Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The illogic of universal background checks.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Leanwolf, Jan 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Missouri
    You've always ALREADY had the option.

    How does a "moderate" felon not know where to get a firearm illegally?

    I'm not a felon, nor under indictment of any, and even I know how to get things I want or need unlawfully if necessary.

    I think some of you are downplaying the motivation of today's criminals.
     
  2. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,424
    Location:
    NC
    I think you overrate the abilities of quite a few Americans.
    I have never committed a felony nor do I have a record of any kind. I am around guns, I own guns and I have friends who legally have guns. I would have no idea where to obtain a gun illegally. Where would I go? To the gang banger on the street corner? Walk in to an FFL and ask him if he knows someone who would sell me a gun illegally? Hang at the courthouse and ask somebody who looks shady as he exits the courthouse? Where?

    I guess we hang with different crowds?
     
  3. JRWhit

    JRWhit Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2012
    Messages:
    971
    Location:
    MO
    Well you don't think like a criminal. You just stated where you could steal one in your post.
     
  4. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Missouri
    Different demographics? Probably not.

    I don't overrate anyone: If its wanted bad enough, I can think of no more resourceful human beings than Americans.

    As for where YOU can get things illegally; not something we need to discuss here. I don't know Litchfield, I admit I assume you've criminals like most cities and towns where things are bought illegally, not just firearms. But, you've always had the choice to not sell a firearm to anyone FTF without a transfer. Even in CT.
     
  5. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,471
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    This is about the only way they'll be able to make it happen without serious opposition. I don't like the idea of BG checks on private sales, but if we could conduct them as the private seller, free of charge, in any location, it really wouldn't bother me that much.
     
  6. danez71

    danez71 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,739
    Location:
    CAAZ
    I never said I didnt have the option. I said I want the option; ie not mandatory.

    A moderate felon, again, like a DUI offender, doesnt know Slim Shady that sells stolen guns in the dark allies of ghetto-ville.

    Sure, everyone knows that most cities have Slim Shadys in ghetto-ville.

    However....

    A DUI type moderate felon that has a 8-5 job with 2.3 kids, dog and picket fence, doesnt want to know Slim Shady and doesnt want to go to ghetto-ville especially when its dark and in a ally.


    Having said that, a moderate felon, like DUI, also probably isnt who we should worry about and make a prohibitive person.


    But none the less, thats the type of scenario that background checks work.
     
  7. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,235
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Just more hoops for honest citizens IMO and as you even state...criminals still get the guns.

    Slows them down? The CT shooter got turned down after a background check (or for some other reason?) when he went to the gun store to buy one.

    It didnt slow him down much.

    IMO, more restrictions is not worth so few gains. Esp. not such restrictions that the govt can just keep building on.
     
  8. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,235
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    I agree.
     
  9. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Missouri
    I think you're painting a Sin City portrait that conveys an illegal arms dealer as a trench coat wearing, cigar smoking man selling a gun to a shadowy figure with yellow eyes and bad teeth.

    Neither you nor I know who an actual, illegal, gun salesperson is or the types they sell to until we are standing in front of them, or we've seen their carnage on the liberal news casts.

    Am I saying the sweet old lady next door is a bad person? Could very well be. She could be buying cancer Meds selling her late hubbies guns off to criminals. Will background checks stop this madness? No.

    I don't want mandatory checks, either. Do I want a DUI offender to have a gun? No, mild or not. So, I agree, these are the only "baddy-but-goodies" that UBCs will hinder.
     
  10. 9MMare

    9MMare Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,235
    Location:
    Outside Seattle, WA
    I hope that this is not a prevalent belief.

    I'm not any kind of felon and I know a few places to get a gun if I want one.

    Borrow one, go thru a friend or relatives nitestand or other drawers, steal one, find another 'private party' sale, lie to convince someone to loan you one...if you have friends, it's not hard to play on their sympathy, they tend to think the better of you. Or just steal one.

    If someone *decides* to commit a crime....they'll do so. And would a background check prevent a crime of passion? 50-50 I guess.
     
  11. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Libertarian Socialism is a more modern development of older left anarchist and collectivist anarchist schools of thought. Noam Chomsky is the most prominent example and is a prolific writer on the subject.

