Are background checks good or bad?

[rdhood]

I am not sure how many of you ever have problems with the instant check system. All I know is mine is never instant. My ssn is 6xx-xx-xxxx there is a guy out there with the SSN of 5xx-xx-xxxx all of the X are exactly the same numbers. This person for what ever reason deserted from the NAVY. That is why I think I get flagged every time I go to purchas a gun. the last three have taken 2 days, 1 day, 3 hours.

We are not giving up anything by particapating in the National Instant Check system.

Would you say the same if, next time, it took a fingerprint card and 5 or 6 ( or more) months to resolve? I know a person that this is happening to.

 

[kludge]

Tactical Ninja wrote: One big problem I have with the "criminals don't obey the law anyway" logic where gun control is concerned is that you can just as well try to apply that logic to any other law - in which case, why have laws at all?

Because you can't punish someone for breaking a law that doesn't exist.

 

[rbernie]

I'm not at all arguing that it's effective in preventing gun purchases among criminals, but some is better than none, right?

The last DoJ data that I saw stipulated that something like forty percent of all armed violent felons WERE LEGAL GUN BUYERS WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE GUN.

NICS didn't help stop The Bad Guys from buying guns. It couldn't. The purchases were LEGAL.

Being legal and being A Bad Guy are not mututally exclusive domains.

 

[Bazooka Joe71]

cpttango30,

the last three have taken 2 days, 1 day, 3 hours.

Wow, that really sucks.

Mr. Greebs,

We need more checkpoint traffic stops. Everybody should go through one on his way to work. I mean, there are drunk drivers out there, and you can't tell who they are. How do you know who can be trusted with a car? Everyone should have to submit to a Breathalyzer test on any trip he makes -- and he should have to PAY for it, too.

I mean, if it prevents ONE drunk driver from being on the road, it's worth it.

Of course, we'll only set up these checkpoints on main roads, like highways, since that's where most people drive. We wouldn't do it for the little side roads. Everyone obeys the law, even drunk drivers, so we'll catch all of them . . . well most of them . . . well SOME of them in these checkpoints.

Isn't this what some call a "strawman" argument?

Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, I just heard of this terminology very recently.

But I will admit, although I voted "yes" and so did 65% of the people on here, for you other 35% you have been making progress, because I am starting to lean the other way.

 

[JamesM]

That is why I think I get flagged every time I go to purchase a gun. The last three have taken 2 days, 1 day, 3 hours.

That is a failure of the system!

Would you say the same if, next time, it took a fingerprint card and 5 or 6 (or more) months to resolve? I know a person that this is happening to.

I know somebody like this as well. They would always get delayed, then all of the sudden denied. He didn’t get any information over the phone when he called NICS and is still waiting on a reply to his appeal through the mail (after he had to go to the police station to get finger printed). The (not so) funny thing is, the .gov should already have his fingerprints from his CCW application but they refuse to use those to make the ID. I was shocked that once you get a denial, you have the responsibility to prove you are not a criminal. Submitting to a back ground check is one thing but when that system fails, there is not an instant appeal to the instant BG check. Oh, he also has a Garand on order from CMP…….I hope he gets this cleared up before they get around to running the NICS check on him

 

[StuckInMA]

the .gov should already have his fingerprints from his CCW application but they refuse to use those to make the ID.

Sorry to go OT a bit, but is MA the only state that has a computerized fingerprint scanner at the point of sale?

 

[Werewolf]

And, yes - your mileage may vary, but as I've said, the local alley-rapist not being able to go into any given shop and walk out with a legally-purchased gun is a fair trade-off, to me, for having to take a few extra moments for a phone call.

I think this man might - hell - would disagree with you:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

... Because Tactical that is exactly what you are suggesting...

 

[Bazooka Joe71]

Werewolf,

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Great quote...Actually just about the perfect quote for this topic.

 

[M_Olson]

id say its the perfect quote for just about any topic



\/ \/ \/

 

[Soybomb]

Sorry to go OT a bit, but is MA the only state that has a computerized fingerprint scanner at the point of sale?

