I told the NRA today I agree with background checks

[BobC357]

Background Check = Gun Registration

Here in Colorado, you need to do a background check when you purchase a firearm. Even for a private sale, you need to have the transaction handled by a FFL dealer. They usually charge around $20 for doing that.

Crooks buy/sell guns all the time on the streets but gangs and drug dealers don't abide by the laws. None of these laws are keeping guns out of the hands of these people. The criminal element is not even purchasing new guns -- usually Saturday Night Specials and stolen ones. The laws certainly won't apply to them.

But, once the law-abiding citizen does their background check, the state and federal government now know that you did so to purchase a firearm and thus, if you pass, they can assume that you purchased one. So, now, the government knows every time you purchase a gun.

You have just registered with the government that you purchased a gun. De facto gun registration.

You really don't think they're going to delete that information from their databases do you? Never in the recent history has the government ever deleted anything other than increminating emails so, don't expect them to start now.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Listen, even if you approve of background checks for all firearm transactions, including private sales, why in the world would you offer it up to the anti's? The anti's will not stop with your compromise. Their mission is the elimination of guns in the hands of private citizens.

Don't give a damn inch! Its yours, mine and our children's freedom you are surrendering. You will never get it back.

Out
West

EXACTLY!! This^^^^^^ is correct!!

They are slowly trying to whittle away our rights. It ain't my damn fault if someone has a mental disorder and shoots people.

You people in favor need to understand that the anti gun folks don't want to deal with the truth. Hell they don't even know what the truth is!! They want to deal with the situation with "blanket" laws that completely do away with our way of life. And they won't be satisfied until all our guns are taken away.

Besides, if stricter and broader background checks are made mandatory, you can bet your sweet behind that it will include psychological evaluations. And it will be just your luck to draw an anti gun shrink!!

NO!!! More laws, any laws mean more government control at all levels. Look at our government at all levels. Do you REALLY want these idiots to tell you what you can and can't have?!

There is absolutely no way to administer tougher and broader background checks without costing millions and more government involvement.

If we give in now, pretty soon we will have to APPLY for the right to buy a gun each and every time.

Funny how we forget people like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

 

[sq hunter]

feel its a backdoor to registration. doctors offices are asking in new paperwork do you own firearms. prelude to universal medical records?
laws where broken by the masss murders. More gun restrictions don't seem wise .just more civilian disarment. I don't understand gunowners wanting more gun laws. nomore comprimise. reasonable is to fight back .WOW what a concept. When I was attacked the attck stopped when I defended myself. go figure.

 

[Doc Nonverbal]

There are some very good arguments in this thread. I problem I have with background checks is that I just don't trust our government. The combination of demanding universal background checks AND changing the criteria for those checks at the same time sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

For example, I heard some bozo on the news saying that they shouldn't just do a background check on the buyer of the firearm, but also all of the people he/she lives with as well as the neighbors. The presumption is that if you live in the vicinity of someone who is mentally ill or has a criminal history that you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.

Heck, if I'm living near a mentally ill person or a criminal, I'm going to have a HIGHER NEED to have a firearm to protect family, myself, and my property.

Here's my compromise position: Put a new stamp on the Driver's License. If you meet any of the adverse criteria on the ATF form 4473, you get a red dot under "firearm ownership"; otherwise you get a green dot. If your criteria changes during the year, you get a new license sent to you. Knowingly using the old license would be a federal felony offense.

When it comes time to do a firearm transaction, you just get a copy of their valid driver's license. No need for a phone call.

The big problem though is that according to the NRA, only about half of the States submit psychiatric commitment data to the national database. Until these submissions are mandatory, it's a shot in the dark as to whether the person is "mentally defective" or not.

In short, our current system isn't working all that well because it isn't fully supported. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I think we should be putting effort into making the current system fully functional.

That's my unsolicited $0.02.

 

[Cavere]

I'm with you bushmaster!