    The real reason I bring it up is mainly because Americans only know libertarian to mean the libertarian party and a reference to pro-capitalist, pro-business ideology built on Austrian economics and paying homage to the bill of rights in order to attract a decently-sized base of voters.
    To hear libertarian combined with socialism immediately makes many think the phrase is a contradiction in terms without realizing they are more complementary than one might initially think. We Americans do ourselves a great disservice when we ignore the writings that came out of Europe on the matter during the rise of communism and the later beginnings of fascism. Even if you differ politically, it is worthwhile to read what those men had to say if only to understand what the rest of the world means when it talks about socialism and anarchy.

    Americans regard anarchism as lawlessness and communism as a catch-all term for the mess that was the Soviet Union. They don't realize that when Lenin and the Bolsheviks took power, they almost immediately had to deviate from the communist origins described by Marx; effectively dooming the movement from Socialism to Communism Marx intended.

    Indeed, Lenin wrote about a vanguard party who would work and advocate for the worker. To push forward the concerns of the workers while attempting to enlighten the working classes to the great power of production they held in their hands.
    Not all that dissimilar from the notions voiced by Madison concerning the "benevolent philosopher" and "enlightened statesmen" whom he hoped would direct the affairs of the state to best suit the common man who they thought was apparently unable to do it for themselves. It required a "more capable set of men" as Madison so eloquently put it.

    Of course, Madison lived in a place and time that was decidedly pre-capitalist. His words hold a different meaning than we would ascribe to them today.
     
  12. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    What restrictions are you referring to? You already bear this "restriction" as you call it as enshrined in the constitution. The ability of the government to remove your rights with due process is well established.
    Background checks simply provide a proactive possibility of finding the disqualified rather than reactive.
     
  13. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Missouri
    ...and giving the government, that which the 2A is written to protect us from, more information from the law abiding citizens and their firearm purchasing than some of us would like...all under the guise of "saving a few more lives" when it truly can't.

    This is also well established.
     
  14. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,424
    Location:
    NC
    At first I didn't know what you meant but then it hit me. I could steal one from a buddy. You are right, that never occured to me. I doubt I could steal even a $2 screwdriver from a buddy. I know I couldn't steal from a store and before anyone throws in the "would you go back and pay for an item you found out you didn't pay for?" Yes, I have, many times. We're all humans and makes mistakes. I don't want what I didn't pay for but I expect to be paid for my work on time and correctly. Life isn't always black and white but I try to do my part to be a good citizen. I believe most Americans feel the same way. The criminal element is a small portion of our population but all the laws we have and all the regulations we all put up with is to keep the 2% accountable.
     
  15. texasgun

    texasgun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    371
    Regarding the DUI felon... in most states a DUI is a felony if:
    1) Your DUI caused injury or death to another,
    or 2) You have 3 or more prior DUI or "wet reckless" convictions within a ten-year period, or
    3) You have at least one prior felony DUI conviction.

    so in other words: you injured or killed someone or you have the tendency to drive wasted regardless of prior convictions. I honestly have ZERO issues with these guys not being allowed to have guns as they already injured/killed someone or are close to doing it....

    yes, universal background checks won't stop EVERY criminal from getting guns. but so do speed limits not stop every speeder. opposing background checks makes us look very irrational and there are not many arguments that hold up in discussions.
     
  16. larryh1108

    larryh1108 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,424
    Location:
    NC
    I don't think the public knows what those of us who have permits to carry have to go thru to get it. I have a LTC in CT and I had to take an 8 hour class which included firing a handgun, I submitted my fingerprints, I had to undergo a thorough local background check including my previous address as well as an FBI complete background check. My entire life was examined before I got my permit. I believe most permits to carry have a similar requirement. If the public understood the process I don't think most of them would think we're a bunch of lawless criminals who carry guns. Also, to those who keep pounding the "shall not be infringed" statement, what would you classify the process to get a permit to carry? There are millions of people who have a LTC and they are in every state except IL. I would be more comfortable in a room of them, armed to the teeth, than a room of people who never applied or got approved for a LTC. I believe we are responsible and safe and have proven over our lifetimes to be the upper echelon of citizens in the USA. I hope the President sees this but for some reason all the decision makers in our government turn their eyes away from this fact. We are the best of the best Americans out there and we are looked down upon as fanatics and goons. I seriously doubt the general public even has a clue to what we have to do to get a LTC. They fear us out of ignorance.
     
