Do you think background checks of gun buyers should be kept on record?

[Dog]

Local Fox news poll.

Do you think background checks of gun
buyers should be kept on record?

32% Yes
68% No

Fox News

Down about a quarter of the page on the right.

 

[Parker Dean]

25% Yes
75% No

 

[M1911Owner]

That question, of course, contains the presupposition that there should be backgound checks in the first place.

 

[4570Rick]

Yes...24%

No...76%

 

[TallPine]

That question, of course, contains the presupposition that there should be backgound checks in the first place.

Which there should not be!

What part of "infringed" .....?

 

[Smoke]

It is a stupid question....

A background check is a search of ones record. Ones record is what's already on file.

So what are they proposing to keep on file? How many times you've been checked? Your file?...seems redundant.

Makes no sense to me. Some one enlighten me.


Smoke

 

[TallPine]

So what are they proposing to keep on file? How many times you've been checked?

How many guns you have purchased.

 

[Baba Louie]

So what are they proposing to keep on file? How many times you've been checked?

How many guns you have purchased.

Then we just cross reference those with your SSN file, State Driver's license number, bank account history (FDIC banks only of course), FHA loan files, pharmaceutical purchase records... maybe double check any old 4473's we have laying around...
"Put 'em together and whaddya got? Bippity boppity boo" (showing my age there)
But hey, we only keep those background checks for 24 hours... no problem... right?

I worked with a member of the State Attorney General's office last year on a project... you'd be amazed at what information they can pull up on anyone in the country... or maybe you wouldn't. Just need a name, or a SSN or a D.O.B. and the computer just spits out all KINDS of useful information.

So? You mean you don't want to know what Political party he's registered to, the last time he voted, what prescription drugs he buys, his last property tax payment, what kind of car he owns, weapons in the house, his employer, how much he deposits every month, where his checks go to, where he buys his groceries from, etc?

Oh!

Never mind.

 

[Dog]

The poll is over, the final results are:
Do you think background checks
of gun buyers should be kept on record?
21% Yes
79% No

I agree there should not be any background checks at all.
There is already are background checks.
I will watch the news tonight and see what they have to say about
this polls.
If anyone wants to E-mail I believe this is the guys that does
the polls.
Mark Hyman
And if not I am sure he will get it to the right person. Or do his own "The Point" segment on it.

 

[Frohickey]

Only if it means that I do not have to do another background check and waiting period for the next pistol that I buy next month, and if I can buy as many pistols as I want anytime I want.



Background checks and making you pay for them is just another nuisance tax.

 

[Dog]

The person that I linked to in the previous thread does his own segment on the news. This is from tonight.

SELECTED FREEDOM OF SPEECH

There is no doubt what the founding fathers had in mind when they added the freedom of speech clause to the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia observed a number of actions by the court in the last four years. Based on free speech grounds, it struck down restrictions against tobacco advertising, virtual child pornography, sexually explicit cable programming and even illegally intercepted communications. So it’s inconceivable – in fact, insane -- that the same court placed restrictions on the very speech the framers of the Constitution had intended to protect: criticism of the government.

The founders were not looking ahead to protecting Nike shoe ads or Hustler magazine’s photos. Although the Bill of Rights do just that. The First Amendment gave citizens a right unheard of at any other time or place in mankind: a Constitutional guarantee that the people could criticize their government without fear of punishment. Doing so anywhere else in the world at that time would have brought imprisonment or death.

Last December 10th, five Supreme Court Justices sided with incumbent politicians in Congress who wrote a law that strips away the most fundamental right that any government has ever given to any man. Instead of upholding the Constitution, Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, O’Connor, Souter and Stevens, allowed a law to stand that makes it a criminal offense to criticize members of Congress during certain periods before elections.

If there’s ever a time for any American to be a single issue voter, then this is it. Censored speech knows no race, no color, no creed, or no religion. Everyone loses – except incumbent politicians.

Next fall, before the November elections, I will post on my website the name of every single member of Congress who voted for the McCain-Feingold bill, which these five justices recently upheld. This will remind each of you on how to vote if you want to protect the rights of this and future generations

That’s the Point.

Fox News "The Point"

I have sent an e mail to him. We might be able to get some news if more people would send him a letter.

Thanks