Gun Control vs Background Checks?

[jeepmcd]

I have spent some time over the last few days reading articles and forums discussing firearms in the modern society. There is a need for change the relationship between society and guns. I guess I wanted to put a little out there and see how the reader reacts to this hot issue.

Ultimately I would prefer zero gun control but realistically the need for some restriction is understandable. As much as I would like a full-auto M16, I don't think its smart to have it in everyone's hands. I am willing to say that something needs to be done to address the recent tragedies we see around us. I don't think gun control will change anything, the perpetrators woke up that morning ready to kill innocent people and they were willing to die in order to pull it off. Politics geared towards reducing the amount of guns on the street cannot address the real problem.

I would be fine with a compromise that requires detailed background check and other verification processes for firearm purchases. Although I think that nearly all the legally purchased firearms will never be used to harm a person, it would help ensure a person is capable of being responsible.

Ok, I am ready to hear how stupid, ignorant, etc I am, so let me have it!

 

[arjay]

Prohibitions tend to inflict harm on many while trying to control a few.

 

[Steve in Vermont]

Spend a few minutes thinking about Congress and the dysfunction in that political body. Then imagine that the NRA, and like organizations, didn't exist. Now try to imagine what laws would be implemented and the consequences. There are two areas in which the government could make an immediate difference, going after people who illegally possess guns, and "straw purchases", buying guns for these people. Adding regulations to law abiding gun owners will not solve this "gun problem", going after those who illegally possess and sell guns will.

 

[jeepmcd]

I guess I would agree with both the above statements but would caution everyone to even look at the NRA as a political organization. I am a supporter of the NRA, but to think that they are an all knowing, unbiased group would be ignorant.

Congress and the entire political landscape in bogged down with the notions of short sided perspectives. The real problem is not guns or gun owners, but rather parents and individuals in or society wanting to point fingers at the most convenient scape goat. I would never support any legislation that regulated guns themselves, but smart, insightful regulation on the the trade aspects I would consider.

 

[Xtasy]

I
Ultimately I would prefer zero gun control but realistically the need for some restriction is understandable. As much as I would like a full-auto M16, I don't think its smart to have it in everyone's hands.

Felons, drug an alcohol abusing people and mental ill people are not allowed to possess a gun. Why should a law abiding citizen not be allowed to posses a full auto M16? I am more scared of a shooter who is able to place 30 rounds from his semi automatic in a precise way then somebody who fires 30 rounds within 1 second in one direction.

I would be fine with a compromise that requires detailed background check and other verification processes for firearm purchases.

And that will prevent a criminal from getting a gun?

 

[Lenny_D]

I've given this a lot of thought lately. The biggest problem I have with the new gun control bills being brought up nationally and by states have all been tried and found not to work. The assault weapons ban that was in effect through the 90's and early 2000's has been studied by independent and even govt. agencies and have been reported as ineffective at stopping crime. The fact that many murders occur in gun free zones and cities with very strict gun control laws is downplayed by media and politicians. The fact that our own dept of Justice knowingly allowed illegal firearms to fall into the hands of drug cartels and the Attorny General of the US has refused to cooperate with the investigation. The fact that the Dept. of Homeland Security has purchased 1.6 Billion rounds of ammo in these times of fiscal need with budget problems and sequestration. Is it a coincidence that these buys have dryed up ammo availability for the public?
I guess my point is if anyone who has a brain and can read were to look at the facts and see that the"assault" weapon and large capacity mag restrictions didn't work before and "assault" weapons have only been used in a very small number of crimes why would a new one work? It makes me believe there is another agenda behind it. That is why I'm also against universal background checks. It's just a registration scheme.

Len

 

[Jack Wagon]

Shall not be infringed!!! Universal background checks = registration = confiscation. No thanks!

 

[Xtasy]

Will limiting cars to 70mph or 100HP prevent any deaths?

 

[quneur]

I would be fine with a compromise that requires detailed background check and other verification processes for firearm purchases.

At what point would you be willing to define who may own a firearm? By religious belief? Income bracket? Education? Political contributions or affiliation?

Its a slippery slope. There are people who would abuse the system. Give up a step and they will take a mile.

 

[Bill Bates]

I have one quick question for anyone that feels we need to compromise a little when it comes to our unalienable 2nd Amendment right.

What other unalienable right do you think we should have to ask the permission of government to exercise? A background check is a hoop we jump through to be allowed to exercise a right that "shall not be infringed" by government.

Should a government background check be necessary before someone exercises their 1st Amendment right to free speech? Should the state require classes, a background check and permit before someone goes concealed with their writing when it comes to exercising their right to free speech by using a handle or pen name?

As Ben said, "They who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety''

 

[gregintenn]

Congresshas been passing gun control legislation since the 1920's. Do you believe any of these have helped make the country safer?

 

[jeepmcd]

Congresshas been passing gun control legislation since the 1920's. Do you believe any of these have helped make the country safer?

Well I do think the countries citizens are safer since the 1920's and I think that a small percentage of the regulations help make that happen. We don't have gun slinging cowboys or dueling over a disagreement as we did way back. The problem is that the other 99% of the regulation was a waste of time and tax payers money.

