I told the NRA today I agree with background checks

[steamloco76]

The ammunition being tracked by ID possibly like sudafed is a little odd though... I like to shoot so only buying certain amounts of ammo changes that hobby...

Part of the master plan is to make it too inconvenient and expensive for any person of average means to keep shooting as a sport or hobby.

The majority of us here collect firearms and love to shoot, meaning we shoot a large amount of ammo. These new restrictions are flat-out meant to screw us. The hunters who spend a week in the woods during whitetail season, but otherwise don't shoot will go along with Draconian restrictions on ammo because they buy one box a year.

 

[bshepherd]

To those on this forum and members of the NRA who are in favor of universal background checks and banning private sales and tranfers of firearms. Samuel Adams said it pretty well in 1776.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."​

Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776:

​

 

[marvin the martian]

Well you have one convert. I was thinking (though not completely convinced) that universal checks might not be a bad idea to keep the anti's happy. After reading this thread, I now know better. Really didn't think it through.
The powers that be are never happy.

 

[PA Reb]

Currently there are no background checks in PA between two individuals when long guns are being sold.

That's true and I wasn't trying to infer there was. I should have also added that from what I gather on this topic, the background check in PA. was a "backdoor" method of creating a registry of who owns what. Initially, the state police wanted to create an outright registry of your guns and the courts ruled it wasn't legal for them to do so. They then instituted our current handgun background check which includes the make, model, serial number, etc. of the handgun. So what I guess I should have said in my post was although I've never had a problem with the check itself, I don't really care for what goes on behind the scenes.

I'd also like to be able to ask someone this question - I walk into my LGS, pay the $5.00 (I believe that's what it is now) fee for the background check and walk out with the gun if I checked out alright. The next day, I decide I should have bought the other gun I was looking at at the same time. I go back to my LGS the next day and have to go through and pay for the same process again. Is this really necessary or are they really just after the revenue?!

 

[cmort666]

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.

Oh, don't you know?

According to anti-gunners, that only means you allegedly didn't commit a crime BEFORE the background check was done. Besides, they say, not having a criminal record doesn't mean that you're not a criminal, it just means you haven't been caught yet. When I ask them how this applies to the police, the military, and indeed to the President of the United States, they either have nothing to say or resort to infantile insults.

Reason is not a concept well beloved by anti-gunners. In fact, it runs directly contrary to their desires.

 

[sambuh]

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.

There is no private citizen bg check in VA. And you can certainly go to a gun show and see for yourself. There are in fact numerous documentaries indicating that. I saw it for myself. Private citizens can also sell guns at these shows, as they do here but some choose not to do it responsibly. That's a problem, in my opinion.

You can find the same statistics I did if you research both the ATF and FBI sites. There are several Johns Hopkins case studies as well. And again it is not totally genuine to assume that these are thugs buying guns from thugs. You are asking me for a cited stat, (which again i would point you to the source. you can see for yourself) but i ask you, its quite an assumption your making as to where these "thugs" are getting their guns. These guns hit the streets, as you will see, from gun shows, private citizen sales online, newspapers, etc. here are some interesting facts;

http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/

I'm actually somewhat dumbfounded that in the face of some staggering, disturbing factual evidence, that some are still pushing back so hard. Lets do this. Because I'm not necessarily for any policy change as much as I am for addressing a clear and very present and very real problem; Let's start with the problem. More often than not guns are not stolen. Criminals legally obtain them. Let me reiterate that point. Criminals obtain guns legally. I think we can look at the data and agree, yes that is true. If that is true, and you don't like a background check, what is your solution? This isn't rhetorical, I want to know. To me the most sensible answer? "begin to enforce stricter penalties on dealers, and close these private sale loopholes." In my opinion it doesn't affect the private citizen. So what do we do?

 

[sipowicz]

Imagine how low the divorce rate would be if we had background checks for spouses....

 

[cmort666]

A background check, efficient and accessible and thorough, would not eradicate gun crime. But rather make it far more difficult.