I sure hope so

I'm also in favor of basic training (say, a free class, maybe an hour or two long, state-funded by CCW license fees) as a requisite for purchase, covering the basics of handling, safety, unloading, the Four Rules, etc. I imagine it'd eliminate a lot of the "it just went off" and "while I was cleaning it" incidents.

Wow you put me restrictions on me exercising my rights and make it more expensive to do so? We're talking a few hundred deaths a year, the numbers fall somewhere just over the number that poisoned by gas and far far under those that suffocate by an ingested object or drown. You should focus more on mandatory swimming lessons and pool safety laws or driving school.

No, it won't stop criminals from obtaining guns illegally, but it will stop them from obtaining them legally.

So ultimately you concede that it has no impact on criminals and only negative impact on everyone else?

Right - but the NICS has the very real effect of barring ineligible criminals from legally buying firearms.

Which still doesn't keep them from getting guns, so its worthless.

I'm not sure when NICS went into effect, but I find it hard to believce that prior to the background check system, criminals weren't purchasing firearms in violation of Federal law

A felon can't legally have a firearm. Has nics done anything at all to prevent felons from having firearms?

I am not sure how many of you ever have problems with the instant check system. All I know is mine is never instant. My ssn is 6xx-xx-xxxx there is a guy out there with the SSN of 5xx-xx-xxxx all of the X are exactly the same numbers. This person for what ever reason deserted from the NAVY. That is why I think I get flagged every time I go to purchas a gun. the last three have taken 2 days, 1 day, 3 hours.

We are not giving up anything by particapating in the National Instant Check system.

It sounds like you've given up something to me, and you have it easy compared to the trouble some people have.

Background checks make the antis feel safer and keep them a bit off our case. It is one of the best responses we have to their doomsday scenarios and unfounded fears.

I think its important gun owners have some backbone and don't just feel like they have to give up some of their rights. Luckily people who like the other amendments still fight for them and people don't feel like they need to allow just a little infringement on the 4th.

I just don't see the horrible violation of my rights or the Gun store personnel from a 2 second check to make sure I am not a felon.

What about the people that have trouble with it? What about when it turns into a registration scheme? What about all the money we spend on it when it doesn't keep guns out of criminal's hands?

The ATF can come to my house and look at my whole damn collection if they want--I have nothing to hide.

I have nothing to hide and they most certainly cannot, it is none of their business. You're welcome to make a poster of everything you own and display it in your front yard if you like, but don't make the rest of us accept infringements just because you are apathetic about them.

The more I read this thread the more I think the cause will ultimately be lost and people will accept any restriction that can be made to sound like it has a lofty purpose. I don't think anyone here would say that because we've made it illegal for everyone to buy drugs that now its harder for people to buy drugs. For some reason these gun owners, people who should be supporting second amendment rights, think for some reason that criminals are going to effected by not being able to buy guns in stores. I'm even baffled at the concept of thinking that any significant number of people would buy them from a store to being with. Why spend $600 at the store when you can just steal one?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Strawman?

Mr. Greebs,

We need more checkpoint traffic stops. Everybody should go through one on his way to work. I mean, there are drunk drivers out there, and you can't tell who they are. How do you know who can be trusted with a car? Everyone should have to submit to a Breathalyzer test on any trip he makes -- and he should have to PAY for it, too.

I mean, if it prevents ONE drunk driver from being on the road, it's worth it.

Of course, we'll only set up these checkpoints on main roads, like highways, since that's where most people drive. We wouldn't do it for the little side roads. Everyone obeys the law, even drunk drivers, so we'll catch all of them . . . well most of them . . . well SOME of them in these checkpoints.

Isn't this what some call a "strawman" argument?

Please enlighten me if I'm wrong, I just heard of this terminology very recently.

But I will admit, although I voted "yes" and so did 65% of the people on here, for you other 35% you have been making progress, because I am starting to lean the other way.

Strawman?

Well, not really.

You see, it's almost an apples-to-apples comparison.

