What's wrong on background check's for firearms?

[PT1911]

you are absolutely right. you know what I think we should do... rather than changing what is considered a felony or other disqualifying offense or even trying to get the process refined to prevent false "no buy" results, we should just wipe the slate clean.. better yet.. as criminals are released from their "rehabilitation facilities" they shoud be given a glock 27 to protect themselves from their gange budies, schizophrenics should be given ARs to fight off the shadows that are chasing them, and those suffering from mania should be given pink 1911's to go with their thigh highs and clown make-up. that way when someone tells them to call down they can drop them with a few spastically aimed .45s...give the female manics pink P-22's


when you finish moving that pile of sand, just start moving it back.

 

[Doggy Daddy]

criminals are released from their "rehabilitation facilities"

A dangerous criminal on the streets is a problem.

schizophrenics

those suffering from mania

Those so mentally unstable that they can't co-exist with the rest of us, that's a problem.

Embrace the irritating form and waiting period

Also a problem, because I'm neither a criminal nor mentally unstable. And the 2nd says my right is not to be infringed.

Lock up the criminal, treat/house the mentally unstable until they're fit to mingle with the rest of us. But don't infringe on my natural right.

Bang this!

 

[akodo]

How do you enforce their ownership of firearms? Since you are against background checks, I assume you have a better suggestion.

The problem is you can use that argument to erode all rights.

Guess what, if you need to violate a bunch of innocent people's rights to catch one bad guy, he stays free.

Let's say a murderer escapes from prison and flees to the nearby town. Under your agrument of 'we can ignore the constitution unless you can give me a better way of being sure of catching the guy' the police can kick in every door and search the residence

after all...no one wants a murderer hiding in their bedroom
besides, only those who have something to hide would resist a search....

 

[SCKimberFan]

JochenWeber posted:

"Gun control," including background checks, therefore, only "controls" those who have done nothing to merit such regulations.

Well said.

 

[akodo]

That is done through the DMV. Car dealers don't have to do this. You have to present a valid license and verify insurance in order to drive off the lot. Not technically a background check, but the state verifies the information. I suppose you are against this also.

Rogerjames, I was replying to the illogical comment about NFL, Texax, Mother-in-Law, and hospitol. I don't see how DMV comes into play

However, I will address your question anyways.

you do NOT have to present a valid ID or insurance to drive off the lot. Many dealers do ask this to cover their own backside from civil suit, but it is NOT federal law.

Besides, you could always buy a car, and explicitly tell the dealer 'I have no license and no insurance' (a blind guy can buy a car to be delivered to his home so he can sit in it and pretend...or a blind guy could buy a car to give to his 16 year old son for a birthday present)

In no circumstance does the auto dealer run the risk of going to jail because he failed to run a background check.

Also, ownership of cars, or the right to operate a car on publicly funded roads is not listed in the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is.

 

[akodo]

Having to pay for it is an infringement but nobody is giving guns away. Filling out 2 pages and waiting while a clerk calls it in is not an infringement.

yes it is, especially when you have to wait 7 days, and ESPECIALLY when Fred K Zildo is a convicted drug dealer but Fred L Zildo is an honest man, but he keeps on getting rejected. Fred L Zildo is definately having his rights infringed.

If you could absolutely gaurntee a 30 second check with a 100% that would be okay

(or 99.9999999% success rate, and for the .0000001 who ARE wrongfully rejected there is a swift and just process of review, at which time they are financially re-embursed for both their time and the general infringment of their rights that would be okay too).

However, that isn't the case.

You may even be correct that it isn't an infringement 90% of the time, or even 99% of the time.

But you don't judge the system on how it treats most, you judge it on how it treats the outliers.

The mayor's son is always going to be given the benifit of doubt by the local police, the wandering bum is not. We set up the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' for the 1% who would get mistreated.

We don't have freedom of speech for the 99% of articles that raise no rucus, but for the 1% that do offend people.

 

[SCKimberFan]

Do you own a firearm? Then clearly your rights have not been infringed.

How do you know how I obtained my firearm? Did I have to submit to a BC? Did I buy it FTF from someone else?

My rights were infringed upon when I had to ask permission to buy a gun. Uncle Sam, may I please buy a gun?

As to the definition of infringed: to encroach or trespass. My rights were encroached upon when I had to ask permission, at which point it is no longer a RIGHT, but merely a privilege.

 

[akodo]

Great commentary. Still waiting for your genius suggestion to enforce the law that prevents felons from legally obtaining weapons.

According to you, we shouldn't have any laws. The law breakers will get em any way... so why have laws? You're a genius, why didn't I think of that. Oh yeah, I forgot... if they get away with it but we catch 'em later, we can send 'em to jail. Under your trap, they will just get away with it forever, cause laws are useless

again you have it backwards.

The first lens we must judge a law through is not 'will this allow us to catch the criminals eaiser?'

The first lens we judge laws through is 'does this infringe on the rights of honest citizens?'

If it does, guess what? it is thrown out. The fact that there is no handy replacement technique is irrelevant.

Remember, it is better that 10 criminals go free than 1 honest man be wrongly imprisoned.

 

[Rockwell1]

I personally have NEVER undergone a background check. I purchased every weapon I own used in a private sale.

The only people who willingly submit to background checks are the law-abiding & those who don't know they're a prohibited person.

If it were up to me there'd be no background check or permit system period.

 

[rogerjames]

Senior Member


Join Date: 08-31-05
Posts: 2,177

Quote:
Great commentary. Still waiting for your genius suggestion to enforce the law that prevents felons from legally obtaining weapons.

According to you, we shouldn't have any laws. The law breakers will get em any way... so why have laws? You're a genius, why didn't I think of that. Oh yeah, I forgot... if they get away with it but we catch 'em later, we can send 'em to jail. Under your trap, they will just get away with it forever, cause laws are useless
again you have it backwards.

The first lens we must judge a law through is not 'will this allow us to catch the criminals eaiser?'

The first lens we judge laws through is 'does this infringe on the rights of honest citizens?'

If it does, guess what? it is thrown out. The fact that there is no handy replacement technique is irrelevant.

Remember, it is better that 10 criminals go free than 1 honest man be wrongly imprisoned.

You live in OZ.

I live in the real world.

 

[JohnBT]

"The first lens we judge laws through is 'does this infringe on the rights of honest citizens?'"

True. Right along the lines of innocent until proven guilty, no unreasonable search or seizure, etc.

What really ticks me off is that they promised "Instant Check" and then it wasn't. Now, at least in Virginia, they've cut back on staffing and overtime and the state process has about ground to a halt. Well, maybe you'll get a response if you submit it early in the morning and can spare the time to wait around until supper. Heaven forbid you need to be somewhere or have a job or something.

And we get to pay for every delay, too. Delays should be free. On time instant check or it's free.

John

 

[CB900F]

Roger;

Sorry, but you're confusing your world with the real words of the constitution.

900F

 

[Rockwell1]

Bottom Line

After reading this thread I can only conclude that some people are born sheep, live their entire lives as sheep and,sooner or later, will die bleating in some slaughter house as sheep.

You can show them the collar and they'll tell you it's a necklace. You can point to the bars on their pen and they'll tell you they like it in here because they're safe from the wolf (except when they're not).

I could go on with the analogies but I think I've made my point.

It's almost impossible to free a fool from chains he reveres.

I don't even waste my time anymore

 

[rbernie]

This was a good dialogue overall, but after one hundred and thirty eight posts we're mostly repeating outselves and/or talking past each other.

Time to let this one rest for a while.