Then why don't we institute "a background check, efficient and accessible and thorough" for heroin and methamphetimine so that they would be "far more difficult" to obtain?

It's very easy to advocate even the most extremist anti-gun measures. All it takes is willful ignorance of the world as it really is.

 

[JcMack]

Cabelas now uses a "computerized" 4473. You sit in front of one of several PC's devoted to gun sales and fill out the form, which is sent to a printer. I've asked and been told the PC's involved are on their own network, segregated from the interweb. I can envision a similar system being foisted upon all shops and FFL holders, then put on the interweb to be used by the feds. The ramifications are mind boggling. When the GCA of '68 was passed I lived in Illinois. Along with the FOID card required all ammo purchased was logged in separate book if you bought it at a GS. That practice was abandoned. Imagine a Federal I.D. card with a mag stripe on it that was necessary for ammo purchases. Ammo could have UPC codes with serial #'s encrypted in the code. Buy a box, the UPC code is scanned, your Fed I.D. is scanned, and the ammo is registered to you. IT COULD HAPPEN if we give an inch to these morons

 

[sambuh]

That's true and I wasn't trying to infer there was. I should have also added that from what I gather on this topic, the background check in PA. was a "backdoor" method of creating a registry of who owns what. Initially, the state police wanted to create an outright registry of your guns and the courts ruled it wasn't legal for them to do so. They then instituted our current handgun background check which includes the make, model, serial number, etc. of the handgun. So what I guess I should have said in my post was although I've never had a problem with the check itself, I don't really care for what goes on behind the scenes.

I'd also like to be able to ask someone this question - I walk into my LGS, pay the $5.00 (I believe that's what it is now) fee for the background check and walk out with the gun if I checked out alright. The next day, I decide I should have bought the other gun I was looking at at the same time. I go back to my LGS the next day and have to go through and pay for the same process again. Is this really necessary or are they really just after the revenue?!

I agree that is absurd... But the point of it being, it's a real time check. So if you buy a gun today, commit a crime, and say are out on bond awaiting a trial, you can't go back into a LGS the next week and buy a gun. I hate that it cost money though. Not sure a way around that. Happened to me last week. Bought a 9mm, and wanted a smaller carry. So I went back the next day. Had to do it all over!

 

[cmort666]

and close these private sale loopholes.

...so that when the time for confiscation is more propitious, those doing the confiscation will know where to go.

In my opinion it doesn't affect the private citizen. So what do we do?

Certainly not the IMPORTANT "private citizen", like Dianne Feinstein or David Gregory.

What do we do? NOTHING. When the proposed action is stupid or harmful, NO action is the preferable course.

 

[sambuh]

Then why don't we institute "a background check, efficient and accessible and thorough" for heroin and methamphetimine so that they would be "far more difficult" to obtain?

It's very easy to advocate even the most extremist anti-gun measures. All it takes is willful ignorance of the world as it really is.

I've made it really clear, legislating away specific problems is ridiculous. I've also made it very clear that maybe background checks aren't the solution.

However, there's a very real problem in this country that can be addressed. Criminals obtain guns legally. If not through a background check, how do we prevent that from happening? Lets keep focused on the discussion, instead of throwing bombs at one another.

 

[sambuh]

...so that when the time for confiscation is more propitious, those doing the confiscation will know where to go.


Certainly not the IMPORTANT "private citizen", like Dianne Feinstein or David Gregory.

What do we do? NOTHING. When the proposed action is stupid or harmful, NO action is the preferable course.

So your answer to the question "most guns that are used in crimes are purchased legally by criminals" is do nothing?

Ok well we differ in opinion. I am of the opinion that we should do something.

 

[pinduck]

I wonder what kind of mental deficiency exists, or is it lack of reading comprehension that so many cannot grasp the meaning of "shall not be infringed."

 

[sambuh]

I wonder what kind of mental deficiency exists, or is it lack of reading comprehension that so many cannot grasp the meaning of "shall not be infringed."