While we all "know" that driving is not a right nonetheless, it's something about which, if you denied access on a grand scale, you'd have a revolt.

People would be outraged. "Why are you subjecting everyone in society to this? We haven't done anything wrong! Just put the ones you catch in jail and leave the rest of us alone!"

Remember, laws don't prevent. Laws prohibit, which is different. Once you do a prohibited thing, and you get caught, the prohibition is the justification for punishment.

Punishment -- or even "pro-active prevention" -- in anticipation of an offense has always been unreasonable.

The argument that "well, it doesn't affect EVERYONE because only a few buy guns" is invalid on its face: a right isn't "only valid" when a majority of the people use it daily. The reason it's enumerated as a right is to block the "tyranny of the majority," much in the same way that denying access of some kind to people who are black (and who are in the minority) is prevented by observing their rights not their privileges.

The moment you propose that an onerous and burdensome restriction be applied to the MAJORITY you get this, "well, that's not realistic" response.

Everyone expects daily and unfettered access to free speech. Any proposal that threatens that is met with a widespread hue and cry.

The fact that more and more people have been sold the idea that "you don't need a gun" doesn't render the "right to keep and bear arms" somehow less a right. The fact that guns have been vilified and demonized doesn't render it less a right.

But it DOES soften people up to the idea that RESTRICTING ACCESS BY HONEST PEOPLE is somehow not an encroachment or infringement. Because it doesn't hurt many or it doesn't hurt much.

Besides, it's for the children.

The background check isn't there to protect you. It isn't there to protect your children. It isn't there to disarm criminals.

It's there to disarm you.

How do I know this?

Because THAT'S ALL IT EVER ACCOMPLISHES.

And, in spite of this, and in spite of how obvious it is that this is true, the government continues to parade around in its new clothes, denying its nakedness.

For the children.

 

[Werewolf]

Background checks make the antis feel safer and keep them a bit off our case. It is one of the best responses we have to their doomsday scenarios and unfounded fears.

Antis not feeling safe is not a valid reason to infringe the rights of law abiding citizens.

Furthermore - why should antis not feeling safe mean we have to cow-tow to them? Why do the antis always get to make the rules?

Because we let them and it seems based on the responses in this thread by those who profess to believe in the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment that we'll continue to let them. :banghead: Afterall - how can any reasonable person be against reasonable infringements if it saves even one child?

 

[2RCO]

The thing everybody is kinda missing here is the RTKBA could be taken away by the proper course of action. Our constitution can be amended--Yeah I know it's far fetched argument but it is plausible. The Anti Gunner's have alot of money and alot of arguments that appeal to the majority of America we as the Responsible Gun Owners have to make a legitimate case to protect our rights. We need to learn to play the game before we lose.

Another note as far as RTKBA is concerned is this: No one on this forum has the level of armament to match with the framers intent--(NO I'm not talking about Flintlocks and Sabres) The framers intended the citizenry to be on par with the government troops. No matter how neat your toys are they aren't even close to what LE and the Military have access to. If our government went corrupt and an insurgency was needed it would be quashed in mere hours unless the military was onboard. So as far as the true intent it has been so far mutilated by legislation and outmoded by technology that it is only a shadow of it's original being. Can anybody here stand up to an Apache Longbow or Abrams fighting vehicle. Nope could all the members of high road take on one of these units maybe but it would take pretty damn good coordination.

Also If you'll check I believe even the NRA suports background checks.

Yes I know this is why many of you Hate the NRA but that organization is the only thing ensuring RTKBA is not further manipulated. So join the NRA or some legitimate organization that might actually be listened to by those folks in Congress. Bitching and moaning on TheHighRoad isn't really making tangible forward progress.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

It is a right not a priviledge to own a firearm the problem lies in the responsibility in bearing that firearm. The second you break the law when bearing that firearm in a robbery or unlawful shooting I belive the law should come down on you swift and hard, very hard.

