutely fundamental premise to our legal system, yet you'll flippantly reverse that - knowing full well that the guilty can get guns anyway, and you're mostly checking the wrong people.

A rapist, murderer, or a delusional person have already been found either guilty or a danger to themselves or others. I make no judgement on innocent people. They should not be able to get guns anyways because with the right system they should not be on the streets. Remember I am arguing for background checks until this is not the case.

It's an awful lot like looking for your lost car keys under a street lamp at night - when you know full well you lost 'em in the dark alley. "But the light is better here!" you cry.

I'll do you one better: it's more like making duplicates of your car keys and handing them to every vagabond and criminal you see on the street.

"If they are going to steal my car, they are going to steal my car, so I might as well make it easier for them."

Tighten up the system, and you put the squeeze on the wrong people. "Oh, it's just a minor inconvenience" - aside from the end-all "shall not be infringed" rebuttal, the nuts and the crooks can get guns anyway.

The nuts and crooks belong in the slammer, and regardless of where they are they should not be able to purchase a gun by legal means. What is your counter this? No counter at all?

Crack is totally illegal everywhere in this country, yet it is widely available.
No-guns countries still have criminals with guns (England banned handguns, yet gun crimes have doubled).
Apparently you'd be surprised who CAN get weapons, even with thorough background checks.

Crack may be illegal, but your taxes which cover the user's medical bills are not.

A background check with both the DoJ and the health department catches the right people. If Cho Seung Hui had tried to purchase his Glock in California (if he had been a resident while being considered dangerous to himself) he would have been denied, legally.

It's all kinda like "can I check your ID?" at a restaurant. It's pretty darned obvious I'm pushing 40, yet that stupid "background check" type reasoning means I have to prove I'm not a teenager. Why? because a teen might have the gall to try ordering - and consuming - a beer? ...as if this BS actually stops underage drinking.

It's stupid.
I'm tired of being "guilty until proven innocent" just to get a beer.
And I'm tired of being "guilty until proven innocent" just to get another gun.
As if that reversal of legal rights actually does anything other than simply harass the law-abiding.

Teens will find beer, and crooks will find guns.
Cope - and do so without pestering others.

An ID stops the wrong people from purchasing something legally by de facto means. What would happen if a group of kids decided to buy a couple of beers at that same restaurant (with no ID required from the government), go out and drive around, get into a horrible wreck and die. Do you not think there would be a wrongful death lawsuit? The restaurant would get its ass sued out of them and even if they did nothing wrong they have to pay to cover themselves in court. Is that justice? It happens all of the time in this country; people doing nothing wrong and getting sued for all of their moneys worth. Money buys you the best lawyer and thus the best justice. Is that a good system? Hardly.

The gunshop owner is going to write down all of your information, as well as any other purchasers, to cover himself. This effectively creates a list that assumes you will do something negligent with your firearm and he did everything he could (nothing without background checks) to make sure you were eligible. I don't see anyone on these boards harping on gunshop owners as to who is buying what for their inventory and being "assumed negligent".

Do you see any institutions that would be able to cover themselves without asking for ID if their services were used fraudulently? I'd like to hear them.

OK, so which side would you rather err on?
- disarming the law-abiding while crooks get guns anyway?

An instant background check disarms no law-abiding citizen.

What do you prefer, making it easier for the crooks to get guns?

- or respecting "shall not be infringed" and assuring the law-abiding can arm themselves, while crooks - who could get guns anyway - have a marginally easier time getting them?

A marginally easier time? There can't be anything easier than walking into a gunstore and purchasing a gun with no questions asked. They (criminals) commit over 70% of the gun crime here in the U.S. doing it the hard way with illegally obtained firearms. Why do you want to make it even easier for them to buy one?

Remember too: by making it harder for evil people to get guns, they're willing to harm & steal to get guns other ways. They're not going to toss up their hands saying "oh, I'd never pass a NICS check, guess I'd better shape up."

That's fine if they want to steal it from others. I'd prefer having instant background checks and "no questions asked CCW" than the reverse of that. If they want to steal a gun they can get shot.

But, evidently, they should be allowed to wander around among us in the general population.

Kind of perverse, don't you think?

Actually they should not be allowed back to the general population until they pay their time. This is not the case with the current justice system and that is what is perverse.

You've got a guy -- a murderer -- right there in front of you, under lock and key, and you know who he is and where he is. And you want to let him out into the world of free men who have done nothing to warrant restriction and you want the honest and free men to spend the rest of their lives proving they are not this murderer.

The murderer would be behind bars, not amongst free men. The free men have to prove their own identity which they have to do to essentially exercise all of their constitutional rights. I'd like to see one persons successfully go through life and be rather successful without having to use a single I.D.

If a man TRULY has "paid his debt" to society, and we let him out, why do we continue to punish him?

Truly paying debt and being out on parole are two seperate things.

And why -- if we mean to punish HIM do we instead punish everyone else

No one gets "punished" by an instant background check. There is no assumption of your current guilt or innocence, only your past where you were previously judged (or not).