For some people this sounds like doomsday declarations. You think liberals are the anti Christ and all of them have the same agendas. The left is as varied as the right as you are now discovering. This could get me banned....

I am very much a liberal. I'm not blindly democrat but pretty left. Yet I am a gun owner. I am not anti gun. A hi cap mag ban would make virtually no difference. But to say efforts shouldn't be made to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them because we can't stop all of them is immature.

And don't put an armed guard in schools... If anything put two. One just leaves a shooter to start with the only person they know has a weapon and then they now have another gun. But don't give them to teachers. Those people can be crazy.

 

[james56]

The end game is this, Total disarming us law biding citizens. That's the agenda of the left. Let's stop this madness, (infighting) and find a solution to there gun grabbing. BHO has his old campaign starting up as a non profit org. to fight us in every way possible. Cutter, Rahm, and Gibbs. Us fighting here with the Trolls sent by them is already making us look bad. Our way of life is being infringed upon period..
They only see the word NRA, now we have to show them our numbers in human form. The law biding citizen, men, women, and children our members. So far they have made us out to be the criminals and we have to stop that. They need to see us and what we do in our every day life. They don't know us and what we really stand for!!
We can solve this together now before it gets out of hand. It's going get down right nasty now that there new "coalition" is getting up and running.
We need answers and conceding to there infringements is not the answer!!!

 

[Kanewpadle]

I'm with you bushmaster!

For some people this sounds like doomsday declarations. You think liberals are the anti Christ and all of them have the same agendas. The left is as varied as the right as you are now discovering. This could get me banned....

I am very much a liberal. I'm not blindly democrat but pretty left. Yet I am a gun owner. I am not anti gun. A hi cap mag ban would make virtually no difference. But to say efforts shouldn't be made to keep guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them because we can't stop all of them is immature.

And don't put an armed guard in schools... If anything put two. One just leaves a shooter to start with the only person they know has a weapon and then they now have another gun. But don't give them to teachers. Those people can be crazy.

Spoken like a true liberal.

It's not just about NOW! It's future of this country. Where does it end!! A little here and a little there. Before we know it, our grand kids won't be able to have guns because WE FAILED THEM!!

Such short sightedness and the lack of paying attention has led many people down the path of destruction. THESE AREN'T DOOMSDAY DECLARATIONS!!

Genocide, cultures, and ways of life have been destroyed by governments. They started slowly and surreptitiously until they gained the strength to do so in force.

And people like you sat there and wondered "how in the hell did this happen"

History is a reminder to us. A reminder to not make the same mistakes.

 

[Kanewpadle]

The end game is this, Total disarming us law biding citizens. That's the agenda of the left. Let's stop this madness, (infighting) and find a solution to there gun grabbing. BHO has his old campaign starting up as a non profit org. to fight us in every way possible. Cutter, Rahm, and Gibbs. Us fighting here with the Trolls sent by them is already making us look bad. Our way of life is being infringed upon period..
They only see the word NRA, now we have to show them our numbers in human form. The law biding citizen, men, women, and children our members. So far they have made us out to be the criminals and we have to stop that. They need to see us and what we do in our every day life. They don't know us and what we really stand for!!
We can solve this together now before it gets out of hand. And it get down right nasty now that there new coalition is getting up and running.
We need answers and conceding to there infringements is not the answer!!!

The only solution is for them to leave us the heck alone! They want us to live like them!

But I do agree. They have us second guessing ourselves at a time when we need to stand united.

 

[keith44spl]

Originally Posted by rburg
So what we're learning is everyone who joins the NRA isn't our friend. And very likely everyone who posts here isn't on our side. Just like our media now is closer to Pravda than a free press. The opposition seems well organized these days. It would just be good strategy for them to put moles in our organizations, like the NRA and any other groups like Gun Owners of America and the state groups, too. And there should be no doubt the monitor this forum as well as the other ones that oppose their campaign to repeal or weaken the Constitution

.