 

[Soybomb]

The thing everybody is kinda missing here is the RTKBA could be taken away by the proper course of action. Our constitution can be amended--Yeah I know it's far fetched argument but it is plausible. The Anti Gunner's have alot of money and alot of arguments that appeal to the majority of America we as the Responsible Gun Owners have to make a legitimate case to protect our rights. We need to learn to play the game before we lose.

Because someone might try to take our rights we should let them step all over them? I see no reason not to protest violations of the 2nd amendment as strongly as I would the 1st even if people are trying to amend the 1st to make it more limiting too. If you believe in them, stand up for them.

The Anti Gunner's have alot of money and alot of arguments that appeal to the majority of America we as the Responsible Gun Owners have to make a legitimate case to protect our rights. We need to learn to play the game before we lose.

They have no arguments, they have lies, misleading statistics, flawed logic, and other deceptions. Most americans just really don't care one way or the other. We need to be just as vocal as they are and be sure the public realizing the stuff they're saying is a lie.

Another note as far as RTKBA is concerned is this: No one on this forum has the level of armament to match with the framers intent--(NO I'm not talking about Flintlocks and Sabres) The framers intended the citizenry to be on par with the government troops. No matter how neat your toys are they aren't even close to what LE and the Military have access to. If our government went corrupt and an insurgency was needed it would be quashed in mere hours unless the military was onboard. So as far as the true intent it has been so far mutilated by legislation and outmoded by technology that it is only a shadow of it's original being. Can anybody here stand up to an Apache Longbow or Abrams fighting vehicle. Nope could all the members of high road take on one of these units maybe but it would take pretty damn good coordination.

If you believe the 2nd amendment is worthless it might be best to start another thread to debate that in. I would say looking at iraq that having planes and tanks doesn't mean a quick and easy victory. Perhaps even more importantly though is that just maintaining your right to arms might help make sure you would never need to use them.

Bitching and moaning on TheHighRoad isn't really making tangible forward progress.

Neither is joining the NRA and calling it a day. Do you go out of your way to show people that what the anti's are saying is untrue? Do you teach people why the 2nd amendment is useful or do you tell them about it and say "but it doesn't matter because people can't stand up to the government anyway." Have you done anything to help restore the 2nd amendment so I can buy post 86 machine guns instead of just thinking of where we need to roll over and give up and hope they don't want to take more?

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

But it DOES soften people up to the idea that RESTRICTING ACCESS BY HONEST PEOPLE is somehow not an encroachment or infringement. Because it doesn't hurt many or it doesn't hurt much.

As a matter of principle I am going to play the 'what if' game here once more:

If, and this is entirely theoretical here, a background check system had absolutely no flaws and did not deny someone an instant purchase if they were legal and allowed to purchase, would you be for it?

 

[Nitrogen]

I think anyone should be able to buy a gun. Even convicted felons, assuming they finished their parole.

if they are too dangerous to buy a gun, they should still be in jail.

 

[22-rimfire]

I think the poll is just plain stupid. I have not read all 217 posts to this point. I read the same response over and over again to these issues. So, I'll give you my opinion.

(1) It is enough for me to complete the federal form #4473 and sign it when I purchase a new firearm. If you lie on it, you have committed a federal crime which means jail time. Let law enforcement enforce not restrict. A criminal (felon) can not legally purchase a firearm.
(2) I shutter everytime I have to give my finger prints when I buy a gun. What they changed since the last time I gave my prints? Yes, it gets rather routine, but I don't like it.
(3) I dislike the NICs automated background check. But I have never been inconvenienced when I bought a firearm by it. I just hate paying $10 for something over and over again that gives the same result every time. BUT, I would rather pay the $10 more often than not than have a 7 or 10 day waiting period (cooling off period) inflicted on me.
(4) If you have paid your debt to society due to a crime, that should be enough to restore all of your rights no matter what the crime. If criminal penalties aren't enough, then make them more severe.

 

[czbegenner]

OK GUYS,IM ABOUT TO GO TO WORK,BUT I WILL SAY THIS WE NEED TO FIGHT FOR THE 2ND,AS I STATED EARLYER IT'S BECAUSE OF WHO WE ALLOW
TO GET INTO OFFICE.I don't think the weapons we are buying could be consider assalt weapons,semi auto??This is a trick from the so called powers
that be to take our freedom We need to wake up.