In what way does a background check infringe on your right to own a gun?

Again, not rhetorical, I'm interested to know. I'm open to any and all discussion here! I bought a pistol last week. I walked in, paid my $2 for a bg check and walked out 10 minutes later with a pistol.

Also, how odd is it that someone who starts a post, who differs in opinion with you, gets called an inflammatory name? Can we keep it civil? I enjoy these discussions because for me, it leads to a better understanding. And when you minimize the discussion to calling people idiots you look small.

 

[cmort666]

I've made it really clear, legislating away specific problems is ridiculous. I've also made it very clear that maybe background checks aren't the solution.

However, there's a very real problem in this country that can be addressed. Criminals obtain guns legally. If not through a background check, how do we prevent that from happening? Lets keep focused on the discussion, instead of throwing bombs at one another.

Your premise is fundamentally flawed.

You don't seem to care about criminals legally obtaining automobiles, but FAR more serial killers have used automobiles than firearms. What do you plan to do about THAT, and what onerous measures are you willing to impose to address it?

And what about computers? It seems every few months there's a roundup of online pedophiles. In fact, I heard of one yesterday. What are you going to do to stop convicted pedophiles from obtaining computers? What are you going to do to stop pedophiles who haven't yet been caught from getting computers?

Some have a fixation on guns, and are more than willing to countenance any and every imposition on NON-criminal gun owners, up to and including causing them to not BE gun owners.

 

[cmort666]

In what way does a background check infringe on your right to own a gun?

As has been pointed out numerous times, it is the gateway to registration, without which it is utterly meaningless. Registration is the gateway to confiscation.

One more time, "NO".

 

[Cavere]

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

So Joe and Art what you're saying is that because I recently joined this particular forum I shouldn't exercise my first amendment rights? Or I shouldn't share an opinion? I joined because I am a fan of smith and Wesson and their products. Some people think its a give an inch they'll take a mile situation. Maybe it's give an inch and get that inch back.

When the AR ban came back to vote the lack of changes in crime rates led it to be voted out and we got back the ability to purchase ARs which will probably stick and not go through congress. We have to look at every solution and potential outcome with an open mind. Immediately dismissing any idea prematurely is simply ignorance.

 

[pinduck]

Do you think the background check would have prevented the Newtown shooting? As I understand the mother bought the guns and in conneticut I think she would have passed the background check or she could not have purchased. We already have laws against felons,mental incompetents, drug addicts and a host of laws trying to prevent firearm purchases as well as illegal drug purchases. How well do you think they are working? The liberals always want anotbher law, simply feel good pandering to their base.

 

[cmort666]

So your answer to the question "most guns that are used in crimes are purchased legally by criminals" is do nothing?

Ok well we differ in opinion. I am of the opinion that we should do something.

It apparently has never occurred to you to put those criminals in prison...

 

[sambuh]

Your premise is fundamentally flawed.

You don't seem to care about criminals legally obtaining automobiles, but FAR more serial killers have used automobiles than firearms. What do you plan to do about THAT, and what onerous measures are you willing to impose to address it?

And what about computers? It seems every few months there's a roundup of online pedophiles. In fact, I heard of one yesterday. What are you going to do to stop convicted pedophiles from obtaining computers? What are you going to do to stop pedophiles who haven't yet been caught from getting computers?

Some have a fixation on guns, and are more than willing to countenance any and every imposition on NON-criminal gun owners, up to and including causing them to not BE gun owners.

I actually am not even sure how to respond to this... I mean how else would an online criminal commit a crime but online?

Again, and this will be the last time I say this. You cannot legislate every single issue away. But you can make common sense law.

The question is, if criminals purchase guns legally to commit crimes, what should be done? Your answer is nothing. I disagree. If something can be done it should. Does that mean taking away computers from "online pedos"? I don't know. Maybe, but I don't know.

 

[sambuh]

It apparently has never occurred to you to put those criminals in prison...