I guess my overall thought is that I am not sure if the stone cold refusal to compromise is the best way to tackle the current political situation. Every time a school shooting or "massacre" happens, the idiots on the hill have a knee-jerk reaction rather than solve the problem.

I agree that it is a slippery slope and where does the infringement stop, how much more is free speech limited now compared to 100 years ago? The fact is that times and politicians change but the same old BS of trying to take away freedom will always remain.

 

[SFC ROCK 95B40]

new gun control actions

All that will be done by congress passing newer gun control actions ,Is make it more difficult for the law abiding citizen to purchase firearms under the 2nd amendment right.Nothing that congress proposes or puts into effect will ever stop a criminal from purchasing or having firearms at their disposal.Criminals do not purchase with permits and register them as law abiding citizens do.

That' My Opinion

 

[ASA335]

“Universal Background Checks” sounds reasonable; who among us want known troubled/dangerous people to have easy access to firearms? But, it only “sounds” reasonable. The reality is that troubled/dangerous people will still be troubled and dangerous, won’t abide by the law, will still fall through the holes in the background check system, and will still get whatever they need to carry out harm to others.

As far as us making compromises with the other side on their proposal, they still get something that they want and we still get less of what we want. Here’s how it works:

Under their proposed “something needs to be done” bill they offer a whole bunch of stuff that few of us are willing to accept, and they include something that we might be willing to accept in place of the worst offered. Now, most of us don’t really like any of it, but that less onerous offer might satisfy them for now and we want to seem reasonable, so we off the compromise. They still get closer to what they want, while we still lose.

How ‘bout instead we say “NO” to all of it, and that since bans have failed in the past to live up to their and our expectations, the current laws aren’t adequately enforced, the current background system is full of non-compliance issues (required data not being entered or removed as it should be by state and federal agencies), and known troubled/dangerous people are falling through these holes, we counter offer with: Enforce current law, fix the current background system, and known troubled/dangerous people are to be handled as appropriate for their troubled/dangerous state or risk.

 

[Buffalohunter60]

If we allow any infringement on our rights....where does it stop? If we allow any...they will want more...and it won't stop...."Not to be infringed" means what it says and the laws will have no affect on the criminal....they never have had.

 

[Xtasy]

If we allow any infringement on our rights....where does it stop? If we allow any...they will want more...and it won't stop...."Not to be infringed" means what it says and the laws will have no affect on the criminal....they never have had.

I see my rights already infringed by the pure requirement of a concealed weapon permit. I think I should not be required to pay $117 to the state for the permit. The same goes for open carry, it is forbidden in Florida, but I think they should not be able to regulate that

 

[owenwd54]

We can not give an inch for they will take a mile.Just look at every think
that they put their hands on they screw up.You have not heard any of them say that they want stiffer penalties for felons with guns are caught with a gun . No they want to make us pay for all of these crimes that we had nothing to do with. It is always the innocent who pay the price .
We should not have to beg and plead with our Government over our 2nd amendment rights . We should not have to worry about our rights and we should make it clear to our politicians that this is not right .We have not harmed any one or broken any laws so why target us.

 

[keith44spl]

I have spent some time over the last few days reading articles and forums discussing firearms in the modern society. There is a need for change the relationship between society and guns. I guess I wanted to put a little out there and see how the reader reacts to this hot issue.

Ultimately I would prefer zero gun control but realistically the need for some restriction is understandable. As much as I would like a full-auto M16, I don't think its smart to have it in everyone's hands. I am willing to say that something needs to be done to address the recent trajectories we see around us. I don't think gun control will change anything, the perpetrators woke up that morning ready to kill innocent people and they were willing to die in order to pull it off. Politics geared towards reducing the amount of guns on the street cannot address the real problem.

I would be fine with a compromise that requires detailed background check and other verification processes for firearm purchases. Although I think that nearly all the legally purchased firearms will never be used to harm a person, it would help ensure a person is capable of being responsible.

Ok, I am ready to hear how stupid, ignorant, etc I am, so let me have it!

Sorry that you feel like you and others can't be trusted with select fire firearms.

As to the trajectory problems that may be attributed to a low BC (Ballistic Coefficient).

Good luck in your quest........



.



It's All Jest Around The Corner...

 

[Old TexMex]

Compromise with government "gun control legislation": Doing the same thing, over and over, expecting different results. (also the definition of INSANITY)
Neurotic: Repeatedly seeking a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[brokenprism]

I'm a cynic. What disturbs me most is that I don't think any of these measures are to meant to achieve greater public safety. I fear that they're being implemented as agenda under cover of the emoptional umbrella the mass shooting tragedies raised over us. This is why they don't listen -- they don't want dialogue, they want disarmament, and they'll take it a few laws at a time. Every time a gun goes off in a spectacular way, they advance their board pieces a few squares farther. The next tragedy -- and there will be one -- will be the bottom falling out of our rights. Then they'll press so hard that we will resist, and the billions of rounds DHS bought for just this eventuality will be stuffed into... ironically... 30 rd Govt magazines.

But like I said, I'm a cynic.