 

[rdhood]

If, and this is entirely theoretical here, a background check system had absolutely no flaws and did not deny someone an instant purchase if they were legal and allowed to purchase, would you be for it?

No. All current felonies do not warrant removing 2A rights. IMHO, only violent felonies or misdemeanors and some mentally impaired or unstable folks should not have weapons. As it is now, the list is slowly expanding. So even if the system were perfect now, the list of non-violent felonies and misdemeanors, and the list of mentally disallowed conditions threatens to expand and encompass more people who have done nothing deserving of losing their 2A rights.

If the list were restricted to convictions for violent felonies and misdemeanors and the system were PERFECT, I'd be okay with it. For an "open ended" list (i.e. the list can easily be amended to include more groups) with people who clearly should not be prevented from owning a firearm currently on the list, NO. NICS is an abomination.

Even if it was perfect, it would STILL not prevent BG from getting guns... only from getting new guns from licensed dealers. But at that point, it would only be a 10 second delay rather than much more.

 

[rbernie]

If, and this is entirely theoretical here, a background check system had absolutely no flaws and did not deny someone an instant purchase if they were legal and allowed to purchase, would you be for it?

No, because (as has already been pointed out) the DoJ tells me that at least 40% of all violent felons bought a firearm legally - before they got caught and convicted of their first felony.

The background check is still flawed even if it is absolutely PERFECT, because it presumes to accurately predict future behaviors based upon past observation. And the observation upon which the decision is based is limited to legal and medical records that are by their very definition too small a sampling to be remotely reliable.

Even my mutual fund knows better than to advertise future returns based upon past results.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Until people who are too dangerous to own a gun are kept in prison, I will be for background checks as long as they are in reason. I don't like the current system (both the criminal justice system or the stringent background checks) but until the biggest problem goes away, that being violent criminals out roaming in the general population, they should not be allowed to purchase a firearm legally by de facto means.

 

[2RCO]

On a more important note--- What are you hardly fighting cats doing to stop the new proposed AWB? Have you called your congressman? Have you written any letters? Have you donated money? Are you fighting for RTKBA any other ways than tongue lashing antis and Grumbling at everyone else sending them straight into the arms of the Antis?

Yes--All your arguments are legitimate and correct but they won't hold up to the Anti's feelings arguments with the public.

If you are firmly against Background Checks --answer this-- would you sell a convicted rapist out on parole a gun? How about someone on parole for shooting an elderly couple? I guess you all would and would rather see these people own guns than maybe in extreme cases have a week delay in getting that new Kimber. RTKBA doesn't specifically mention purchase now does it reread the 2nd Amendment.

 

[eliphalet]

The Right to bear arms is in a way like a big old tree with some anti-gun fools standing under it with a ax in their hand taking a cop now and then. It saddens me to see some of my fellow gun owners have the ax in their hand at times getting in their chip.
Sooner or later at this rate of division even among my fellow firearm owners the tree of gun freedom will fall and most probably any reasonable resemblance of freedom that is left right behind that. For most of my fellow man I will feel like the Ben Franklin quote. Ya don't deserve freedom if it scares you this bad.. But then in some States, I think that tree is laying on the ground now, just not quite dead yet, from some of the regulations I read some of you have to put up with. If I didn't know better I would think you were in another country than the one I live in.

OMG let big brother protect us, some of what I have read here makes me feel sick to my stomach!

 

[rbernie]

No, because (as has already been pointed out) the DoJ tells me that at least 40% of all violent felons bought a firearm legally - before they got caught and convicted of their first felony.

Until people who are too dangerous to own a gun are kept in prison, I will be for background checks as long as they are in reason. I don't like the current system (both the criminal justice system or the stringent background checks) but until the biggest problem goes away, that being violent criminals out roaming in the general population, they should not be allowed to purchase a firearm legally by de facto means.

DPV - I'm disappointed that you made no effort to reconcile these two notions.