Well said Dick and probably very true. If ya ain't wit us, ya be agin us.

Well Boys y'all are right as rain!

As another member here sed, "We'll hang together or hang seperate!"

I'm appalled at some of the comments here.

Can't tell if it's a case of misery loves company or an attempt at a division within our ranks.

I said all of that to say this...A few, I think would fair far better to remain in the shallow end
of this here think-tank.


Su Amigo,
Dave

 

[Titan]

Unless it is you you do not really know.

If it is reasonable to deny guns to the insane and violent felons, background checks are reasonable.

If someone thinks there should be no restrictions, no background checks make sense.

In my state, MA, 'criminal' is defined as anyone convicted of a felongy OR MISDEMEANOR which (if sentenced to the max) would involve 2 1/2 yrs in jail.

NO requirement to be a violent felon.

The more folks they can label 'prohibited' the better.

Beware of the slippery slope!


The time to defeat this agenda was on November 6, 2012. Since then the train of destruction is speeding down the tracks.

I expect 10 round mags nationally, as well as some form of AWB, and broader if not universal registration.

I predict the SJC will uphold these as 'reasonable restrictions'. The court is not behind 'shall not be infringed' and that's BEFORE Obama names another justice or two.

I'm not very optimistic, as you can tell.

 

[Kanewpadle]

In my state, MA, 'criminal' is defined as anyone convicted of a felongy OR MISDEMEANOR which (if sentenced to the max) would involve 2 1/2 yrs in jail.

NO requirement to be a violent felon.

The more folks they can label 'prohibited' the better.

Beware of the slippery slope!


The time to defeat this agenda was on November 6, 2012. Since then the train of destruction is speeding down the tracks.

I expect 10 round mags nationally, as well as some form of AWB, and broader if not universal registration.

I predict the SJC will uphold these as 'reasonable restrictions'. The court is not behind 'shall not be infringed' and that's BEFORE Obama names another justice or two.

I'm not very optimistic, as you can tell.

Yup. This is what happens when we let stupid people vote. There should be a background check for voters!! Low IQ? SORRY, you don't vote!!

 

[trakskip]

I have long said that if everyone else was armed i wouldn't have a need to use my ccw. Someone would be there for protection. perhaps the proper response to new attacks on 2nd amendment protection should be for everyone to start carrying lawfully of course. Open carry if allowed, if not carry with a bulge under your shirt. Seems like a reasonable action to keep a sandy-hook, mass shooting event from running its course. There will be more shootings and registration will not prevent them.

I watched a documentary last night on psyche of terrorist suicide bombers. This is something completely alien to our society. We believe in a moral compass to help guide our actions, but these bombers, their families and their society actually accepts and respect martyrdom. It is viewed as a personal choice, not suicide. Families build shrines and honor their dead, and this insanity goes on and on. Our Service Members experienced this first hand,
and it seems as tho the horror came home with them, one coping method for them seems to be suicide, not terror attacks. Who will tell our veterans they dont qualify to own a gun? I guess the point i am trying to express is that this new global awareness world, increase in population and gangs makes for more violence and its just getting worse.
Our ability and rights for protection and defense just cannot be diluted if we are to survive.
I am off the soapbox, thank you for your patience.

 

[Chipmunk6]

DFTFT's !!!

C6

 

[Penmon]

How many states do not have background checks on handguns and rifles sales purchased in a LGS or FFL transfer?
Maryland, PA, and North Carolina all have these law on the books.
Maryland being my home state also requires a waiting period for pistols and certain long guns and checks on all firearm transfers, be they private or purchased in a LGS.

 

[photoman]

I agree. I'm for it. I also don't see why it's not universally supported. We want to keep guns out of the hands of wackos. What other way is there. (That is not rhetorical, I am really asking the question)

How are mandatory background checks going to stop psychos and criminals from STEALING the guns they use to kill people?!?!?

 

[sambuh]

How are mandatory background checks going to stop psychos and criminals from STEALING the guns they use to kill people?!?!?