  17. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Missouri
    Supporting universal background checks that don't stop offenders from getting guns and only magnify the amount information that the liberal run government has on lawful gun owners is even more irrational.

    I, also, don't think repeat offenders of so called "mild" crimes should have weapons. So, I'm with you there.
     
  18. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    The government already knows what crimes you've committed. It's all public record.
     
  19. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Missouri
    But they don't know about my weapons cache. I plan to keep it that way.

    Give them all the info you'd like, play the good son. Call me an extremist, a rebel, or what I have you; I am against it, I'll fight it and all other nonsense the Libs/Left come up with.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2013
  20. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Member

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,377
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Why would they know any more than they already do? Criminal records are public record.
    If they actually do follow the law though, all that info is deleted shortly after the check is complete. The only record should be the 4473 the FFL keeps.

    or we can push for a more intelligent system similar to what has been mentioned earlier with a notification on the drivers license/ID.
     
  21. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Missouri
    So you say. Do you have proof that there isn't any record keeping done by the NICS or FBI that's currently in place, and that there is no "tally" kept on transfers done by, say, social security number? That's something you are required to use every time a transfer is done in your name, proof positive that you've bought another gun.

    Such the same when a bad guy commits a crime and is processed, the ever-present social security number pops up. Crimes as you stated and most intelligent folk already are aware of, are public record.

    I don't think convicted felons should be blanketed under any amendment, so I think a bimonthly updated license renewal (which is driver inclusive) that labels lawful or unlawful people as "Non Saleable" or "Saleable" is not an infringement on felons' rights, as they really have very little to begin with. If a person who is allowed to buy commits a crime of any nature above misdemeanor, revocation and renewal under "Non Saleable"
    When doing a FTF, check the license of the buyer they can check yours, if its GTG, sell the gun. If the buyer is not a desirable, no sale and report the person trying to buy illegally.

    This makes sellers happy and legal.
    Keeps some guns out of some bad guys' hands.
    The Fed gets to do a bimonthly background check by way of Department of Revenue.
    We get to do things ourselves, and we keep some semblance of privacy.
     
  22. texasgun

    texasgun Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2012
    Messages:
    371
    ^^^

    " the NICS or FBI that's currently in place, and that there is no "tally" kept on transfers done by, say, social security number? That's something you are required to use every time a transfer is done in your name, proof positive that you've bought another gun. "

    no, your SSN is not required on the ATF form. it's optional. I have bought many guns with leaving that field blank. doesn't make a difference.... only if you have a very common first/last name it might help to prevent confusion with a felon...
     
  23. meanmrmustard

    meanmrmustard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,225
    Location:
    Missouri
    Does your address make it on the form? Does you phone number? How about using your drivers license to concur with name and place of residence?

    You can't get that license without a social, so vis a vis, you're still giving your social.
     
  24. Kiln

    Kiln Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    2,465
    Exactly my argument. These new laws will do nothing but spur the black market sales of firearms and give law abiding gun owners another hoop to jump through to legally obtain a firearm.
     
  25. bayesian

    bayesian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2012
    Messages:
    60
    Location:
    Atlanta GA
    So, this, and countless threads before it have basically not been intellectual arguments where people come together to convey information and come to reasonable conclusions based on the evidence. This discussion is a perfect example of why we typically don't allow the discussion of politics at the dinner table.

    Postion A: This law will not stop gun related crimes as criminals will still be able to get guns.

    Position B: This law will reduce gun related crimes as criminals will find guns less accessible.

    No evidence that either side will pull together is going to convince the other. So, lets just get to dessert and give up on these endless threads. If you are the 7% that thinks background checks are terrible, then hey, go nuts. If you, like 93% of the population, thinks that this is worthwhile, then just call the freaking vote and be done with it.

    And if you are wondering where these numbers come from and you are going to post a response asking, then read the freaking thread before you post as you are part of the pointless rehashing of the same arguments that is making this board tiresome.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page