Yes. It has. Enforce the laws we currently have. Stricter enforcement. I LOVE that idea.

Ok so our disagreement is in this; you believe it's a step to collecting all the guns, and we are succumbed to their every whim. I can respect that. I personally believe that we still as the people, have the power but choose not to contend. I don't think that would ever happen. So therein lies the crux of our disagreement. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it

 

[luangtom]

While it may be good to have a general back-ground check like one gets for a carry-permit, it is not a good idea to call-in and basically register each and every time a firearm comes to your stable or their ploy of back-ground checks for ammo. I do not agree with per firearm back-ground checks and I do not agree with ammo back-ground checks. It only keeps honest people legal.

Not one of the perps I dealt with during my time in LE went to the trouble of completing a 4473 for his or her firearms nor did they apply for carry-permits. Laws and rules only keep honest people honest.

 

[cmort666]

Maybe it's give an inch and get that inch back.

Name a SINGLE instance of that happening. ONE.

Exactly WHEN has the other side given something up?

As to low post counts and sudden appearances, that ALWAYS happens when a big push for gun control starts. Once is happenstance. Two hundred times is enemy action.

 

[sambuh]

While it may be good to have a general back-ground check like one gets for a carry-permit, it is not a good idea to call-in and basically register each and every time a firearm comes to your stable or their ploy of back-ground checks for ammo. I do not agree with per firearm back-ground checks and I do not agree with ammo back-ground checks. It only keeps honest people legal.

Not one of the perps I dealt with during my time in LE went to the trouble of completing a 4473 for his or her firearms nor did they apply for carry-permits. Laws and rules only keep honest people honest.

I agree. Registration is a bad idea.

 

[sambuh]

Name a SINGLE instance of that happening. ONE.

Exactly WHEN has the other side given something up?

As to low post counts and sudden appearances, that ALWAYS happens when a big push for gun control starts. Once is happenstance. Two hundred times is enemy action.

I can think of one. The NRA came out and said more police in school!!

Obama said, ok. If you want that, my first executive order is to give you federal assistance in doing that

 

[tacreload]

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!!!

Well I have read every post on this thread so far and there are a lot of things brought to my attention that I really hadn't taken into consideration.I am usually pretty stubborn in my opinions and not generally swayed.I believe I am guilty of taking this background check issue too lightly since I have been living with it for most of my life.So I guess I have to man up and say I was wrong.There are a lot of ramifications tied to this that I let my guard down on.So I better start paying more attention to what is going on and not be so naive.After reading what a lot of you had to say I am actually quite embarrassed that I let it by me.These issues are too important to not be taken very seriously so I guess if we hang together I would hope to be among you.

 

[cmort666]

I don't think that would ever happen.

Clearly you've never lived in Chicago.

I can believe you when you say can't ever happen, or I can believe what the other side (from me, anyway) says they PLAN to do and what's actually happened, in Chicago, D.C., NYC and elsewhere.

I'm puzzled how you think that you can make me believe "it can't happen" when it already has. But then every gun control advocate I've come across seems to believe that I'll forget 55 years of observation and experience and just believe whatever they tell me.

 

[jaykellogg]

My concerns with background checks is that it becomes backdoor registration. In my experience it has not been particularly effective and the "same folks" pushing for background checks are pushing back on mental health issues. would be a lot more comfortable with background checks if they were done by the state. NC and Iowa have a permit system. If I sell a gun and I want the buyer to have been subjected to a check, I can insist on seeing a carry permit OR a purchase permit.

To sum it up, state background checks make me uncomfortable, Federal background checks make me very, very uncomfortable.

 

[cmort666]

I can think of one. The NRA came out and said more police in school!!

Obama said, ok. If you want that, my first executive order is to give you federal assistance in doing that

That gave GUN OWNERS, what exactly? What restriction on gun owners did it lessen or remove?

I asked you what GUN OWNERS have gotten from militant anti-gunners in exchange for giving up our rights and you came up with... NOTHING.