Great question... Well in Virginia, we have a background check law. however i was at a gun show a. Few weeks back. nobody there is making anyone do a background check.

Clearly, you cannot make a case for legislating every single situation. However, you can look at the broader picture and create consensus, and smart law. For example, to your point; when speaking to gun crime, more that 65% of crimes committed, (according to the FBI/ATF) are with guns purchased privately. Do people steal guns? Yes. But more often than not, they actually don't. They buy them. They pay private, non licensed dealers, cash for weapons. In fact less than 13% of guns are stolen.

A background check, efficient and accessible and thorough, would not eradicate gun crime. But rather make it far more difficult. Take California and Hawaii as an example. A couple of the lowest crime rate with a gun, both require background checks for all sales. Both are also near the bottom in abstract crime rates as well.

I do however see the point being made, give an inch and watch them take a mile. While I would like to see a universal background check in place, I'm not sure I trust our legislators to make the right decision.

 

[LouisianaJoe]

I see a lot of people with low post counts trying to make us think that they are providing a "Common Sense" opinion on background checks. My BS alarm keeps going off.

Any acceptance of any new law that restricts what we can do and when we can do it is just another chip off of our block of freedom.

If you have ever raised chickens, you will see that if one chicken gets a small injury, the rest of the chickens will pick at that until they kill the chicken. Any new law is the first injury.

 

[redlevel]

Great question... Well in Virginia, we have a background check law. however i was at a gun show a. Few weeks back. nobody there is making anyone do a background check.

If people are breaking the law, then the answer is to make another law?

I wasn't aware that Virginia currently requires background checks in transactions between individuals. Are you sure?

If ffl dealers were selling guns without background checks (you said nobody was doing background checks) then they are violating Federal law. I believe you must be mistaken about that.

Can you provide a source for your assertion that criminals more often ". . . pay private, non licensed dealers, cash for weapons."? I really don't consider a street transaction between criminals as a transaction with a "non-licensed dealer." I would also question your 13% stolen figure. The thugs buying the guns from other thugs on the street might not be stealing them, but I bet a whole lot more than 13% are stolen.

Bottom line is that a law isn't going to mean a hill of beans to criminals . . . . only to law abiding citizens.

 

[V-35]

I see a lot of people with low post counts trying to make us think that they are providing a "Common Sense" opinion on background checks. My BS alarm keeps going off.

Low post count, Recent Join Date (in most cases), No NRA badge, & Willingness to accept "Reasonable" gun control. (Can You Say Sara Brady?)

Am I the only one to smell a Rat here?


The Bible says "Judge Not, Lest You Shall Be Jugded." But it also says "You Shall Know Them By Their Fruits"

Maybe we shouldn't be Judges, BUT, We Surely Can Be Fruit Inspectors"

Art

 

[Kanewpadle]

If people are breaking the law, then the answer is to make another law?

I wasn't aware that Virginia currently requires background checks in transactions between individuals. Are you sure?

If ffl dealers were selling guns without background checks (you said nobody was doing background checks) then they are violating Federal law. I believe you must be mistaken about that.

Can you provide a source for your assertion that criminals more often ". . . pay private, non licensed dealers, cash for weapons."? I really don't consider a street transaction between criminals as a transaction with a "non-licensed dealer." I would also question your 13% stolen figure. The thugs buying the guns from other thugs on the street might not be stealing them, but I bet a whole lot more than 13% are stolen.

Bottom line is that a law isn't going to mean a hill of beans to criminals . . . . only to law abiding citizens.

I can be your witness to the stolen gun figure. I am a professional locksmith. I've lost count of the people that I have helped AFTER all their guns were stolen because they didn't buy a gun safe!! Sometimes it's 3-4 guns but most of the time it's 8-10!!

And many of these guns can't be tracked because they belonged to grampa or some other relative.

Maybe they should pass a law that says everyone should own a gun safe?